An alright candidate

Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck

I know more times than not we usually go after a misandric politician but here's one we can give the thumbs up to. What makes Ken Buck special? Because he wouldn't prosecute a man for rape based on flimsy evidence. He said that the so-called "victim?" invited the accused,her ex-boyfriend, up to her place and in an effort to get back at him she accused him of rape. Buck saw through this and didn't prosecute when he was the DA. This as you can imagine has many feminists stirred up and bitching royally about this. Why are they so upset? Because someone actually applied the law fairly and saw what he describes as "buyer's remorse" coming from the "victim?". I guess feminists go ape shit when someone safeguards a man's rights, knows a con job when he sees one and doesn't do the feminazis bidding. For that Ken Buck seems like a better candidate. So if you live in Buck's district and you're an MRA you may want to remember Ken Buck this election day.

N.J. Govenor Chris Christie: the white knight

Gov. Chris Christie versus a voter

Chris Christie smacks down heckler
By Rachel Rose Hartman
Fri Sep 24, 9:34 am ET

More Republican candidates may be soon angling to have New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in their corner. Christie's "tough guy" persona was on full display in a showdown with a heckler at a Wednesday campaign event in California for GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, CNN reports -- and in the aftermath of the encounter, Christie's Internet renown has soared, with Yahoo! searches for the conservative icon nearly doubling over the past 24 hours.

Whitman was speaking onstage when a man in the audience began to yell, complaining about her refusal to take questions at the event. "What are you hiding? You're looking like Arnold [Schwarzenegger] in a dress," heckler Ed Buck shouted at Whitman.

Christie is known for his blunt, confrontational demeanor -- his past heated encounters have included run-ins with teachers, unions and journalists. So as the heckler was berating Whitman, the New Jersey governor approached him.

"You want to yell? Yell at me, but don't give her a hard time," Christie said into his microphone. But Christie didn't stop there: "It's people who raise their voices and yell and scream like you that are dividing this country," he said. "We're here to bring this country together, not divide it." The audience roared with cheers and applause.

Watch the video:


Source:click here

This helps explain why New Jersey is as fucked up as people say it is.

My liberation

In this day and time we see women throwing off the restrictions of the past while making sure men are stuck in theirs. Fuck that hypocrisy. Guess what,bitches I want to be freed from the shackles of chivalry. I don't want to be your unpaid bodyguard or servant anymore. Why should any man in this day and age? What do I or any other man have to gain? I want to be free;liberated. I don't want to be shamed for not giving it to your demands. If men have to be women's unpaid bodyguards or servants then women have to give us sex whenever we want it to any male requesting it without any charge of any kind. If she's asking him for something shouldn't he get something in return. I believe so. I want to see this new male attitude in society being advertised in the media and being practiced by society. Why should we be the ones to die on battle fields while women get easy work? What kind of fucking equality is that? Not real equality that's for sure.

Female sports

I got an email about a new article from Christina Hoff Sommers talking about female sports and the lack of coverage of it and it is very informative. Read on:

Take Back the Sports Page?
By Christina Hoff Sommers
Thursday, August 12, 2010

The political wing of the women’s sports movement is in trouble. These activists are accustomed to challenging timid bureaucrats and university administrators. But in taking on TV sports coverage, they are challenging the market itself.

Since 1989, the Center for Feminist Research at the University of Southern California (USC) has published a study of “Gender in Televised Sports” every five years. The latest report has just been released and the Women’s Victim Industrial Complex is reeling from the findings. “Shocking,” says the Women’s Sports Foundation.

According to the report, coverage of women’s professional teams has “nearly evaporated” and a “deepening silence” has enveloped women’s professional soccer, basketball, golf, field hockey, and softball. “Nothing short of stunning” says author Michael Messner, a feminist sociologist at USC. “This is simply intolerable.”

