The Bionic Olympian

I was recently watching "The Next Step" with Dr. Sanjay Gupta on CNNHD cable channel.

Recently, we had the Summer Olympics in London, England. In this Olympics, the runner known at the "Blade Runner" was allowed to compete. I said it then and I'll say it again that I do not believe that should be allowed.
 

"Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius (born 22 November 1986) is the South African sprint runner known as the "Blade Runner" and "the fastest man on no legs". Pistorius, who has a double below-knee amputation, is the world record holder for T44 in the 100, 200 and 400 metres events and runs with the aid of Cheetah Flex-Foot carbon fibre transtibial artificial limbs by Össur. He competes in T44 (single below knee amputees) events though he is actually classified in T43 (double below knee amputee)." - Wikipedia

"In the end, At the 2012 Summer Olympics on 4 August 2012, Pistorius became the first amputee runner to compete at an Olympic Games. In the 400 meters race, he took second place in the first heat of five runners, finishing with a time of 45.44 seconds (his best time of the season so far) to advance to the semi-finals on 5 August. He ran in the second semi-final, where he finished eighth and last with a time of 46.54 seconds." - Wikipedia

After I first heard the official consideration and reasoning, I backed off on my contention that to allow him to run was unfair to the full bodied runners. They decided that there as no advantage to his running with his prosthetics, and in fact they were a slight disadvantage. If someone wants to run with a disadvantage, that is their decision (within reason) and makes their achievements all the more rewarding and laudatory. Right?

As long as competitors have 100% of their normal function, but not as a "special" Olympian so that they should or could, be in the "Para Olympics". That is, Olympians should not be using drugs, hormones, prosthetics, or bionic devices.

When I watched the episode of "The Next Step" about Dr. Hugh Herr, a double amputee himself, from MIT's Bioelectronics Group, I found it a fascinating report about an interesting researcher and a very important series of inventions and discoveries through their very dedicated, hard works.

The decision of the Olympics seems to disregard certain considerations of elements of the body under duress, its repair and damage. It is physically impossible for Pistorius to ever have a torn ligament in his foot as he has no foot. He will never damage his Achilles tendon, or have to try and heal it before a match, or to run with it damaged to some degree. And if a runner were running with such damage, what about running against someone like Pistorius who does not have that same risk factors?

Pistorius will never pull a muscle in a race in a body part that he no longer has. How is that at all fair to the other runners who are taking that risk, who do have a chance of turning their ankle and falling in a race, to be running against someone for whom that risk factor has been completely eliminated?

I fear that in the attempt of the Olympic Committee to not seem unfair to one individual, and in  opening the door for others like him in the future, they are being unfair to all the athletes who are competing and all those who will never make it into the Olympics, who have tried so hard for so long, but will never make it.

It was mentioned in the Dr. Gupta show about how we use machines like bicycles and now there are competitions on bicycles. We may one day have competitions with bionic individuals. But the main reason for the Olympics is to take a fully complete, unextraordinarily enhanced, human being with all their natural functioning and then to compete against another similar human being, to let nature as much as possible take its course and in the end, to see one individual as victorious over another.

I truly believe we need to have individuals who are using all their natural being as compared equally to the other contestants, and that means they need to have all their body parts. There are other competitions they can compete in if they do not have their original and natural parts. But we need to keep the Olympics as basic and as natural as possible. There simply should be no question about the competitors.

I have always been forward looking and accepting in using new technologies and in most areas, I would be all for bionics. I am all for people finding their full potential and superseding that potential whenever possible. But in an organization such as the Olympics, we should not be allowing individuals who need prosthetics.

I would even argue possibly, against those who have to have new cell tissue replacement (though I believe that may be a small enough issue as to not be a concern), muscle tissue, ligaments, etc., as these would be young elements, newly defined within the body; while the others competing have had to work with what they have had since birth, and that is after all, part and parcel of the competitive experience. I would argue even against allowing competitors with bone replacements, if they put in a different material than they were born with. I've heard that bone replacement materials actually do have a different type of flexibility and density factor and that would be wrong. I don't think body element replacements should either enhance or detract from a potential competitor.

