Obama planning executive measures on gun control

I'll be honest, if you love your guns, this is not going to be your fave post.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obama-guns-idUSKBN0UF1XS20160101

President Barack Obama, frustrated by Congress' inaction on gun control, will meet with U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Monday to discuss ways of reducing gun violence unilaterally through measures that do not require congressional approval.

For me, it's about fucking time! The US has the most horrendous record on gun violence that's more like that in a 3rd world country than the "leader of the free world" they think they are.

It's well past time to put controls in place. This doesn't have any impact on your precious amendment, as you are not a 'well regulated' militia. That's the problem, there IS no bloody regulation.

Gun control does not mean abolishing guns, it just means that there are less guns available, and it's harder to obtain them. It means people on the 'no fly' list as suspected terrorists can't get guns - a move which the NRA blocked recently as it would infringe on their rights. It means RESPONSIBLE gun use, with proper storage and none of this bullshit keeping it in your bedside drawer for any thief or unbalanced offspring to take. It means not having assault weapons, which are only of use to the military while on deployment, and nutjobs looking to shoot up a school!

If you're a farmer, or have a property, or hunt, then you have a reason to own hunting weapons. I can see no actual need for any city dweller to own a handgun. In most cases where they are used as 'protection', it backfires on the possessor of the weapon, or gets innocent bystanders killed.

If you want to keep your guns, keep them safe. Use a gun safe. Store ammunition responsibly. make it impossible for any interloper to take your guns. Maybe then I'll have some sympathy with you. But bleating about your precious amendment while kids are getting shot at in job lots just makes me SICK.

Generation Why?

There's a lot being said about Generation Y, about why they are called that.

Y should I get a job?
Y should I leave home and get my own place?
Y should I get a car when I can borrow yours?

Thing is, the world is a lot different to Gen X times and before. I'm Gen X. When I left school in the late 80's I could walk out of a job on Friday and be in work somewhere else on Monday. People could afford to get on the housing ladder in their 20's. Petrol and insurance was cheaper, and wages more readily reflected the cost of living.

Y don't you get a job? 

$50k in debt on a Uni degree and all the employers want 2 years experience minimum for anything worthwhile and unskilled work still has 100+ people applying for every position. They are between Scylla and Charybdis whatever they choose.

Y don't you leave home and get your own place? 

With the gradual drawdown of the buying power of wages over the last 20 or so years, most Gen Y's are struggling to even get a room in a shared house, let alone get their own place. Utilities are way up, rents are obscene, and the only thing worse than the rents are the house prices!

Y don't you get a car?

Buying, insuring, and running a car has never been more expensive. Driving lessons are a wistful dream to someone who's struggling to buy more than ramen again this week. Public transport costs just keep getting higher as well.

Don't judge people by a standard that no longer exists. This isn't the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, etc.. It's 2015. Things are quite different from how they were when we grew up. If you have to judge, at least try to base it on current conditions, not how it was when you left school.

An open letter to the Lib Dems in the UK

To the Liberal Democrats​ party in the UK, I would like to say this:

The results of this election, at least as far as the Lib Dems go, were clear to me all the way back to the last election. You were the party with integrity, the party we were hoping would give us something new in politics in the UK. You were the only hope we had of breaking the deadlock of the 2-party system.

You chose, with the seats you gained, to enter into coalition with the Conservatives. You promised us you would be the brake on their ambitions, you promised us you would ensure their policies were fair and that the policies we had voted for as Lib Dem supporters would be a part of the coalition package.

You lied.

Your integrity was the one thing that you could never have bought, but you traded it for a single term of power - power with which you did NOTHING. You did not push through the proposals and promises we had voted for. You were not the brake on the Tory wagon. You allowed them to rape our country and shatter our economy. It's no surprise that the richest in the UK have doubled their income while those at the bottom have faced the longest period of falling income in decades, is it?

You were the ones who could have changed that. You chose instead to grub in the trough with the rest of the fat cats.

Never. Again.

Of all the UK parties, you are now ranked 4th from bottom on my list, above only the Tories, UKIP and BNP. Try not to slip any further.

A former Lib Dem voter.