Diana Nyad, sports show host for National Public Radio affiliate KCRW and a celebrated distance swimming champion, was moved to write a special introduction to the latest report: “Women’s athletic skill levels have risen astronomically over the past twenty years ... It is time for television news and highlights shows to keep pace with this revolution.” She describes the neglect of women’s sports as “unfathomable and unacceptable.”

The Women’s United Soccer Association and the American Basketball League were supposed to appeal to the same passionate demographic: both folded after a few seasons.But the heavy focus of news and highlights shows on men’s sports is not only fathomable but obvious—that is where the fans are. And that is where advertisers expect to find customers for “male” products such as beer, razors, and cars. Men’s professional sports are a fascination (obsession is more like it) to many millions of men, because they offer extreme competition, performance, and heroics. Women’s professional sports, however skilled and admirable, cannot compare in Promethean drama.

Even women prefer watching male teams. Few women follow the sports pages and ESPN, but many enjoy attending live games—featuring male athletes. According to Sports Business Daily, 31 percent of the NFL’s “avid fans” are women.

Nyad and the USC study authors demand that television cover women’s sports “fairly and equitably,” but the study never once mentions the word “attendance.” Shouldn’t fan interest in the games drive the media stories? Economist Mark Perry, my colleague at the American Enterprise Institute, looked at the numbers. For the 2009 season, the NBA got 92.3 percent of the total attendance for pro basketball (NBA plus WNBA), while the WNBA got only 7.7 percent of the total attendance (see chart below). But according to the USC study, the WNBA received 22.2 percent of the coverage. Perry’s conclusion: “So women’s pro basketball got a hugely disproportionate share of media coverage. Total attendance at NBA games was 12 times greater than attendance at the WNBA games, but media coverage was only 3.5 times greater for men than for women.”

‘Women’s pro basketball got a hugely disproportionate share of media coverage.’Nyad and the USC researchers claim that current media neglects and under-serves a large audience of female fans. Where are these fans? Sports Illustrated for Women, first published in 2000, was marketed to females between the ages of 18 and 34 with a “passion for sports.” The magazine lasted less than two years. The Women’s United Soccer Association and the American Basketball League were supposed to appeal to this same passionate demographic: both folded after a few seasons. The WNBA loses money every year, but survives because of the largesse and determination of NBA Commissioner David Stern—whom ESPN’s “Sports Guy” Bill Simmons refers to as the WNBA’s “Sugar Daddy.” (According to Slate, the NBA owns and subsidizes 6 of the 13 WNBA franchises, and the WNBA teams lose between $1.5 million and $2 million per year.)



The latest USC report is silent about the near-total absence of sports in women’s media. The limited coverage consists mainly of human-interest stories about women athletes. By the logic of the USC authors, shows such as “The View” and “Oprah” should be offering sports highlights and scrolling tickers with scores. Magazines such as Vogue, Allure, Cosmopolitan, and Better Homes and Gardens should be bursting with stories about draft picks, photographs of awesome plays, and up-to-date information about fantasy teams and brackets.

The WNBA teams lose between $1.5 million and $2 million per year.The USC study praises one alleged positive development: "In 2004, we noted a decline in disrespectful or insulting treatment of women, compared with previous years. In 2009, we saw even less of this sort of sexist treatment of women.” On this point, the researchers have not been doing their homework. The women’s sports hype-machine, with its relentless ads, insipid slogans (“We Got Next” and “Expect Great”), and grating theme songs—not to mention the relentless Title IX war on college men’s teams—has created a men’s resistance movement that is now brazenly out in the open. And its weapon is humor—sexist, “disrespectful,” and often funny. The last decade, coinciding with the life span of the WNBA, has seen an avalanche of politically incorrect jokes and parody articles at the expense of female sports. Here are a few examples:

• TiVo refusing to record women’s basketball. — Sportspickle.com

• Female Athletes Making Great Strides In Attractiveness. — The Onion

• The odds a man will attend a WNBA game this year are 1 in 168.2. And the odds he'll do so willingly are 1 in no freaking way. — Steve Hofstetter, National Lampoon "Sports Minute"

