Rants, can'ts, shan'ts, dance…


Truly Transgender or Unhappy Inside?

There is a spotlight on trans issues lately, but there is something about it that concerns me. Now, I believe in transgenderism as “a thing,” unlike some people. In other words, I believe it does exist and that there really are people who feel their body is incorrect. I believe in their pain. I cannot imagine going through life feeling that way. I really can’t. That’s not the problem I have.

The problem I have is if we simply accept without question everyone who claims to be transgender, we are going to end up doing a disservice to some people. Because while I believe that there definitely are transgendered folks out there, I also know for a fact that there is a subset of folks in the transgender category who are simply unhappy with who they are and want to change that. In other words, they’re not truly transgender in the sense that they believe that they were born the wrong gender. They may think they are transgender (or trans-something) but in actuality, they’re simply unhappy with who they are and want to be someone else – anyone else. This is not the same thing as being truly transgender and I really think a distinction needs to made here but too often, it isn’t.

This is very important, because helping people in that category to become someone else rather than try to accept who they are and like the person they are could end up being extremely damaging. What happens if they actually transition and find out that – surprise! – they’re still themselves, just with a different body? They’re still going to be unhappy, and this time it will be worse because the thing that they thought was going to fix them didn’t: “I’m a different gender now, but I am still a loser/unpopular/depressed/suicidal/don’t fit in/etc.” Now what? This could push people over the edge, and I’m sure in some tragic cases, that has happened.

I am aware that there are very strict medical protocols to determine whether someone is a good candidate for sex reassignment surgery and that these protocols are designed to try to weed out exactly the kind of people I am talking about. I’m speaking more on societal level; how we as a society react. When we offer blanket acceptance, we are effectively validating everybody, and for people who are having an identity crisis or serious self-image issues but are not truly transgender, this could be very, very damaging. People seeking change who are not truly transgender need help to accept who they are and to find things to like about themselves, not validation that being someone else is the answer to their problems, because it isn’t. It’s just adding another serious problem to an already-existing serious problem.

For example: if someone wants to become a woman because they think they would achieve more acceptance, self-confidence, etc. as a woman, then they need to figure out why they don’t feel they can achieve that as a man. They don’t need to become a woman. (And this does happen; I know someone with this exact problem.) Encouraging the change in this situation only further reinforces this person’s idea that who they actually are is not good enough. That is so damaging to someone’s self-image and identity. They need help discovering who they really are and liking it. They don’t need to be told that how they are feeling is normal or OK, because to dislike yourself so much that you literally want to transform into someone else is not OK.

It’s also not transgender.

The spotlight on trans issues of all kinds has brought to light the other very serious issues that people have with accepting themselves and who they are. People who are not truly trans are gravitating toward trans identification because they are desperately unhappy with who they are. It’s time to stop ignoring them.

Do You Even Science?? COME AT ME, BRO! Margaret Sanger in the Smithsonian & Other Atrocities

So you may have heard that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and noted eugenicist and racist has been enshrined with a bust in the Smithsonian in an exhibit honoring champions of human rights. Aside from the absolute absurdity of a racist being honored beside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks, there is a sign beneath the bust of this evil bitch which reads, “During her campaign, Sanger became associated with the eugenics movement – which promoted, among other practices, the forced sterilization of those deemed mentally unfit and for a time was endorsed by many of the era’s prominent thinkers.” Not only do I find her inclusion in such an exhibit absolutely repugnant, I struggle to understand what in the actual fuck championing eugenics, racial genocide and abortion has to do with human rights. We have really entered the Twilight Zone here, folks. Someone actually told me that not including Margaret Sanger in this exhibit was “white washing history.” I literally could not think of a reply for almost 10 minutes. Censoring history?? Putting that bitch in any exhibition as a champion of humanity is what’s white washing history. I could not believe this guy said that, especially considering how high the rate of elective abortions is among minorities, specifically African-Americans. ‘Champion of human rights?’ Sounds like her disgusting legacy is still alive and well (so to speak). Of course, when you mention Margaret Sanger or Planned Parenthood for any reason, it inevitably turns into a debate about abortion.

Now, I’ve been involved in the abortion debate for a number of years. 20, to be exact. In that time, I have heard a great many arguments from the pro-choice side and there is one main argument that never ceases to amaze me: “Abortion does not kill a human being.” This is the basic premise on which nearly all other pro-choice arguments rest, such as “It’s not a human being yet” or “It’s not a baby until it’s born” and other scientifically unsupportable gems. The problem with this basic premise is that, well… it’s not true. At all. It’s not even close to true.

