Mothers, Tall Girls and Women's Rights

So it's Mother's Day and a few items are worth mentioning. The first is the election of Iran to the UN Commission on the Status of Women.  I know, you're thinking that Iran still has one foot still in the 8th century.  And you would be right.  However, they also have a few women elected to office which is rare for any Muslim country.  In fact they have a number of non-Muslamic rules that make it seem progressive.  Like Iraq under Hussein, Iran pushes education for all and has some positive notions. But still, any country that is ruled by a religious figure (of any denomination) is not a serious canditate to represent women at the UN.  Imagine the Vatican in a similar position.  Sure there's a strong push for equality, but ultimately it's a male dominated religion. So how does Iran get the ok to be part of the UN Status of Women?  Would you believe that it is with the help of Canada and the US?  Neither country made any objections.  Huh?  Well, they gave Iran a pass because it agreed to remove itself from the Human Rights Council. So ultimately, they chose to appease Iran by letting it on a slightly less important council.  I hate politics. CNSNews.com (Apr 30, 2010) - Silence From U.S. and Its Allies Allowed Iran to Get Seat on U.N. Women’s Rights Body The United States and 12 other Western democracies kept silent this week as Iran was nominated for membership of the United Nations’ Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), thus enabling Iran to get the seat. In the four-year period beginning in 2011, Iran will help set U.N. policy on gender equality and the advancement of women. ... Read the full story here... The second article is from the (Muslim) country of Somalia where the local tribesmen discuss the value of tall girls vs short girls.  The value of their daughters comes down to how many head of cattle they are worth.  Just a reminder of how far we have to go in certain parts of the world. Los Angeles Times (May 4, 2010) - Tall girls, more cattle ... "Tall girls fetch more cattle because their daughters will quickly grow and can be married off to fetch even more cattle," said the chief, shooing a stubborn fly. "A tall girl can command 60 to 100 cattle from a suitor. A short girl may get 20 head, and, sometimes, short girls overstay their welcome in the father's home and end up fetching only five cattle. By then, a tall girl has already borne five children." ... "Things get competitive for a tall girl," said the chief. "Once she reaches 12 years of age, men come to the father and promise many cattle. Of course, a suitor with no cattle will never marry. Our laws forbid that. He is single for life. If he sleeps with someone's daughter or gets her pregnant, he'll be killed." What do tall women think about marriage and cattle? The chief bit his lip, bafflement drifting across his face. "Women have no say," he said. ... Read the full story here... Bil An Outraged Dad

Worse Than PETA

You've got to go pretty far to be nuttier than PETA. Dr Brett Mills at East Anglia University has come out and said that all those animal life documentaries do not take into consideration the right to privacy of the animals. That's right. Maybe the animals don't WANT to appear on TV. I guess he's including the family dog and goldfish in there. He hasn't gone so far as to suggest a lawyer to represent the animals, but maybe that's next on the agenda. East Anglia. That name sounds familiar. Oh yes, that's the university that's connected to the ClimateGate emails. And already a number of the professors have had their studies and comments debunked, bringing global warming into doubt. I think it's time to have a serious look at anything coming out of this university. And for the record, PETA has officially said that photographing animals is okay with them Telegraph, UK (Apr 29, 2010) - Wildlife documentaries invade animal privacy rights, claims leading academic Dr Brett Mills believes programmes such as the BBC's Nature's Great Events, narrated by Sir David Attenborough, are "unethical" for capturing animals' most intimate secrets on camera without their consent. The senior lecturer at the University of East Anglia said it was wrong for broadcasters to treat all creatures as "fair game" and to fail to consider their right to privacy before recording. Animals just like humans have a basic right not to have their most intimate moments – such as mating, giving birth and dying – broadcast to an audience of millions, he said. ... Read the full story here... Bil An Outraged Dad