• Breast Cancer Launches WNBA Awareness Month. — The Onion

• WNBA Franchise Moving to Tulsa Sounds About Right. — The Onion

• New "Girls Gone Wild" DVD to Feature WNBA's Sexiest Hard Fouls. — Sportspickle.com

• Flat-Chested Sorenstam only a perky set of C cups away from Superstardom — Sportspickle.com

• “The mere concept of the WNBA is inherently flawed, like someone opening an inferior pizza place right next to the best pizza place in town, then using female chefs as a marketing hook. Who cares? It's still subpar pizza, right?” — Bill Simmons, ESPN’s “Sports Guy.”

Oh wait, the last one’s not a joke. It is the plain truth. And it points to a big problem for the political wing of the women’s sports movement. These activists are accustomed to challenging juicy institutional targets—such as timid university administrators and government bureaucrats. But in taking on TV sports coverage, they are challenging the market itself—the enthusiastic preferences of vast numbers of Americans in a central pursuit of their daily lives. It is a game the sports feminists will lose.

Source:click here

Medical experiments

A Maryland medical group has started treating autistic children in South Florida with shots of a drug used for chemical castration, a therapy widely panned by mainstream experts.

The group gives children the cancer drug Lupron to stop their bodies from making testosterone, saying the drug helps expel toxic mercury and quells aggressive or sexually explicit behavior by kids with excessive levels of the male hormone.

A Boca Raton mother who just put her 18-year-old son on the drug said it seems to help.

But numerous physicians, researchers and therapists insist there's no proof mercury causes autism, that Lupron removes mercury or that autistic kids have excessive testosterone. What's more, the drug carries a risk of bone damage, stunted growth and heart trouble, and can render children impotent.

These experts contend that Lupron, costing about $5,000 a month but seldom covered by insurance, is one of many treatments that cash in on the desperation of parents trying to cope with an incurable condition for which medicine has few good answers outside of painstaking behavioral therapy.

"Not only is there no scientific backing whatsoever for Lupron treatments, there are several major concerns for the children's health," said neurologist BethAnn McLaughlin, an adviser to the Dan Marino Foundation autism group in Weston and the mother of two developmentally disabled children.

"These people are preying on the fears of parents. We cannot be using these children who are so vulnerable as guinea pigs in a medical experiment."

Untested autism treatments have flourished while science struggles to explain the disorder, which disrupts the abilities to speak, concentrate, connect with people and control impulses.

For unknown reasons, autism has been on the rise for the past few decades, with an estimated 675,000 children – about one in 100 – now having mild to severe symptoms. Scientists believe it stems from genetic defects that may only cause problems after an environmental trigger.

A vocal subset of parents and activists blame vaccines, especially those with the mercury-based preservative thimerosal, which has been banned from virtually all as a precaution. Numerous studies have found no connection between autism and vaccines or thimerosal.

Lupron therapy grew from the mercury camp. Baltimore researcher Dr. Mark Geier started using the drug in 2005 on the theory – disputed by mainsteam doctors – that testosterone binds mercury in the body and that many autistic kids have high levels of the hormone.

Lupron halts production of the female hormone estrogen, which the body uses to make testosterone. The drug mainly is used to treat endometrial cancer in women and prostate cancer in men, and sometimes to chemically castrate sex offenders.

Geier's promotional materials said he has treated hundreds of children with Lupron and has launched nine ASD Centers in eight states. In his latest, he teams with Dr. David Clayman, a Boca Raton radiologist who has an autistic teen son and is opening an ASD office beside his MRI center in Tamarac.

Clayman said he would not comment until he treats patients with Lupron therapy for a year. Geier could not be reached for comment despite several attempts by phone. He told one parent he did not plan to comment for this story.

The medical group began recruiting Florida patients in March when Geier spoke at a Fort Lauderdale conference for parents of children with autism.