It isn't impossible to be born and grow through hard work to become an Olympic competitor. Although certainly we cannot all make it. That could be considered as sad for most of the people of the world who would want to compete, but really it's not. Rather it is celebratory for those who can achieve it, who can make it to that level and who can actually be accepted to compete. But those who are allowed to compete have to be as basically normal as possible.

That being said, I also do not think that we need to turn it into some kind of religion, or purist consideration; but to some degree, yes, we do. If someone needed a ligament replaced, that may even be  just fine. But if it has a different flexibility, tensile strength, etc., we really do need to consider how fair that is to those we know may damage their own ligament through the trials and tribulations of competition.

Jon Huntsman on Stephen Colbert

Jon Huntsman was on Colbert last night and he was a far, far more plausible candidate for GOP Presidential candidate than Romney. AND he speaks Mandarin (and knows where China is) which would be so handy if you are President.

Huntsman believes Super Packs are a blight on our people and need to go away.

He was humorously speechless over the comment, "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," this spoken by Romney pollster Neil Newhouse at a panel organized by ABC News.

Colbert brought that last issue up in regards to Ryan's speech at the RNC to which even FoxNews responded: "Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech."

If in 2016 the Democrats had some idiot running and Huntsman was running on the GOP side, I would be heavily inclined, from what I saw last night anyway, to vote for Jon Huntsman. That being said (and noting that I'm not a Democrat), Mitt IS running this year, and against Obama and there is no way I'm going to vote for Mitt, or Ryan, or the platform that the GOP is pushing.

Mr. Huntsman also said that if [when] Mitt loses this election, it is going to cast the GOP into a tailspin that they will have to rebuild from. Thank God for that, as it's about time. The GOP (as it is) needs to die and make itself back into an actually viable political party, even if perhaps as a Phoenix rising.

We're trying to run a two party system that needs to have two parties and not just two parties who merely disagree with each other, but two parties who offer real and viable options and platforms. If or when, they agree too much then maybe they just happen to have the right ideas. Work with that then; don't simply try to make the other side look bad. We need a scientific approach to government. What works needs to be implemented, not just point fingers and say that the other side was wrong; they are bad, horrible people.

The parties will always differ in some ways and if they don't, then maybe there is a reason. However, when that happens they need to find real differences and where there aren't any, then face up to that. Don't do what they've been doing, lie, make things up, become deranged. When you hit a point that there is no different orientation between parties, then the one that is struggling for an identity has already stopped being a viable party. If at that point they continue on as the GOP has been doing, then they've just go bonkers, as they obviously have, having fallen into the "we're sooo different from them" mentality that is the first indicationg that it's broken beyond repair. Why do you think the Tea Party started up?

So perhaps we need Gov. Huntsman's predicted GOP tailspin.

Let's re-label Pro-Lifers as the ARP!

Here's the thing, I wrote a blog this week saying that perhaps, as Pro-Life as an agenda title has already been absconded by the Right Wing, perhaps we need a correspondingly opposite title for an agenda that is opposed to theirs.

But perhaps I was wrong. In rethinking about this just now, it occurred to me that perhaps what we need is to re-label the Right Wing's own agenda.

What is it that all people, everywhere, regardless of sex, sexual orientation or religious persuaision, have in common? Flesh and bone. We are all sacks of water, meat and calcium. Now we can add all that crap that religion and politics steeps upon us.

Being "Pro" Life sounds like a good idea, right? We're all "Pro" Life. But not unlike an eight year old, they are pushing that agenda as the end all, be all of a very complicated situation. As I indicated in my previous blog, there are two aspects to any Life. There is the element of living, and there is the element of quality of Life. Something the Right Wing has pushed down our throats for years regarding Right to choosing our time of death (suicide, physician assisted suicide).

There is one more element we need to face down.

Humans, are not all that great. We are not so wonderful that we should never be killed, right? Law enforcement, military, even the judicial branch of governments (capital punishment) kill pepole all the time and with good reason.

Police typically kill to save lives. As we have limitednon lethal effective deterrentswhen dealing with situations where someone has overwhelming lethal force, killing them, to save innocent lives, is sometimes the only thing to do. Military, similar but somewhat indirect situation much of the times, but basically the same concept; and where it's not, we just start wars and kill people; or we allow other people in other countries to slaughter their own citizens without lifting a finger to stop it, thus somewhat at least, condoning it.