The science is very clear here: life begins at conception. This cannot be argued. The only argument is whether or not that life matters to you, but pro-choice people seem uncomfortable actually confronting that. They argue around it, essentially claiming, “Human life matters to me – but it’s not a human yet.” Then what is it? Is it a fish? Is it a dog? Is it a tomato? It’s a human being and there is never a time during human development in which a human being is not a human being. That argument is not only not scientific, it’s silly. It seems to exist solely to dupe vulnerable women into believing they are not killing living human beings. Perhaps some make that argument because to them, the offspring of the poor and of minorities aren’t really human beings.

This usually leads to (or is accompanied by) the argument that a person is not a person until they reach sentience and/or consciousness. This argument actually hurts the pro-choice side though, because the time in development where this occurs is unknown. There is speculation but that’s all. This leaves the door open for the other side to claim that if the time is unknown, abortion at any time under these guidelines would be wrong. Not that it really matters; attempting to quantify (and qualify) life by the yardstick of sentience and/or consciousness is not how it works. It’s subjective emotional argument at best. Science and medicine both agree that life begins at conception. It is only people seeking to rationalize their behavior and decisions who claim that it doesn’t. If we use sentience in particular as the yardstick, it’s OK to kill many living things, not just unborn human beings. The 18th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham stated in Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation that “The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor… What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” Since this question cannot be definitively answered regarding prenatal human beings – and even many “post-natal” human beings – it is wiser that the pro-choice side leave it out of the debate. You could use the sentience argument to argue for the “termination” of many people, including the profoundly disabled, some elderly folks, people in comas… the list goes on. This particular argument has been used to justify some very nasty things throughout history, and conversely it is used to protect animals in legislature, including animals such as octopus, squids and lobsters.

It all sounds very intellectual for the ignorant and uneducated to use these arguments but I have often found that sounding intellectual is as far as it goes. Too many of them are just repeating something they read and are completely unable to back up what they’ve said or even explain it. They simply keep repeating it verbatim, a sure sign that they don’t actually understand what they’ve said. This is often where the “blastocyst” argument comes in to play. I have heard this I don’t know how many times: “Aborting a blastocyst is not wrong.” Well, that may be your opinion but since a human being is only a blastocyst for a very short time and this is weeks before the woman even knows she is pregnant, I would venture that not too many blastocysts are aborted.

Literally two seconds of research would have kept these people from making such an absurdly ignorant argument, but they don’t do it. The consensus here seems to be, “I don’t know what it means but it sounds science-y and probably no one else will know, either.” Wrong. And I am always happy to point it out. The “chicken egg” argument fits into this area, as well. You know the one I am talking about… it compares an unborn human being to the chicken eggs people eat. There is a meme floating around that has been shared thousands of times which makes this exact comparison and it always makes me laugh. The chicken eggs people eat are unfertilized. They will never grow into a chicken, no matter what happens. Chicken eggs are equivalent to the unfertilized eggs in a woman’s ovaries, not a developing human being in the uterus. They are not comparable in any sense. Do you even science, bro?

There are many like that in this particular debate. They argue in circles and they cannot concede any points in the debate because they don’t actually know enough to know if the other person is right or wrong. These are, coincidentally (or not), the same people who argue that abortion does not kill a human being. People like this are the weak link in the pro choice’s side. They try the religious angle. They try the sentience angle. They try the “it’s not a human being yet” angle. They try every emotional argument they can think of in order to “shame” others into agreeing that they are correct. It doesn’t work with me, and it’s not going to work. You cannot trump science and the science here is very basic and very clear. Abortion is killing a human being, and you will not find even one doctor, scientist or educated individual who tries to claim that it isn’t. Even the president of Planned Parenthood said in an interview with Ms. Magazine that abortion is killing, and that anyone who believes otherwise is essentially deluding themselves because they don’t want to admit it.

  • Naomi Wolf (noted feminist author and proponent of abortion) stated in Our Bodies, Our Souls that, “Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. …we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death.”
  • Ann Furedi, CEO of the largest independent abortion provider in the UK, stated flatly during a debate that “the point is not when does human life begin, but when does it really begin to matter?”
  • Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL Pro-Choice America stated, “There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole.” (Dr. Nathanson later recanted his support for the pro-choice movement.)