The Autism Link

As you read this story, I want you to imagine the sound of me hitting my head against the wall. The EPA has confirmed that 1988 was one of the turning points in the rise of autism in the US. And for 22 years, no one has been able to pinpoint the cause. Vaccinations and Autism Most parents point to vaccinations and possible mercury or something that triggers the autism. Lots of parents have stories about how there child changed just AFTER getting their vaccination. Study after study has been done pooh-poohing parents' concerns. The vaccine is safe, they said. And yet there is a huge anti-vaccination movement. But now the EPA admits that that's one of the dates when they changed how the common vaccines were being produced. They started adding "cells derived from the tissue of aborted babies". What a loaded statement! Lots of ammo for the Pro-Life side. But wait, that's not the point that was always being denied. They ARE using cells from the tissue of aborted babies. No, they just denied that there was any connection between the news process and autism. The obvious question is, Did you really have to use tissue from aborted babies? Lessons From a Mad Cow But here's another question. Have they not heard of Mad Cows Disease? You see there were these few cows that had the disease. But the general practice was to ground dead cows' brains into feed for other cows. Sort of a waste-not-want-not type of deal. Anyway, the disease spread because the healthy cows were eating brains from diseased cows. Duh. And that's why there is no more epidemic. They stopped the practice. Double duh. The use of aborted fetal tissue is still just a correlation, not a scientific cause and effect. But isn't that enough to stop the practice? Maybe the occasional aborted baby has autism that is somehow transmitted to other kids in the vaccine. Study After Study For 22 years this has been denied and parents have insisted. But this is all about abortion politics so it's a protected subject. As recently as March of this year, the US Institute of Medicine denied there was a link between the vaccines and autism because of mercury. That was designed to say the vaccines were safe and ally fears.  But their study didn't mention the aborted fetal tissue.  I wonder why? I'd love to know why the EPA came out with this study now. Maybe something is past the date it can be prosecuted? They will be presenting their 'new findings' in May. We'll have to wait and see LifeSiteNews.com (Apr 23, 2010) - Study Confirms Autism Boom - Correlates with Aborted Fetal DNA in Vaccines A recent study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has confirmed 1988 as a “change point” in the rise of Autism Disorder rates in the U.S. - a date that pro-life leaders say correlates with the introduction of fetal cells for use in vaccines. While the EPA study does not speculate into the cause of the jump in autism rates, and makes no mention of aborted fetal cells, the researchers point out that it “is important to determine whether a preventable exposure to an environmental factor may be associated with the increase.” According to the pro-life group Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (SCPI), which specializes in vaccine research, that “environmental factor” may well be the use of aborted fetal cells in vaccines. ... Read the full story here... Bil An Outraged Dad

Gender Bending Nuttiness

No more segregated bathrooms. No more segregated sports teams. That's what the Maine Human Rights Council has ruled. All because of some gender-confused 12-year-old boy who wants to use the girl's bathroom. You would think that something like this would get tossed out on it's ear. But no, little Johnny's complaints were given due notice and then this stupid ruling was delivered. C'mon, couldn't someone just have told Johnny to suck it up and use the boy's room? He's twelve! No doubt there's some stupid mixed up parent driving this. We don't want little Johnny's feelings to be hurt. Gimme a break. I'm going to pass on the stupidity of the unisex bathrooms. 'nuff said. But unisex sports teams don't fly at all. What you end up with is a mixed team and a women's team. You see, it's simple to start off with unisex teams, but then the women want to branch off and create their own league because the men are too rough. No kidding. And as usual, the girls can do this because they're girls. Under this type of system, do you think there's any kind of chance that the boys would be able to break off? No way. Just look at the YMCA and the YWCA. News Scotsman (Feb 26, 2010) - Maine Commission Moves to Ban Gender Specific Bathrooms, Sports Teams in Schools The Maine Human Rights Commissions taking heat over a proposal to ban schools from enforcing gender divisions in sports teams, school organizations, bathrooms and locker rooms, saying forcing a student into a particular room or group because of their biological gender amounts to discrimination. The little girls' room won't be just for little girls anymore, if the Maine Human Rights Commission has its way. The commission is taking heat over a controversial proposal to ban schools from enforcing gender divisions in sports teams, school organizations, bathrooms and locker rooms. It says forcing a student into a particular room or group because of his or her biological gender amounts to discrimination. The issue came to light last year when the commission ruled that, under the Maine Human Rights Act, a school had discriminated against a 12-year-old transgender boy by denying him access to the girls' bathroom. Now the commission aims to issue guidelines on how schools should deal with similar situations in the future. It would make Maine the first state to implement such guidelines for schools as young as preschool and nursery -- and even some private schools. ... Read the full story here... Hopefully, the Maine Human Rights Council has as much bite as the Canadian Human Rights Council. They make rulings that involve judgements or money, but they have no real teeth. Their biggest proponent is that they get lots of air time in the news. The Canadian HRC until recently had a 100% guilty rate. That's right, all you had to do was make a complaint and the Council said that your rights were being infringed. If your feelings were hurt, seek restitution from the HRC. What a joke. Meaningless and a waste of time. Bil An Outraged Dad