Why is abortion such a big deal, but there has been 2,000 young American military lives lost in the war in Afghanistan, and there is no moral outrage, certainly not like there is over aborting fetuses, about these also, innocent young people dying, and for what? As Bill Maher pointed out on his Friday night show, the first 1,000 deaths had a reason and he was for our going into Afghanistan, where those who attacked us on 9/11 were and not Iraq; but what did the second 1,000 die for? Where is the moral outrage in the Republican party, their candidate, his running mate, and the "Pro-Lifers"?

Again it is so much that disparity between sex and violence, like in films. You can show someone's brains being blown out, but don't show a woman's vagina. What is it these people are so fearful of when it comes to sex, especially sex for pleasure (or Cannabis for pleasure and not only medical purposes, and the whole "War on Drugs" which is a war on American citizens)? What is it about these right wing theists that is so fearful about pleasure? Because abortion only for "Forcible Rape" is all about no abortion if sex was for the pleasure of the woman. Obviously, rape is about the pleasure of the man, albeit for control/power purposes and not so much for sexual gratification, typically.

Okay and finally, Capital Punishment, some higher concept countries have outlawed it as inhumane. Okay, they may even be right on that. It IS the moral highground.

However, I do believe that there are times when someone should be killed, with prejudice, and on the spot; to be put down like a rabid dog. We are not God's gift to this planet, regardless of what you think. All religion aside, this planet would do far better without us.

We also still have issues of world population to deal with that we still need to get under control.

So basically, from our own actions, people dying is really not that big of a deal to us. So, why are some making such a big deal over abortion? Why is killing a zygote or a fetus, such a big deal? Why? Wny isn't the mother any real concern to these people? Do you have any idea (men) what it would be like to have something growing in you from a horrific event that you know you will have to suffer great pain and years after of dealing with the result of a rape?

Non-forcible rape, includes not only statutory rape, but others. For instance:

Gross Sexual Imposition – Unlike the common law, the Model Penal Code does not provide for rape on the basis of fraud. However, such conduct does constitute the offense of gross sexual imposition. Subject to the marital immunity exemption, a male is guilty of gross sexual imposition if he has sexual intercourse with a female in any one of three circumstances:

	1.)	the female submits as the result of a "threat that would prevent resistance by a woman of ordinary resolution," e.g., if the woman is threatened by a supervisor with loss of employment. [MPC § 213.1(2)(a)]
	2.)	a male has sexual relations with a female with knowledge that, as the result of mental illness or defect, she is unable to appraise the nature of his conduct. [MPC § 213.1(2)(b)]
	3.)	a male knows that the female is unaware that a sexual act is being committed upon her or that she submits because she mistakenly believes that he is her husband. [MPC § 213.1(2)(c)]

As we heard in the news recently, a mentally challenged ten year old girl would have been forced to have a child as she had not been "forced" ("Should a 10-Year-Old Mentally Disabled Victim of Incestuous Rape Be Required to Carry a Fetus to Term?" - check it out, good article). As the article indicated: "In Kansas...a doctor may lose her license for allowing a mentally-ill 10-year old girl who was raped by her uncle to get an abortion." Really?

Dr. Neuhaus’ rebuttal to the charges against her:

“To even claim that isn’t medically necessary qualifies as gross incompetence,” said Neuhaus. “Someone’s 10 years old, and they were raped by their uncle and they understand that they’ve got a baby growing in their stomach and they don’t want that. You’re going to send this girl for a brain scan and some blood work and put her in a hospital?” (for more clarity on this, please see the article)

Well, if you consider someone killing a shark that has been killing cute little seals, many people have no issues with it. If someone tries to kill the cute little seals, there is an uproar.

We don't have much trouble with killing a big, fat, greasy, grizzly old child serial murderer.

But if we are so upset over killing a pre(non) child, how is the greasy old murderer's life worth so much less? No. Seriously, you have to apply your logic cleanly and across all circumstances. Right? It was conjectured somewhere, if a rape victim births her child, then five years on decides the child looks too much like her rapist, does she have the right to kill it then? This, following though on my theory, basically. Obviously, no. It is even a stupid question. She has options, she can put it up for adoption, for instance. She will need counseling and obviously would have already been needing it. She probably should have had the abortion to begin with and proper therapy may have shown that in the first place.