Teresa Badillo was at the meeting. Her family has searched in vain for a way to help their autistic son, Marco, 18. Badillo said he has little speech or interaction with others, but is doing OK in high school. Lately, though, Marco has grown more aggressive, physical and rebellious.

"We were basically under seige in this house," Badillo said. "This kind of behavior is more scary at 18 [than] at 3. I had choices to make. If you see there is another option out there that can help your child, most parents are going to choose that option."

Also, Marco had discovered sex and sometimes touched himself inappropriately in public, a common problem among those with autism.

"The kids don't understand. They have impulses. It's what happens when you have high testosterone," Badillo said.

The family put Marco on Lupron about six weeks ago. He gets two injections a month at a dosage larger than used on adult cancer patients, plus a small daily shot.

"The therapy immediately stopped the aggression," Badillo said. "This is not castrating a kid. It's just lowering the [testosterone] levels enough to normal range so the kid is not aggressive."

She said Geier plans to continue the Lupron for several months to see if it helps Marco's other autistic behavior. She said she knows the drug has risks but believes Lupron critics do not fully grasp the hard realities of life with an autistic child.

Lupron critics said autism parents may not understand the dangers.

The drug is not approved for children – except a rare few with premature puberty – because it can impair bone development crucial to growth, said Dr. Gary Berkovitz, chief of pediatric endocrinology at the University of Miami medical school.

It's not recommended for people with heart disease, kidney disease, asthma, depression or seizures because it can worsen those conditions. Autistic children are prone to seizures.

"It has not been tested so there's no way to know if it has adverse effects in the long run," Berkovitz said.

Said neurologist McLaughlin: "We have very significant concerns about irreversible damage to sexual function and the brain and sex organs of these children."

In addition, the Food and Drug Administration is investigating complaints that Lupron causes diabetes in adults.

Geier published a 2006 study contending that 11 autistic children taking Lupron did better on tests of awareness, sociability and behavior. He has since issued other studies finding that mercury leads to excess testosterone and that autistic children have excessive levels of the hormone.

Other doctors said Geier's studies were small, were not scientifically sound and were published in journals that do not follow the standard practice of having experts review the methods.

The area's largest autism treatment center jointly run by the University of Miami and Nova Southeastern University, as well as another at Florida Atlantic University, frown on Lupron and other untested therapies, officials at the centers said.

Dr. Judith Aronson-Ramos, a developmental pediatrician in Coconut Creek, said practitioners promoting untested alternative treatments often appeal to parents by portraying themselves as persecuted rebels.

"It's always just 'The medical establishment is against us,'" Aronson-Ramos said.

Two doctors said Lupron may be gaining traction, because several families have asked them to test their children's testosterone levels.

"Parents get desperate," said Debbie Chanan, an autism program coordinator at Florida Atlantic University. "Parents will spend all their money."

"Your first instinct as a parent is to try to fix things for your child," said Carol Nigro, mother of an autistic son and a coordinator at the Dan Marino Center in Weston. "Autism doesn't have a fix."

McLaughlin said parents should stick with slow and difficult but proven therapies. Teens struggling with sex can benefit from counseling, rewards for positive behavior, jobs or activities to keep them focused and, if needed, drugs to treat anxiety or sleep issues, she said.

"What we know works is a rough course," she said. "Yes, we can do better. But what we don't want is for families to lose faith in science and go off with people who … are violating the first rule of being a doctor, which is 'first do no harm.'"


Source:click here

First denial of rights to a specific group then draconian laws that target that group then using that group as guinea pigs for medical experimentations. Does anyone else see a pattern here?

female stalkers 2

I got another email about the female stalkers. It is very telling because of eletters to the comments section stating how it can be done and I don't put anything past feminists. So here it is:

Many of you may have read my original e-mail about my experience living with a radical feminist and subsequently being harassed by radical feminist stalkers. In that e-mail, I mentioned that she was in A.A., which she originally referred to as a "women's group". I suspected that group also served as cover for psychotic radical feminists. The exchange reminded me of another aspect of my situation that I forgot to mention in my original e-mail. The psycho I lived with also attended Yoga regularly. I mentioned that she was on several different psychotic drugs plus Chantax. Her visits to her psychiatrist were merely what she called "med checks". In her exact words, she would be there for about 20 minutes, and the "doctor" would "renew her prescription, tell her she needed more Yoga, and send her on her way".