So keep on arguing that abortion does not kill a human being, my ignorant friends. Science does not agree with you. Medicine does not agree with you. The educated people on your own side do not agree with you. In fact, you embarrass them. And why? Because they are educated. They know they cannot refute this simple fact – and they don’t try. This ridiculous argument is only used by people who are ignorant. If you are OK with this kind of killing, then just say so. Stop pretending that it’s something else. If you have to do that, maybe you are not as OK with it as you claim to be. These people cannot accept the facts, and instead try to advance opinions as facts. That cannot be done. If you want to argue an opinion, then you have to accept facts. The fact – according to sweeping consensus medically and scientifically – is that abortion kills a human being. Either accept that as a fact and be OK with it or don’t, but don’t keep trying to advance your opinion as a fact. You can argue your opinion, such as why you think killing a human being in this instance is OK, but you cannot argue that the facts are not facts. It’s irrational and it makes you look foolish.

The simple truth is that these particular people refuse to just flat out say the life of an unborn human being does not matter to them. They argue around it, and in that direction but they will never just admit it. They try to use science to avoid having to say it, or to justify their feelings. They use emotional argument to try to shame people into agreeing that unborn human beings are less important than the rest of us – ironically while they are blasting the pro-life side for using emotional argument and being too blinded by emotion to use logic. Like I said, do you even science, bro? It is the pro-choice side using emotional argument, flawed logic and pseudo-intellectualism to advance their agenda. Anyone who does not agree, they attempt to insult, browbeat and shame with absurdities:

  • “You want women to be forced to have babies!!!” No, I want women to use contraception like responsible adults. I don’t subscribe to your insulting, ridiculous theory that humans are not above rutting dogs in the street that can’t control themselves. This argument sickens me.
  • “Yeah, well… accidents happen!!!” They do, which is what the morning after pill was invented for. It does not terminate a pregnancy. It prevents conception. Huge difference.
  • “You want rape victims to have their attackers’ babies!!” Again, the morning after pill. The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology did a study that concluded pregnancy results from about 5% of rapes. But since pregnancies resulting from rape and incest account for less than 0.03% of abortions, save your strawman arguments and talk about a real problem – such as the staggering amount (over a million) of elective abortions performed in this country every year that terminate pregnancies created by irresponsible consensual sex. To put it into context: according to RAINN, there are an average of 293,000 sexual assaults (a phrase which encompasses a variety of despicable things, not just forcible rape with vaginal penetration) every year. Even if every single one of these sexual assaults was a rape that resulted in a pregnancy, and even taking under-reporting of rape into account, that still means that over one million children are aborted in this country every year as a result of consensual sex. As an aside, abortion after rape actually occurs at a lower instance than abortion in the general population because abortion inflicts another trauma on the woman – and worse, it is one that puts her in the position of aggressor.
  • “You want women to have back alley abortions that aren’t safe!!!” It was generally doctors performing abortions when they were illegal, just like it is generally doctors performing them now. That is not a genuine concern. What should be of concern is that women are neither counseled about nor made aware of the health risks of abortion, both mentally and physically.
  • “You want to control women’s bodies!!!” No, I want women to control their own bodies and stop getting pregnant with babies they don’t want and/or can’t take care of. It’s pretty simple and it’s really not that difficult to fucking do.
  • “You’re not pro-life! You’re pro-birth!!!” My husband and I have 3 children and helped raise 5 – yes, 5 – children that are not ours, including having 4 of them live with us for years, bringing the total in our home to 7. We are parents to them in every way, even to this day. Their children will be looked upon as grandchildren by us. They were not foster children and we received absolutely no financial help with their care whatsoever from their parents or the government. My interest and concern for human beings does not end with the birth canal. Come at me.
  • “You don’t care about women’s rights!!!” Yes, I do. Women are human beings and I care about human rights. Unborn human beings belong in that category. If we are making emotional arguments here, allow me to counter yours with my own: Why do you think people should have the right to kill their own children just because they want to? If it’s OK to kill them in the womb, why is it not OK to kill them later? Are newborns human beings? Are they sentient? Are they conscious in the way adults are? I read a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics a few years ago entitled, “After-birth Abortion: Why Should The Baby Live?” that endorsed the killing of born babies using the same arguments made to justify abortion. The authors stated that “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.” The paper claimed that babies are “morally irrelevant” and that it is “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.” The crux of the argument is that a fetus and an infant are “morally equivalent.” These arguments have been made many times, by the way; in some cases regarding children up to a year old – or older. This particular paper endorsed “no threshold.” If you are a person who agrees with the justifications for abortion, you are left with absolutely no argument for what these people are saying, other than “Because it’s just wrong after the baby is born.” That isn’t much of an argument and it begs the question: if one is OK and not the other, what does this mean? It means you either have to agree that killing babies after they are born is morally acceptable or you have to agree that abortion is not morally acceptable. It can’t be both ways. The larger question is: This is all OK because of women’s rights? I once had a lady say to me, “If you take politics out of it, it’s really a women’s rights issue.” I said, “Ma’am, women’s rights is politics. You take that out of it and all we are talking about here is dead babies.”