Or would you be saying that it's all more complicated than that? Are you now arguing on the side of killing a human being? If it's between killing an unborn child, or not even a human yet, but a zygote, the life form that exists before a baby becomes a baby, or a greasy old child serial murderer, you'd choose the child. Right?

But, shouldn't you have chosen not to kill either? See the imbalance? We're Human, yes, but we're screwed up. And we're not so God awful important, we just have huge egos and like to think we are so important. Therefore, we like to raise ourselves up on high and say we can't kill children, or pre-children, or pre-pre-children. This week it was proposed in the media by one group that women's eggs should be legally considered a life form. When they are NOT, they are cells. They do NOT become remotely human until conception, or sometime pre birth, or at the point of birth, depending upon your conception of the situation, or the legal definition you go by.

All things mentioned above considered, abortion really, is not therefore that big a deal. We just make it a big deal.

And is that right?

We should be careful in legally considering ending life of any kind. But it doesn't mean we can act like children by being thoughtless, in being knee-jerk reactive, gut feeling responsive, and make it illegal in any situation. To some degree I do think as Humans we should make it a big deal about killing people. But there is a limit. At some point, we should just stop talking and realize that life is complicated and that we do not and should not always have the say, and we should not have the say legally, or morally/ethically about certain situations and about certain people. We stick our noses too much now a days into too many things that should be personal and private decisions.

Old or terminally ill people have their own right to life, or death. If we have a God given right to life, it follows that we have a God given right to death, too. How do I know that? Becuase, right now, I can shoot myself in the head and end things. THAT, is a God given right. Because I can do it. And no, it's stupid to think that I also have the God given right to kill someone else. Or maybe I do, but I decide it more reasonable not to be that way, because then people might want to kill me. We do need laws, we need to protect those who cannot speak for themselves, but how much at the cost of those who can speak for themselves but we will not allow them to speak, or to decide? Mother's have their own right to the life of their children, at very least, before the third trimester. What is the cutoff then?

My argument would be when it resembles an actual human being. When it can conceive of pain and death. Because Human is not Human simply at a certain stage of life, a chronologically set time frame, but by conception; not just the brain formation but the information contained within that brain that can conceive of itself as life and that, in some form, doesn't happen until some time after birth. In some cultures they don't even consider children as Human until they hit a certain age. And there is something to be said for that, there is an argument for that. It's not my argument, surely it has a basis in reality.

Something the Right Wing (typically Republicans) don’t have a clue about. Because it's not a quick comment, it's not a sound bite sized position. Life, is complicated. Ending life is just as complicated.

At some point we need to realize that and back off some.

So, "Pro-Life" is a misnomer. Which is the point of this entire article. I'm not trying to sell a position on any of what I was just talking about. I'm just trying to point out that "Pro-Life" is wrong. I am Pro-Life. These Right Wing mental midgets, aren't. Because first of all, they only are arguing half the subject. Second, they are selling the cute factor in abortion as to what is important. But women, the vessels of who is carrying the child, is also important. The quality of her life is also important.

Otherwise what are you doing? You are trying to be another version, a "Christian" version of, wait for it... the Taliban.

No, I'm not joking. Think about this, think about it very carefully. Because if you are a Paul Ryan, Todd Akin type Pro-Lifer, then you are not very different than the Taliban in wanting to force religious oriented beliefs onto others; only in this case, it's not just others of your same religion.

Much in the same way that Mark Twain referred to Congress as that, "Grand Old Benevolent National Asylum for the Helpless", I think we can come up with another name for "Pro-Lifers" as well. To dwell a moment longer on another comment by that Grand old Genius Mr. Twain, again about Congress, he said: "Imagine, that you are an idiot. And then imagine that you are a member of Congress. What a minute, I repeated myself."

So I guess what I'm saying is, we should start calling hardline "Pro-Lifers", something else. And I would suggest the American Religious Persecutors, or ARP.

So Ladies and open minded Gentleman, I give you the newly rebranded "Pro-Life" movement, or the ARP!

And please, feel free to come up with your own, more clever moniker. Because if we can't make fun of this, if we cannot have a sense of humor about it while trying to put it in it's proper place, that is, in the receptacle next to your desk, then we will only succeed in making our life as miserable and lifeless as those who designate themselves so incorrectly as being Pro-Life.