What is Satire, what is misrepresentation?

I'm seeing more and more sites on the net now that are producing stories very close to the mark - stories that take big issues and write about them in ways which damage, hurt, or misrepresent, what the story is about.

We've probably all seen The Onion, one of the most popular satire sites on the net. They are an example of how to do it right. They take big issues and parody them, they have fun at their expense, they satirise them. When you read one of their articles it's pretty easy to realise that you're not reading an actual, factual, news page. They highlight the big issues and bring them to your attention in a way that only the most obtuse could mistake for news.

Then you get others, like The Stately Harold. This site does not mention it is a satire site. It tries its best to look like a real news site. There is almost nothing in the 'About' except the letter from the 'editor' claiming dyslexia and deliberately misspelt. There is nothing on the 'Contact' page but a 'write your message here' box - no details of the company, no address either postal or email, no phone number, nothing.

Then you go to some of their stories, such as the recent one about ANZAC Day. They headline it with a picture showing a typical ANZAC scene with medallion on the left and a young girls photo on the right. She is introduced as the '20yo feminist writer, Cassidy Boon'. The article is purporting to be this womans feminist rant against ANZAC Day and how sexist it is. Nothing in the article suggests it's satire. Nothing in it is done with the intent of making you laugh, or poking fun, or parodying things. It's written just as if the young woman in the picture really did write it.

Except that the '20yo feminist writer, Cassidy Boon' is actually a profile pic stolen from a 13 year olds Twitter profile from a few years ago. Cassidy Boon does not now, and never has, existed as this 'feminist writer'. All over Australia though, there are people who are losing their shit over how this 'feminist writer' has attacked one of the most widely beloved and respected traditions of Australia. There are hate groups against her. There are people shouting about why THIS is why we should 'get rid of the Feminazis'.

This is not satire. This is deliberate misrepresentation designed to cause anger, hatred, disgust, and they have provided the picture of a SCHOOLGIRL to be the focus of that anger, hatred and disgust.

This is the same method the right-wing fascist parties are using on Facebook - use something that will get an immediate kneejerk emotional response and slant it to attack the groups they are against.

All I can say is, Check your sources. If you see something that immediately gets you angry, step back and think before posting. Is it true? Is is verifiable? Is is from an actual satire site? Is it in the major news networks? If you're still raging after those checks, then you will at least know you have good reason, and a strong argument in your favour for any doubters!

"But sugar feeds cancer cells!"

"But sugar feeds cancer cells!"

I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen this. It's based on research that has since been totally discredited but, like the anti vaxxers and their discredited sources, it just keeps getting used.

No. Glucose feeds cells. ALL cells. That means that sugars, starches and fats, all of which are broken down by the gut into glucose, feed the cells. Yes, that includes cancer cells, but increasing or decreasing the intake of refined sugar has been shown to have no effect on the growth of existing cancer cells.

It has also been shown that being on a ketogenic diet (less than 20 grams carbohydrate per day) can be harmful to people going through chemotherapy or radiation as at these times the body needs more energy and the ketogenic diet, with its reliance on fat as an energy source, can result in unintentional weight loss, autoimmune problems and lethargy.

Sugar is not the enemy. Too much sugar, yes, that is bad for you, whether you have cancer or not. A high intake of simple carbs such as refined sugar messes with insulin levels, causing the well-known sugar rush followed by the sugar crash. Excess carb intake can also lead to obesity which does have a corresponding increase in risk of cancer, although the researchers have yet to find out the exact correlation - if indeed there is one correlation and not many contributing factors.

As for the Paleo claims that we have not had simple carbs until recently in our evolutionary history, there is clear evidence of this in prehistory, and in the remaining paleo tribes today, in the form of tree saps, honey, use of sugar cane and similar plants, even the collection of sugar ants in native America. It may not have been so prevalent, but it has always been there.

So, does sugar feed cancer? Yes, in as much as it feeds all cells, no in that it makes no differentiation between cancerous and normal cells. Is sugar poison? No. Arsenic is a poison, cyanide is a poison, hemlock and deadly nightshade are poisons. Sugar is a simple carbohydrate that like any food should be taken in moderation. That is all.

https://www.oncologynutrition.org/erfc/healthy-nutrition-now/sugar-and-cancer/

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-depth/cancer-causes/art-20044714?pg=2

http://www.cancercenter.com/discussions/blog/does-sugar-feed-cancer/

BDSM. There are no shades of grey.