Often, the people making these emotionally-overwrought accusations try to construct their pro-choice arguments within the sketchy framework that “abortion is the compassionate option for unwanted children” but they are too afraid to just come out and say that because they realize what it sounds like. It sounds like “These people are better off dead.” And they’re right; it sounds every bit as bad as they think it does. If I may be permitted to indulge in an emotional argument myself here, where does anyone get off claiming they know what is best for another person? Isn’t that the whole point of the pro-choice movement? “You don’t know what’s best for me and you can’t make my decisions for me!” But they think they should have that power? They believe that a person will not have a “good life” once they are born and they think they should be able to make the decision that the person is better off dead? Where does this self-righteous, narcissistic mindset stop?

It’s ironic and amazing that those who claim to be championing freedom and choice think they should be able to hold the ultimate power over others.

Where’s My White Privilege??

White privilege has suddenly become a very hot topic — again. MTV is producing a show about being white and of course, there’s this:


I’d really like someone to tell me what these supposed privileges I’ve had are supposed to be. I’m sick of hearing about white privilege. It’s class privilege. The only color that really matters is green. I’m very sorry some nonwhite people missed out on my great life of teen pregnancy, never finishing high school, being unable to afford college, being harassed by the police, coming from a broken home, homelessness, hunger, struggling since I was born and being laughed out of welfare offices with hungry kids but I’ll gladly apologize if they want me to. I have lived in many racially-diverse neighborhoods (translation: poor neighborhoods) and no one was any better off than anybody else. I and the rest of the white people in the neighborhood weren’t somehow magically elevated above our nonwhite neighbors just because we are white. We weren’t somehow not discriminated against because we’re not black or Hispanic. A black friend of mine in an adjacent neighborhood had two college-educated parents, a better home, better possessions than anyone in my neighborhood and there was always food at his house, something the rest of us just thought was amazing. What does that mean? Somehow I still had more opportunities and a better life than him just because I’m white?

You see, this is when white privilege arguments fall apart: when they have to be applied to poor whites. I’ve had many of these discussions, and they always go in one of two ways: either the person I’m speaking with just flat out calls me a liar or they say my experience is not “the norm” but in general, whites are more privileged. If they call me a liar, I tell them they must’ve had a very fortunate life if they are unable to believe that white people struggle just as hard as any other race. If they say my experience is a special case, I ask why it is that I have to endure accusations of white privilege when it’s obviously not a universal phenomenon. Either way, the conversation usually stops right there. The only thing that is ever said after that is, “Yeah, but… you’re white,” as if this is some magical argument that automatically renders opposing arguments void. No doubt some think it does.

Poor people of all races have had the same life I’ve had. Stop letting them divide us.

Rachel Dolezal: Fraud or Fruitcake?

You’ve probably heard by now about Rachel Dolezal, the president of the Washington chapter of the NAACP. She recently resigned from her position because, well… she’s white. This might not have been that big of a deal under normal circumstances; there are white people in the NAACP. However, these were not normal circumstances. Ms. Dolezal was pretending to be black. Yes, you read that right; Rachel Dolezal identified herself as black on official documents and spent quite a bit of time and money in order to make herself look black. Or at least as black as a blonde haired, blue eyed white girl from Montana can look.

Ms. Dolezal’s unusual prevarication has sparked a media storm, with most of the debate centering around whether she is delusional and in need of psychiatric help or whether she is simply a fraud.

While it is certainly unusual that someone would lie in order to claim a different race, it’s not unheard of. But is this a psychiatric issue? Ms. Dolezal’s adopted brother (who really is black) claims that she asked him not to give her secret away. This points pretty strongly to the fact that Rachel Dolezal is most definitely aware that she isn’t really black. Since she doesn’t actually believe she’s black, that would seem to leave only one option: she’s just a fraud.