My point is, while I suspected the A.A. group, I suspected the Yoga group even more and did a Google search and found one site that briefly mentioned a relationship between feminist-stalkers and Yoga. It was neither one of the many in which women talk about being so addicted to Yoga that they "stalk" the studio, nor one about guys' concerns about being suspected of being a stalker if they go to Yoga class since they are largely dominated by women. It clearly indicated a connection between feminists-stalkers and Yoga. It was the only one I found and I either forgot to bookmark it, or I just can't find it among all of my bookmarks on the subject, and I haven't been able to find the site through a search again. I really had to go through a lot of word combinations to find it, i.e., "stalkers", or "stalking", plus, "feminist" or "radical feminist" plus a lot more. I can't remember what combo got the hit.

So, the upshot is that I am convinced that both women's A.A. groups and Yoga classes, both of which the woman in my situation attended weekly, commonly serve as cover groups for psychotic radical feminists who are bent on the destruction of men and manhood, particularly independent-minded men who maintain a certain level of self-esteem that is usually destroyed by marriage.

In addition, I've heard in passing and seen in television fiction several scenarios in which women attempt to cajole men into joining Yoga. It's difficult for me not to believe at this point that their goal is to destroy the masculinity of the men who attend.

Please, spread these messages to everyone you know.

J



Best regards,
J. Paul

War crimes

General James Mattis:war criminal

Feminist Marine Gets His Kicks Killing Male Chauvinists in Afghanistan
Thursday, July 22, 2010
By Fred Reed

On Anti-War.com, I find a loutish American general, James Mattis, martial feminist, talking about the fun he has killing Afghans. Yes, fun, wheeee-oooo! and ooo-rah! too. He says, “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil,” adding “guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyways. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.” What must he do with prisoners?

A joyous killer, possibly orgasmic. Note mandatory flagly background, pickle suit, and stupid colorful gewgaws so he looks like a goddam stamp collecton. Stern gaze is necessary to become a general. From defending the Constitution to the pleasure of watching Afghans die: The military has come a long way.

I’ll guess he fell just shy of graduating from third grade. He sure ain’t much of a general, no ways, I reckon. Just the fellow I want representing me in the world.

Does General Dworkin-Mattis speak of manhood? Odd, since his military is being badly outfought by the unmanly Afghans that are fun to kill. By the Pentagon’s figures the US military outnumbers the resistance several to one. The US has complete control of the air, enjoying F16s, helicopter gun-ships, transport choppers, and Predator drones, as well as body armor, night-vision gear, heavy weaponry, medevac, hospitals, good food, and PXs. The Afghans have only AKs, RPGs, C4, and balls. Yet they are winning, or at least holding their own. How glorous.

Man for man, weapon for weapon, the Taliban are clearly superior. They take far heavier casualties, but keep on fighting. Their politics are not mine, but they are formidable on the ground. If I were General Dworkin, I’d change my name and go into hiding. Maybe he could wear a veil.

Perhaps the US should recognize that it has a second-rate military at phenomenal cost—an enormous, largely useless national codpiece. It is embarrassing. The Pentagon’s preferred enemies are lightly armed, poorly equipped peasants, which makes for a long war and thus hundreds of billions of dollars in juicy contracts for military industries. Yet the greatest military in history (ask it) gets run out of Southeast Asia, blown up and run out of Lebanon, shot down and run out of Somalia, with Afghanistan a disaster in progress and Iraq claimed as an American victory rather than Shiite. Do the aircraft carriers intimidate North Korea? No. Iran? No. China? No. For this, a trillion dollars a year?