No More Recreational Fishing

This isn't a political blog and I really want to stay away from politics completely. But there is always so much junk coming out of government regardless who is in power or whose side you are on. I couldn't resist this story because it is making the rounds just this afternoon. ESPN is making a big splash with it because it affects the many recreational fisherman and the whole industry. No Fishing off the Dock The report hasn't come out yet stating there will be a ban, but the discussions have been closed. According to the different recreational sports fishing groups, the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force is highly influenced by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) which recently were successful in convincing Ontario to ban bear hunting. Now I'm not against hunting or fishing, but if the fish or bears are in danger, then they should be protected. But to ban ALL sports fishing? Where is the sense of that? ESPN (Mar 9, 2010) - Culled out The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters. One sign at the United We Fish rally at the Capital summed up the feelings of recreational and commercial fishermen. This announcement comes at the time when the situation supposedly still is "fluid" and the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force still hasn't issued its final report on zoning uses of these waters. ... Consequently, unless anglers speak up and convince their Congressional representatives to stop this bureaucratic freight train, it appears that the task force will issue a final report for "marine spatial planning" by late March, with President Barack Obama then issuing an Executive Order to implement its recommendations — whatever they may be. Led by NOAA's Jane Lubchenco, the task force has shown no overt dislike of recreational angling, but its indifference to the economic, social and biological value of the sport has been deafening. ... Read the full story here... This isn't really a story yet because no bill has been passed. But it sure looks like it is headed that way. The Obama administration seems to be headed in this direction because of different actions they have taken already. Expansion of the Clean Water Act In July of 2009 an expansion of the Clean Water Act was introduced that effectively gave the government control over that pond you have out back on your own farm: "Right now, the law says that the Environmental Protection Agency is in charge of all navigable water," said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., chairman of the Senate Western Caucus and an opponent of the bill. "Well, this bill removes the word 'navigable,' so for ranchers and farmers who have mud puddles, prairie potholes -- anything from snow melting on their land -- all of that water will now come under the regulation of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency," he said. The EPA's Man-Made Drought And then there was the man-made drought this summer in San Joaquin Valley, California's bread basket.  The canals to supply water to the thousands of acres have been in place for years and it is a big employer in the debt-ridden state.  But the EPA said the 3-inch delta smelt was in danger and diverted all the water to the ocean.  Farmers complained all summer but with little fanfare on the TV news.  Schwarzenegger said there was nothing he could do. The EPA priorities seemed to be very skewed. It is easy to see why the recreational sporting industry is worried. Bil An Outraged Dad