Writing faux pas

A spy goes through hell to get a name, he finally gets it and then has a firefight, which he survives and at the end help arrives by helicopter. He goes up to his commander and says, "He gave me the name, I'll be right back," and he heads away from the extraction point.

NO. A pro wouldn't and shouldn't do that.

At this point after all they've been through and as important as the name is, you share that name with as many people as possible withint limitations of security parameters. You tell the commander, they immediately call it in to headquarters or SOMEone if possible. But you get the intel off the single point of possible failure, you. You do NOT keep it to yourself no matter how secret it is. You share it accordingly and appropriately but for the initial agent to keep it to himself one second longer than absolutely necessary is a breach of sanity if nothing else. After all, if you die all you have done to get the intel has been wasted.

This is what I call poor writing for the sake of tension. I would call it Hollywood writing except that this scene was from the British show, Strike Back. I really like this show but they make the same mistake after a fairly well written episode just to throw in that final tension at the end.

So, should you do it? Well, obviously, I would argue, NO.

As writers we do need to write, we do need to create tension. But we also need to know when we are overstepping the bounds of not good taste, perhaps, but definitely operational protocol and really people, sanity if nothing else.

[Postscript: I should mention that the issue about the tension at the end, does almost sound like someting a producer would push onto a writer. So that perhaps the writer had done a good job, but then at the last minute some outside force had "asked" for a change and so a previously well drawn screenplay can hit the screen with "issues" that weren't originally designed into the screenplay. Also, even when you do have to write a scene that is "cheesy", if you write it properly, it can still be so enjoyable as to not bother almost anyone.]

What's next? Slavery?

I've been becoming more aware of what the founding fathers set up for this country. In some respects, it was slavery for those who aren't landowners. Slaves were eventually freed, but never fully, there were merely mixed in with the masses, those others who were not Landowners.

Landowners from back then have morphed into the privileged classes of today. Face it, that was meant to happen.

As Landowners back at the birth of our nation, without a real middle class back then, we have been directred to end up where we are today; all the while thinking it was good and just, and right; and it's not. While it is reasonable considering how things were set up, it is not acceptable.

For our nation to survive we need to evolve and we are not seeing the Republican party do that, they actually seem to be devloving; nor is the Democratic party picking up the reins and leading from their side. They have both fallen into a loop of continual disagreement rather than progressive change for the better... for all.

That leaves things to the voters, but as we all saw in 2000 (and in consideration of the electoral college), even that does not work correctly.

Which leaves only one thing....
Action, from thought.
Thought, from information.
Information from accurate sources.
And that means a media who are there to support the people and therefore the country.
Because those who are leading now, so incorrectly, are not the country.
They are there to lead and support the country.
And the country, are the People.

Occupy, your Nation.

Abort the Pro-Life movement and stupidity NOW

Please excuse this following article. It was written in very little time and through the eyes of bittersweet anger and sullen dissappointment in my country, for even allowing the kind of ignorance and stupidity that has been enabled to prosper in the public discourse that we have been so painfully subjected to these past decades and, especially during this current presidential election year. It is therefore a somewhat raw and pained diatribe and it comes through rather clearly in that vein of a heartfelt betrayal with a denied expectation of promise that was allowed to fall down so low, in a country with so much, potential and immense availability of possibilities. By this time in our history we should be enlightened individuals looked up to by the world and never let down.

Yet here we are, and here it goes....

First thing. We need a law that men are no longer allowed to talk about any issues having to do with women and their female parts. End of story. Too bad though, some men have good and helpful things to say. But overall, they've (we've?) pretty much by this point, screwed themselves out of, well, having any reasonable right to having a say in what women should or should not be allowed to be doing. Don't you think?

Look, Republicans have shown time and again that they do not respect women, or all Americans. They respect themselves, typically white and/or those more wealthy, than less. Typically with crazy agendas based on Sharia law. No, wait, that's another crazy group.

There are two sides to "Life" in Pro-Life that they conveniently choose to forget (back to that lower down in this blog, a lot more). Life is, Living, being alive, and Life is, living life, the quality of life.