How is she a fraud? She obviously felt masquerading as a black woman would bring her advantages that she could not have as her true self. Therefore, whatever these advantages were, they were fraudulently obtained. Scholarships, jobs, positions of power… whatever opportunities she received for being an educated black woman were stolen from a real educated black woman. Stolen by a sneaking, scheming, lying white woman. This is a person who is supposed to improve race relations?

Perhaps the most frightening thing about this entire situation is the media handling of the story. There are articles popping up everywhere criticizing Ms. Dolezal’s parents for “outing” her. Really? Her parents should have gone along with fraud? With the outright mockery of black people? What world do we live in where this despicable person is supported for lying to obtain money and opportunities, but her parents are criticized for refusing to support that? It’s absolutely absurd.

Is this white guilt run amok? Judging by some of the comments on articles about this story, it would seem that at least a small segment of society feels Ms. Dolezal should want to be any other color than white and should be forgiven for her fraud because of this.

Another (admittedly smaller) segment of society compares this situation to the Bruce Jenner story. I understand the comparison on some level, but I don’t recall Bruce Jenner defrauding anybody, gender notwithstanding.

The saddest part is that, for whatever reason, Ms. Dolezal didn’t feel she could accomplish what she wanted as a white woman. Perhaps it goes back to when she attended Howard University. Apparently, the school was under the impression that she was black when they gave her a scholarship and accepted her, and when they saw her in person she was not treated very nicely. Maybe that made her believe that a white person attempting to help would not be taken seriously by the black community. Her brother reportedly stated that after she attended Howard University, she made many comments alluding to the fact that all white people are racist. Apparently, that’s what they teach there.

If you are serious about working on race relations, is this not where you should begin then? How does changing who you are help that particular problem? If you think that you cannot achieve what you want to achieve because of what you are, then instead of changing what you are or lying about it, shouldn’t you try to change the perception of what you are by being a better example of it? If you think you can’t do good work in the black community because of the way white people are perceived, pretending to be black while doing good works does not address this problem at all. In fact, it perpetuates it. Addressing it would be doing good works as a white person. That’s real change. This is just lies and foolishness.

If Rachel Dolezal truly cared about race relations in this country, instead of resigning in total disgrace, she’d have martyred herself. She should have stood up and said, “Yes I lied, but I felt that I had to because of the nature of race relations in this country. It’s something we really need to resolve so that people of every race and ethnicity can work together and no one ever feels the way I did again.” Instead, she took the coward’s way out. She resigned in disgrace, with absolutely no dignity.

In the end, this woman has made a mockery out of two races, at least two organizations and many, many people. Most of all, she made a mockery of herself. She’s destroyed her own credibility and integrity, which damages the good she’s done, possibly irreparably. All for a lie.

How Not to Be a Dick About Bruce Jenner’s Sex Reassignment Surgery – Really?


I have been seeing articles everywhere telling me how to think, feel and act regarding Bruce Jenner’s transformation into Caitlyn Jenner. First of all, I didn’t care about Bruce Jenner. I don’t care about Caitlyn Jenner. I don’t care about anyone’s sex reassignment surgery. That’s their business. It doesn’t offend me, it doesn’t validate me. It has no affect on me whatsoever. If he wanted to be a woman, that’s his business – now her business. Do what you do and be happy while you do it. That’s my opinion. What I don’t like is being told how I should think, feel or act about something. That is my business.

Basic manners should apply here and they should not have to be explained. Since when do you have to explain to people how to not be an asshole? There’s no reason to be rude about someone’s lifestyle or choices. However, if you are going to come out publicly about something like this, you have to know that some people are going to say things about it – and you. They might express confusion, puzzlement or even disgust. That’s the way the world is. People who are nasty and rude should be addressed for being nasty and rude. Period. There are way to express a dissenting opinion without being a jerk. Not everybody thinks this kind of thing is all right, though and they don’t have to. That’s their business, just like this is Jenner’s. Trying to force people to feel and think the way you’d like them to regarding something they do not agree with goes beyond just tolerance. It crosses the line into attempting to browbeat people into approving of something that they don’t approve of. This is not OK.