I'm a bit of an outsider in the BDSM scene. I make leatherwork, much of which is in demand from people in the scene, and it is a fascinating place. It is an umbrella term covering a huge number of practices from voyeurism to domination, slave/master relationships to intense pain and degradation. It is certainly not for everyone.

There is one thing that the whole BDSM community can stand behind though, and that is that all play, all scenes, all relationships, are consensual. SSC, or Safe, Sane and Consensual, is one of the terms you'll hear used. There are others, particularly for the heavier end of the scene, but mostly you'll hear SSC. What does it mean? Exactly what it says. Whatever your kink, keep it safe, sane and above all else, consensual.

No abuse. No threats. No Mr Grey.

Consent is not something of blurred lines, there are no grey areas. Either you have consent or you do not. If you have consent and the other party changes their mind for ANY reason partway through, you stop - you no longer have consent. If the party is unconscious and you have not already discussed this scenario, you do not have consent. Consent is the absolute key to BDSM relationships.

Everyone has limits, but in BDSM you can define those limits easier than in 'vanilla' life. You can, and are encouraged to, define exactly what you are comfortable with, what you are willing to discuss further before deciding whether to try it, and what you will not do. Your partner or partners know then what your desires are, and you know theirs. You all agree what is acceptable.

50 Shades is not BDSM. It is a series about a deeply disturbed individual who uses his wealth , position, threats, and the innocence of his victim, to manipulate her into doing things far outside her comfort zone. This is abuse, plain and simple.It is a man who openly admits to being mentally unbalanced forcing his will on another and using guilt to keep her from leaving. This is a stereotype of an abusive household, not a BDSM relationship. He encourages empathy and uses that to force her beyond her limits. He uses threats, both economic and physical, to keep her from leaving. He does this not with an experienced woman but a naive, inexperienced virgin. She stays partly through fear, partly through guilt and partly through thinking she can 'fix' him.

She cannot fix him. That would take a fully qualified and experienced mental health team and many years hard work on HIS part, not on hers.

Find entertainment in the book if you can. Watch the movie if it appeals to you, but do not ever make the mistake of thinking this is what BDSM is. This series is about abuse and domestic violence, sexual harassment and mental instability, not BDSM.

Same horse, same race, a new jockey won't change much

So now the Aussie PM Abbott has survived hs spill motion and said he'd start 'good government' - and what was he doing before, if that's the case? - and this week has shown nothing of the new leaf he was supposed to have turned over. More captains calls, more verbal assaults and insults at any that do not agree with him and more media frenzy over how long he can last.

The thing is, will changing the jockey alter the race?

My belief is that it will not. The LNP has been the most repressive, the most unilaterally unforgiving, the cruelest government this country has seen since the original landing by Cook.

Over 87% of frontline services that help victims of domestic violence have lost their funding completely and most still don't know what they will finally end up with. The changes to the Centrelink, Aged Pension, and Medicare systems are directly aimed at the young, the poor, the low income families and the elderly. The rich have benefited from tax breaks and superannuation benefits. Businesses, most especially mining, have seen huge amounts of public funds given to them as well as the repeal of the carbon tax. Laws have been changed to allow the state to hide more of the funding it gets from businesses and laws have been enacted which impact huge numbers of innocent bikies for the sake of a few crooked individuals.

All this from the same party, the LNP. The ministers who are being touted as possible replacements for Abbott are ministers in this same government, so they either agree with what has been done or cared too little to try and change the decisions.

In fact, it's less like changing the jockey in a horse race and more like a pit stop in Formula One. They went out with the wrong rubber on the car, they have lost ground and now want to pit early in the hope they can regain ground before the race finishes at the next election. The car is the same, the mechanics are the same, the team is the same, all they want to do is scrap the worn out tyres and put some better rubber on, but not even Bridgestone could help when the party is heading in the wrong direction!