Republicans (and I'm referring to their RNC platform, who they carefully have crafted themselves to be, literally, written out) keep trying to stop the "wrong people" from voting, that is, anyone who would vote against them by gerrymandering when possible (not such a big issue I understand), and lately by decreasing the voters who can vote through voting times and picture IDs. Very slick attempts but they should be stopped, jailed for even suggesting it in some cases, and the GOP ended as a party if it keeps these types of actions up. Absetee voting should perhaps be made mandatory to end the Republicans trying to stop people from voting. Trying to limit legal voters, is anti-American, there are laws against it and they skirt those with deftness and walking very fine lines.

It's very American to vote, to be allowed to vote, and quite against the law to be tampering with people's rights to voting.

Now....

I've been thinking alot about this "Pro-Life" designation. It's such a great sounding sound bite. Pro-Life. How can you be against something like that? But those who push that agenda, are kind of nuts about things. All this rape talk for instance, anti-abortion, redefining rape so it's not even rape. It's kind of nuts. It's offensive to women. It's offensive to Americans. Pro-Life is starting not to seem so much, pro anything. They are killing their own agenda. They need to be brought back under control. They need to be, stopped.

I think the other side from the "Pro-Lifers" needs their own catch phrase.

What a lovely guy

At first I liked the phrase, Pro-Killing. But I assumed I would be alone in that one. It was diametrically opposed to the other side's phraseology. But kind of negative sounding. Regardless of all this talk from Republicans about caring so much about "life" they care so little care for people who are already here, for Americans, but mostly for women.

A female friend of mine just told me something interesting today:

"I met bush at a women's business chamber luncheon before he was Gov and he was talking about women needing to be barefoot in the kitchen making home made apple pie. I was astonished at his arrogance and the women who were hanging on to his every word and waiting for an autographed picture. I think we are in trouble."

That is quite obviously something that is endemic in the Republican party today. Women don't amount to much. Maybe if you asked them, they would say of course they do. But we are our actions and if you look at their actions, and even their words when they are speaking, they have very, very little respect or care for women, or Americans, unless they are, basically, "them". Well off, not a mintority, not a woman. It's disgusting.

Back to the phrase...I thought of "Pro-Female" but that sounds too intimidating to the male Republicans I'm sure and would remind them of those secret friends, the friends they talk of to no one; "hookers" (Pros) and no one would want to give them any slack if they got pregnant and wanted an abortion (unless I'm sure, it was some Congressman's illigetimate child); though why we'd want hookers to have kids is beyond me.

Then I thought of Pro-Not-having-women-in-back-alleys-dying-from-bad-abortions which was the original reason to give women the choice, but I figured, who cares if women want to break the law and die from it rather than giving them a break and proper medical and mental health care; after all, this isn't the 60s where everyone was reevaluating things and thinking humanistically, considering people's personal freedoms and trying to be intelligent, forward thinking and progressive individualsand groups of caring people.

Hell no. These are the times of being conservative, because we are too afraid not to be. The times of hiding our beliefs, because our government is kind of scary anymore and watches us too closely and reads our email and listens to our phone calls and goes around the world starting wars and torturing people.

These are the times of being overly politically correct. The times of poor education and rejecting immigration because it's better that people get educated and leave, or get educated elsewhere and not come here to share innovations. These are times of seeing the results of decades of our education system be systematically decimated to the point that we see people speaking out of total ignorance and utter bullsized fecal matter in public and vote in the idiots and rich elites to take advantage of us because we are too damn stupid, ignorant or cowardly to take back our country from the ignorant and superstitious masses who are trying to run the show.

A friend of mine was just pointing out that Todd Akin may be fun to make fun of with his views on "Legitimate" Rape and all; there certainly is a lot of fuel there to ignite, but it loses the point and how dangerous he and his attitude is, as it is devaluing date rape, "ruffying" women into unconsciousness and saying that only some kinds of rape are really, truly, "Rape".

To push it further they are saying that many rapes are wanted in some way; that if you get pregnant through rape, you mustn't have not wanted it enough or else your body would have rejected it. Really? I guess if you are sent to prison and get gang prison raped, you must have wanted it because if you didn't want it then God wouldn't have allowed it to happen to a true believer (Job is cringing in his grave, trust me).

What utter nonsense!