It doesn’t matter whether you think it’s “the right thing” or “the right way to be.” You don’t get to decide that for other people. No bigoted asshole has attempted to stop Jenner from doing this. I’m sure there were some nasty comments or personal trials faced but no one has tried to kill or imprison Jenner just for being different than most others. So as long as a person can do what they want to do, why don’t you just leave it at that? He wanted to be a woman and now he is – and a stunning one, really. Why isn’t that good enough? It can’t just be one way. You cannot say, “You can’t force trans people to feel how you want them to feel!” while at the same time trying to force non-trans people to feel how you want them to feel. It’s the same with everything. It’s hypocritical and unfair. Everybody has the right to their own feelings, thoughts and opinions, whether you agree with them or not.

I hate to break it to everybody, but nobody is universally accepted by everyone. Not men, not women, not whites, not blacks, not gays, not straights, not trans folks, not the rich, not the poor… nobody. So get over it. We’ve all got our crosses to bear. You don’t get to create rules for how people have to think, feel, speak and react to entire sects of humanity. Basic manners covers it. Taking it any farther than that crosses the line into opinion policing.

Oh, Gun Control

I love the gun control debate. I really do. I especially love the gun control dumbasses who say things like, “If someone broke into my house and was trying to kill me, I’d try to fight them off some other way. If that didn’t work, I’d let the police handle it.” Yes, someone actually said that. His next words were, “But let’s not talk about that. Let’s talk about the statistics that say I’m more likely to use my own gun to injure myself or someone else.” Of course you don’t want to talk about that, guy. Why would you want to talk about it? You don’t have an answer. The answer you did give is idiotic. If someone is trying to kill you and you cannot successfully “fight them off some other way,” the only thing the police will be handling is the investigation into your homicide. Get it? You don’t get a second chance. It’s game over.

This type of answer really showcases the idea most people have of implied invincibility; it’s become a debate of statistics because people cannot conceive of something like that actually happening to them. We talk about “they” and “them,” implying it only happens to other people. Most people – especially those on the control side – are very uncomfortable saying, “I”, “we”, “my” or “mine.” Saying these words disrupts their absurd idea that this kind of thing never happens to real people. But it does. It happens all the time. The rate of violent victimization during a home intrusion is almost 10%. That doesn’t sound like a lot – until you realize that it’s almost 300,000 people a year and does not include people who were actually killed by a home intruder. The people who aren’t killed are beaten, raped, tortured or otherwise assaulted because they are unable to protect themselves.

I also especially love the assertion that those who accept the reality of situations like these must be paranoid. It’s not paranoid to see things the way they are. It’s not paranoid to see a story on your local news and say, “Damn, that could have been me. It could have been anybody.” The implication here is that people who don’t agree with this reality are not paranoid, therefore they are more well-adjusted – and by extension, smarter and better. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but refusing to accept reality doesn’t make you “not paranoid.” It makes you a fool.

The truth is that more than 85% of people will be the victims of a violent crime – and most of them will be the victim of more than one violent crime in their lifetime. During this/these crime(s), many of us will be killed. There is no way around this. You can ignore it, you can deny it, you can argue it but you cannot make it untrue. Refusing to accept reality doesn’t make you an enlightened progressive. Refusing to protect yourself just because you don’t want to “buy into paranoia” doesn’t make you smarter. It makes you a target.

So thanks for the laughs, idiots. God love and protect you because you need it.

“Chemical Imbalance” Is A Real Thing — Right?

*Originally posted on my other blog, Modern Pioneer Magazine*

You often hear someone who takes psychiatric medications say they have a chemical imbalance, or that they’ve been told they have one. Literally billions of dollars have been made selling psycho-pharmacological drugs to cure this imbalance. Millions of people take them. The problem with this is that there is really no such thing as a chemical imbalance. It doesn’t exist. You see, if it were a real thing, it could be measured. You could have a test and see which chemicals are not balanced. If someone has diabetes and their pancreas does not make enough insulin, this can be measured and proven. If someone’s body does not make enough red blood cells, this can be measured and proven. It should theoretically be the same for a chemical imbalance. However, this test does not exist.