The reasons for the mediocrity are clear enough. First, the Pentagon has become a contracting agency for buying gorgeous and elaborate arms of little relevance to the wars the US fights. (If the Martians attack, we’ll be ready.)

Second, the US is no longer a nation of hardy country boys who grow up shooting and loading hay bales into pick-ups for spare change. (For the uninitiated, hay bales are heavy.) I often see headlines such as “More than two-thirds of Texas schoolchildren flunked the state’s physical fitness test this year…” If Texas has gone all soft and rubbery, you can forget about Massassachusetts. The American pool of hardy, manipulable kids without too much schoolin’ isn’t what it was. The lack of troops of course pushes the Pentagon toward more pricey gadgetry and greater imbalance.

Now, it is regarded as treasonous to question that Our Boys are the best trained, best armed, toughest troops in the world, and I’ll probably get punched out in bars for pointing out the awful truth. Let’s imagine an experiment. We take Killing-is-Fun General Mattis-Abzug, and a thousand GIs, and a thousand Taliban, and let them fight it out in any patch of wretched barren mountains of your choosing. On equal terms. What you think? Same weapons.

Good idea, General? You eat what they eat, wear what they wear. They have no medical care, and neither do you. If they get lung-shot and die the hard way, you do too. It will come down to guts and motivation.

Motivation: It counts, general. I believe it was Bedford Forrest who said of some of his troops, “Them cane-brake boys jest plain likes to fight.” I guess there must be just a whole lot of cane in Afghanistan. The Taliban will go to any length to cut your freaking throat because you have been killing their wives and children, fathers and brothers, and you will fight for… for… well. Uh. Big oil, AIPAC, Ann Coulter. Or a promotion for General Mathis-Abzug. Anybody want to put odds on the outcome?

Or what if they had the air power, the gun ships…?

And General, killing them might be a tad less fun when you couldn’t do it from the safety of a gunship. Just a thought, General.

A digression here. Bear with me. It’s just that General Mattis-Steinem makes killing sound like so much fun. And I guess it is, for some. You’ve seen the YouTube video of GIs machine-gunning people walking around a city street from a helicopter gunship. A hoot. But—can I offer a second opinion?

I went off to Viet Nam because I was young and dumb and adventurous and they told me that I was fighting for Apple Pie, and Mom, and White Christian Motherhood (which I spent my high-school days dreading, but never mind). Actually I was just another sucker from the small-town South. The Pentagon depends, utterly, on small-town suckers. They are brave, trainable, not real thoughtful.

Funny how things look if you think about them. Patriots talk about the tragic deaths of young Americans in Afghanistan. Well, ok. Other things being equal, young guys getting shot to death in a pointless war is not a swell idea. I’m against it. In fact, the more you see of it, and I’ve seen a lot, the worse an idea it seems. Of course, a logician might point out that if you didn’t send them to Afghanistan, they wouldn’t die there—would they?

The dead are not the only casualties. Go to a Veterans Hospital, and watch the left-overs come in. You might be surprised how much fun they didn’t think it was. Or what they think of General Mattis-Firmstare. You might be very surprised.

But tell me: why is a GI’s life, mine or anyone else’s, worth more than the life of an Afghan child of three? Especially if you pretend to be a Christian, tell me. (I love this part. Military Christians are wonderfully funny frauds.)

A pretty good rule of thumb is that the attacking army is in the wrong, which would have made a Vietnamese kid’s life worth more than mine. I’ll buy that, though I’m happy it didn’t work out that way. But the attacking countries always believe that Their Boys are sacred.

When the Japanese attacked Pearl, they figured a Japanese pilot’s life was worth more than that of an American sailor. The Germans thought the same, mutatis mutandis, when the Wehrmacht went into Poland, as of course so do Americans when they invade country after country. But why is the aggressor’s life sacred, prithee? If I leap out of a dark alley and attack your daughter with a butcher knife, is my life worth more than hers?

But it is just so much fun to kill Afghans. Excuse me, I need to puke.


Source:click here