Why do you think "War Rape is used by foreign invading militaryaround the world throughout Human history have "raped, robbed and pillaged" invading territories? To replace local children with that of the invading hosts, dumbass! And how? Rape induces pregnancy. It's like, statistical. Rape ten women, maybe half of them will get pregnant. But those women didn't want those babies. In fact, many women will commit suicide over it.

Consider what it must be like to have a growing residual reminder of a violent act growing in you for nine months and then birthing from you a living life long example of the man that raped you. Obviously before these men can speak on this topic, they need to be prison raped and see if they still agree on the topic of what you want or don't want. Except they won't get pregnant; but we now have the ability to make them pregnant. How would they feel then? Raped by a big burly ugly guy in prison, maybe with ten of his friends there helping and then you have to remember that the rest of your life and raise that child from it.

Nice, huh? Yes, Todd Akin, you're an ass.

A couple of things here. Two really. What is rape defined as and is this just about American women?

The Explanatory Note of the Rome Statute, which binds the International Criminal Court, defines the "rape" as follows:

"The perpetrator invaded the body of a person by conduct resulting in penetration, however slight, of any part of the body of the victim or of the perpetrator with a sexual organ, or of the anal or genital opening of the victim with any object or any other part of the body." and "The invasion was committed by force, or by threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power, against such person or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment, or the invasion was committed against a person incapable of giving genuine consent."

Foreign Policy, Akin-Style: How the U.S. Denies Abortions to Women Raped in War - August 12, 2012, article in The Atlantic. You may not want to stand up and fight for yourself in this matter, but if American women won't fight for themselves, it translates to how America acts around the world. Maybe we don't have too much War Rape in the US, but it is prevalentstill, all around the world.

According to the article in The Atlantic, "When rape is used as a weapon of war in places like Congo or Bosnia, thousands of women and girls can become pregnant, but a piece of 39-year-old U.S. legislation means that few if any aid groups are allowed to provide or even discuss abortion services with them."

So many of these women end up birthing and raising children that were inseminated when they were raped by "the enemy"; men who may have killed many in their family, maybe even right in front of them. And then raped them. And statistics show that even "friendlies" may get involved, once the rape starts in these situations.

But that's not here, that's not now (not here and now anyway) and getting back to my phrase, finally I just settled on, the "Women's Movement", and I thought, hey, maybe that will get some attention. Or, perhaps they will just be considered too "commie pinko socialist" and the media won't even listen to them. At least not at Fox News.

I think it's time to burn the bras again ladies.

But let's go one step further this time. Start burning the rest of that underwear too. Stop putting out, stop putting in (say no to tampons, see if that gets you some attention). Stop putting up with all this nonsense and shut the door on these idiotic (mostly) guys! Okay, maybe that's extreme. Maybe, just scream, about it. That can work, too. Or talk softly and carry a big stick, or a big complaint, and don't stop complaining about it. Till someone does something and no one talks as they have been lately.

If you're married to one of them, one of these conservativeright wing nut cases? Then maybe you should lose your "Woman Card" if you don't stand up to them and your religion and just say no. No more! Right? Really though, say it more like, "Uh uh Mother F*er, back OFF till you learn some respect for women. And while you're at it, read a damn book based on some Mo' Fo' Reality!"
Okay, you can be as "Lady-like" as you like about it.

But, point that all out to them, to the world!
You're a woman!
You don't have to take this anymore!

It's 2012 for Heaven's sake, not that Heaven seems to have much to do with it.
Use those ovaries, that vagina! YOU use it, don't let those other abuse it!
Whichever... these are all after all, YOURS! 
You simply don't have to put up with it.
Don't let them try to cower you beneath the banners of God and Man. I'm a man, I don't want this for you. You're a Woman for God's sake; let them know it.

Tell these jokers that if they want to get into it, they need to stay out of it, at least in public. When they grow a pair of breasts (okay, a vagina), THEN they can have a say in women's issues. Why are women letting men decide these things for them... still?

Again, this is 2012 for God's sake (figure of speech)! For Your sake! For the sake of women around the planet. Because I'm not seeing any God standing up for you, just people who think they know all about God, and doing the talking for Him. Or, hopefully from what I'm seeing, Her. Or maybe better to think God a man, right? I mean, look how things have been going?

Kick some dumb conservative ass, ladies! There's plenty of it to go around. Just turn on the TV and pick someone.