It should also be true that if chemical imbalance were a real thing, the same medication to correct an imbalance would work for everybody. Insulin doesn’t just sometimes not work for some people with diabetes who need insulin. It always works because the problem is quantifiable. This is not so with psychiatric medications. Not only do psychiatric medications not work the same for everybody, it is very often not known how psychiatric medications work inside the body at all. For example, many doctors – and patients – believe boosting serotonin levels helps fight depression. This is a very commonly-accepted medical theory. It was conceived in the 50’s and rose in popularity in the 80’s with the invention of Prozac and other medications like it. But regardless of what you’ve been told, this is not a fact. In fact, even after all this time there is still no proof of it at all and studies show that 60-70% of depressed patients do not respond to Prozac or similar drugs that boost serotonin. People are simply prescribed these medications – and ingest them – based on vogue theories, with no hard science to back them up, no idea how the drugs work, what the side- or long-term effects will be or anything else. This is dangerous and with many people on multiple medications now (often to counteract side-effects), it is no wonder that people have so many problems. This is especially true when you consider the fact that when a medication is found not to work, instead of discontinuing that medication, doctors will often just add more medication(s) to the medication(s) the person is already on.

Part of the reason the chemical imbalance theory became so popular is because doctors essentially made it up to sell drugs. Psycho-phamacological drugs to treat mental illness became much more popular and “mainstream” in the 80’s and 90’s, but people were still leery of labels due to the stigma attached to it and they were certainly unaccustomed to taking pills for something that was thought of as “all in their head.” So in order to demystify, de-stigmatize and put people at ease with taking a pill for a mental problem, doctors began making it sound as if the patient had a physical problem. Enter the chemical imbalance. This is not to say that many doctors did not wholeheartedly believe in the veracity of the chemical imbalance claim; undoubtedly many did and still do. This theory not only demystified mental illness for the patient, it demystified mental illness for doctors, too. It is supported by nothing, though.

Good health care should be about elimination first, not accession. The truth is that many so-called mental illness symptoms are caused by improper nutrition, chemical toxicity in the body, hormonal problems, reactions to environmental toxins, stress and many other things. Before any medication is prescribed, these things should be eliminated but they are generally never even mentioned to the patient at all. The patient is simply given pills and told to “call if there are problems.” This is very vague; patients often do not realize what these “problems” could be, or do not recognize them when they arise. Patients are not educated about side-effects or health risks when they are given prescriptions. They are certainly not told that no one (including their doctor) understands fully how these drugs interact with their bodies, and that they may do more harm than good, if they even do anything at all.

The major downside to the chemical imbalance theory and the resulting popularity of treating mental problems with drugs is that psychiatrists and even family doctors have become little more than pill pushers and other therapies which actually do work and which address the root of the problem rather than just the symptoms of the problem (such as the so-called “talking cure”) have fallen by the wayside. It has become about convenience rather than cure. Doctors gain much from this. Pharmaceutical companies gain much from this. The government gains much from this. Only the patient loses.

Rock Motherfucker

There’s a devil in your pocket
Nice to see ya
You find a way to rock it
It wouldn’t be ya
If your train’s on time
Oh no
It’s really gonna blow your mind
And I know

There’s an angel in your aura
Good to know it
Looks like she’s waiting for ya
But you don’t show it
If the stars don’t shine
Then I know
I really gotta know the time
Time to go

I need to know, how far are you willing to go?

Ain’t got the time and I don’t have luck
Rock steady to the bottom, not giving a fuck
If you’re coming with me, bounce
Cuz the train leaves now
Ain’t waiting at the station
While you figure it out

There’s a demon on the inside
How ya doin?
It’s such a very thin line
Until it’s ruined
If you stay right here
Just sit back
I really never felt the fear
I’ll be back

You know that God is in the empty
Time to tell ya
But hell is very tempting
That’s how they sell ya
If you don’t get far
oh no
You better wish upon a star
And I know

I need to know, how far are you willing to go?

Ain’t got the time and I don’t have luck
Rock steady to the bottom, not giving a fuck
If you’re coming with me, bounce
Cuz the train leaves now
Ain’t waiting at the station
While you figure it out

If you’re coming with me, bounce
Cuz the train leaves now

Ain’t got the time to wait on some sad sucker
If you’re coming, let’s roll. Time to rock, motherfucker.
I ain’t waiting around for you to take your time
If you ain’t got the sack, hit the back of the line
You gotta hit it hard if you’re coming with me
You gotta roll like THAT. You gotta go on 3.
It’s a war going on son, this ain’t no game
It’s me against the world. You’ll never be the same.