The Planet of Promiscuous Women

Here's another case of scientists with their head up there ass. It seems that there's this disease in some men that kills off the male Y-chromosome leaving only the X-chromosome. Which means that he will only produce female children. So in order to ensure the future of all humanity, women need to have sex with as many different guys as they can. You see, if she stays with one guy who has this disease, she will only have girls. So in order to ensure there will also be boys, she should spread the loving around. University of Playboy? I confirmed and no, it was NOT the University of Playboy that produced the study, it was the Universities of Exeter and Liverpool. The study does not give a time estimate for the downfall of humanity, but I think it is safe to say that you won't have to start preaching promiscuity to your daughter any time soon. I mean, we will probably have nuked ourselves or destroyed the atmosphere long before we have to worry about this. I wonder what other solutions they came up with to head off this disaster? I guess we could round up all these damaged Y-killers and shoot them. Okay, sterilizing them would probably do just as well. But since what the scientists are actually talking about a form of eugenics, why not just give a test to all pregnant woman and kill off these Y-killers in the womb, just in case some of them get away from the sterilizing police. Huh? Come on! How many women were part of this study? Or rather, how many were part of writing the conclusion? This is one of the most stupid conclusions I've heard. And I'm not talking about the moral or disease issues here. Think about it for a minute. You want women to have sex with more than one man to get a variety of genes to ensure she has sex with someone who is clean. But let's suppose the man she would have married didn't have the disease. All her children would have been Y-killer free. But now she's having sex with multiple guys and some of them are probably going to have the disease. Where is the plus side to promiscuity? What were they thinking? And who gave them money for this study? I guess the real stupidityy would be giving them any additional money. Read the whole article for yourself. News Scotsman (Feb 26, 2010) - Women who have multiple sex partners 'preserve humanity' PROMISCUOUS women who have children by different men could help prevent humanity from becoming extinct, scientists claimed yesterday. A study has shown that women who have multiple sexual partners reduce the risk of replicating a genetic quirk that means they are more likely to have only daughters. A study by the Universities of Exeter and Liverpool contends that if all women had children with just one partner, a male- destroying chromosome could be reproduced and spread until humanity eventually became 100 per cent female, precipitating its extinction. It claims that having multiple partners reduces the spread of a sex-ratio distortion (SR) chromosome that would lead to all-female offspring. The SR chromosome has the effect of killing all the "male" Y chromosomes before fertilisation. Polyandry, the practice of females having multiple partners to protect the future of the species, is common in the animal kingdom. Scientists believe that its occurrence has several benefits, including ensuring reproductive success and conferring more variation in traits to female's offspring, which would have a wider benefits for the health of a species' pack, hive or family. ... Read the full story here... Bil An Outraged Dad

The Tsunami that Wasn't

Yes, there was no tsunami. After Chile's horrible 8.8 earthquake, scientists at the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii braced everyone for a possible tsunami and recommended that the coast be cleared. And the tsunami never came. Well actually, it did produce 4-foot waves on the beach of Hawaii, which is minor. The PTWC confirmed that it was a non-event, but defended its warning based on devastating tsunamis in the past. There are 300 early warning sensors in various places around the Pacific, but they do not say what the sensors indicated, if they indicated anything. By my way of thinking, the PTWC just made itself redundant. It basically stated that it will announce tsunami warnings just in case a tsunami does appear. So if there is an earthquake in the Pacific, there will be a warning. Well listen, how about you pay me the $10 million or whatever they are getting from the government and I'll issue the tsunami warning. For every earthquake, I'll issue a warning. Heck, I'll even do it fo $5 million. This is what happens when politics and lawyers take over. No one wants to be caught with their pants down. It's cover-your-ass, just in case. What the scientifc data says is less important. I could respect this warning if they said the sensors indicated that the there might be a tsunami. I'd even be happy with them saying that the indicators show that nothing is happening, but caution should still be taken in case they are wrong. It's simple, you state the science and then give your interpretation of it. But no, lets put out evacuation warnings just in case. That's nuts. AP, Honolulu (Feb 28, 2010) - The warning was ominous, its predictions dire: Oceanographers issued a bulletin telling Hawaii and other Pacific islands that a killer wave was heading their way with terrifying force and that "urgent action should be taken to protect lives and property." But the devastating tidal surge predicted after Chile's magnitude 8.8-earthquake for areas far from the epicenter never materialized. And by Sunday, authorities had lifted the warning after waves half the predicted size tickled the shores of Hawaii and tourists once again jammed beaches and restaurants. Scientists acknowledged they overstated the threat but defended their actions, saying they took the proper steps and learned the lessons of the 2004 Indonesian tsunami that killed thousands of people who didn't get enough warning. "It's a key point to remember that we cannot end the warnings. Failure to warn is not an option for us," said Dai Lin Wang, an oceanographer at the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii. "We cannot have a situation that we thought was no problem and then it's devastating. That just cannot happen." ... Read the full story here... I'm also not limiting this to just the PTWC. Doesn't it make for great headlines when you talk about a huge tsunami headed for Hawaii. Disaster makes for great reading.  The media has it's own hand in spreading the warnings. You know, I'm thinking about it and I could probably manage to put out some decent tsunami warnings for $3 million if I try really hard. Bil An Outraged Dad