Stop everything related to them till they catch a clue! Make their lives a living hell like they seem to want to do to you. Why am I telling you this? If you already know this, stop reading. If you are getting the idea, finally, then keep reading, but better, do something about it.

I'd like to get up tomorrow and see gangs of woman nationwide, saying, "NO MORE!"

Start up every action you can think of against all this ignorance until They learn THEIR place! This isn't my fight, not really. I am after all, male. But I'm there talking them down when it comes up, and laughing at them sometimes; but it's not really very funny, is it?

You know, there is one saving grace....

One thing that I love about some of these politicians pushing their religious agendas in government and public forums. There is a core of, let's say, Christianity, for instance. There are a lot of Christians in the country talking out, and saying a lot of right wing nonsense. So they are putting themselves up as knowledgeable and therefore, targets, basically. There are many Christian offshoots. Some are way off line. Some are simply way out of reality even in a religious sense.  Even by Christian (or religious) standards.

If you push these kinds of ridiculous agendas in the public democratic forum and you are off even a little sometimes, it can be like guiding a starship in space. If you're off even a little bit at the beginning, it can be mere inches; by the time you get down the line, when you least expect it, you will be way, wayyyy off from where you expected to be... and the thing is, you see, EVERYONE else sees it, too!

And in politics, that can easily be a death knell. So there is hope. Maybe a lot of these fools will simply fade away to the old people's home for lost political and religious fools.

But you know, you still have to stand up and you may have to do some screaming about it.

[Postscript: Obviously I know we can't do things like make the Republican Party illegal, although they are currently not a legitimate major political party in Washington State because of the recent Dino Rossi fiasco which is why the Libertarian Party of Washington state sued their state secretary of state recently, claiming that Mitt Romney's name should be removed from the general election ballot); but I think you get my drift about how unsettling all of this is and just how upset American as a country should be about it's present day politics. Any country surely, has its issues with how much foolishness is involved in their all coming together to make decisions that govern a disparate populace; but there needs to be a certain level of intelligence and cooperation involved; two things that seem to have plummeted or dissappeared completely in recently times. We need to get back to being that "Great Nation" and leading the world in not just intelligence and compassion, but in cooperation and settling not always on lowest common denominator, but the highest possible level of consideration and action that is best for all, and not merely a sad compromise that leaves everyone involved lacking. We need now more than ever, foresight, progressiveness and intelligence in a modern age of rapidly changing environments. We are experience rapid change now faster than ever before and it is only going to increase in speed. We had better get our act together quickly. Otherwise, we won't have any kind of chance in saving either our planet, or ourselves.]

Legitimate Rape? Forcible Rape? Really? How did we get here?

How DID we get here?

Where did people like Paul Ryan and worse, Todd Akin come from? How did this mindset develop after the many hard fought civil rights marches for freedom, women's rights, and intelligent thought to fight racism, sexism, and plan old fashioned stupidity?

Well, maybe it goes something like this....

And on the 7th day God said:

"I will give Man Critical Thought! Maybe. Yes? Oh, God... I'm tired. And now I'm talking to myself, I need a rest. So... CT, no CT? CT? No CT? Hmmm... Well, how about I just don't give it to everybody? So, all those who call themselves conservatives and especially so, in My Name, will not get Critical Thought, as after all don't you know? You won't know will you, and you won't need it. You will simply need to do My Will, what I've told you to do."

But little did God know that people would misinterpret Him and get information about him from stupid people. Nor did he know about comic books that would one day appear many tens of thousands of years in the future and how that would one day subvert the entire history of the Human race for a certain small, but overly vocal minority who would push the agenda they believed God set forth for them while having no idea that it was really just a joke purpetrated by a squirly little nerdy man in a basement in south Milwalkee who had a peculliar sense of humor and no idea what harm he could do by publishing a set of comic books indicating such "hilarious" things as the world is only 6,000 years old and abortion is a sin and maybe blowing up other people in abortion clinics and planned parenthood clinics isn't such a bad idea after all. He just assumed everyone would see it was dark humor and after all the women's rights marches he had marched in, and civil rights marches he had been in, that it was a foregone conclusion that no one anywhere would ever consider repealing these hard won things....

And so it was. And so it is.