50 Shades of Grey — And As Many Interpretations of it

I keep hearing how the book and movie 50 Shades of Grey are sending women’s rights back all these decades. I’ve even seen the r-word being thrown around. Here’s my thing: BDSM and dominance are not rape. Neither can occur without explicit consent. The definition of rape is that it is non-consensual. If there is consent, there is no rape. It is not rape simply because it looks too rough for you or is rougher than you would appreciate. BDSM relationships and sex do not diminish the submissive partner either, because in truth the submissive is in charge of the entire interaction. Nothing occurs without her (or his!) consent. Nothing. Because of this, BDSM is also not abuse.

Now, undoubtedly the book and movie will entice a few “vanilla” women into trying the whole thing but most of them really just want something new, not something real. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Women are entitled to their fantasies – all of their fantasies and labeling or judging these fantasies is not helpful or supportive of women. I am of the mind that gender equality means women have the choice to like or dislike whatever they choose, rather than have these things still be dictated by others as to what they should or should not be.

There are plenty of men who enjoy being dominated as well. There are men who pay to be dominated. Where is the outcry? Does anyone even care? No, they don’t. It’s considered the man’s private business and that’s that. Why is it not the same for women? Why is a women’s sexuality still a matter of public scrutiny in the year 2015?

Isn’t it time this stops?

Why Are You Against The Death Penalty?

The death penalty is one of my “pet” causes. I stand staunchly in support of it. It has it’s problems and it could use an overhaul in keeping with technology (as could all government institutions and procedures) but as an overall concept, I support it. It boggles my mind that some people don’t. I understand the idea that people deserve a second chance but not everyone does. Contrary to what the warmhearted but misguided people who believe this might think, not everyone can be rehabilitated. Not everyone would do better if they could. Not everyone is a poor misunderstood victim. Some people are killers because that is who and what they want to be. They enjoy killing and hurting people. They love it, in point of fact. And they have zero respect for life at all.

There are those who feel that the few dollars in your pocket are worth more than your life. There are people on this planet who feel — to quote Dr. Park Dietz about serial killers — that their orgasm is more important than your life.  Think about what that means for a second. Really think about it. A few seconds of pleasure means more to them than your entire existence as a person, and they are more than willing to trade one for the other. More than willing, even happy to do so. These people are a danger to every single person that will ever come in contact with them. The world will never be safe from them until they are dead.

Beyond the safety factor, there is also the concept of justice. Some crimes are heinous, so despicable and so terrible that they are only served by the death of the offender. You do not get the death penalty for killing someone in an argument. You get the death penalty only if you have shown without a doubt that human life is absolutely meaningless to you.

I submit to you the case of Westley Allan Dodd: sadist, child molester and torture-murderer. Westley Dodd kept a journal, detailing his crimes and search for new victims, as well as plans for the future. Murder, torture and children consumed this man’s entire life. I have read hundreds – maybe even thousands – of true crime stories. I have seen thousands of crime scene photos. I have watched hundreds of murder videos. I just watched one the other day of a drug cartel executing 4 women with axes, chopping them up like firewood. The Westley Allan Dodd journal surpasses them all; it is the most depraved, despicable thing I’ve ever experienced. If you truly believe that you are absolutely against the death penalty, I invite you to read the personal journal/log book of Westley Allan Dodd. It is presented at that link with nothing omitted except the pictures he took of his victims and I promise you that after you read it, you will no longer be against the death penalty.

If you’re not changed… if after reading that journal, you are still against the death penalty… if you can find sympathy or kindness in your heart for the man who built a torture rack in his house to tie 4 year old boys to, for the man who created a “game” out of forcing a child to pick how they would be murdered by either rolling dice or picking it out of a hat… If you can find any kindness for or reason to keep alive the man who said, “4:45 p.m.  I now ask Satan to guide me, and provide or help me obtain a boy tonight.  This one I’d like to keep a while–keeping him awake all night each night so he’ll sleep all day while I’m at work (tied and mouth taped shut to be on safe side).  I may only keep him two or three days, or even longer if it works out… I might even get two boys (perhaps a 6- or 7-year-old taking a 3- or 4- year-old to the toilet?).  In the case of two like this–the older (or both) would decide (when I tired of them) which was to die.  Don’t know now if survivor (or just a lone boy) would die, or be used to help get another boy home.  Will have to wait and see.  I also want to do my medical experiments this time, once done with sexual play on the body(ies).  Also hoping for more, better pictures.” then you are just a fool. A dangerous fool and I wish you luck, because in this world, you will need it.

Because Westley Allan Dodd is dead (via execution) but there are thousands more just like him.