7 billion and Counting

Last Halloween we found the world's population had finally hit 7 billion people. This week, we found out Michelle Duggar is pregnant yet again. This makes #20. No, I'm not providing links to articles about it this time, it disgusts me.

Now, allow me to venture on for a little bit. See, over on the FSTDT.com forums, a thread about this got started up and people are ranting. One user, Rime, even pointed out this little sarcastic quote:

This will be a sad testament to "GOD IS THE ULTIMATE OPENER AND CLOSER OF THE WOMB!"

Now, according to all the research I didn't do, their last brat had to be delivered premature because her god fearing mother came down with a case of pre-eclampsia. What exactly is pre-eclampsia? It's basically where your body freaks the fuck out and says "Get this brat out of me or I'm killing fucking all of us!" Yes, this is one of the dangerous medical complications and also the most common. So, to Rime, I had to pop off with a reply:

Except, from what I understand, God has tried to close that fucking portal to the Realm of the Eldritch Creatures more than once now but it's our fucking human science that's keeping that Cave of the Dark Side open and pumping out the squealing spawn of the Black Horseman of the Apocalypse.

Fucking Duggars are hypocrites. If they actually believed what they preached, that dumbass woman would have told the doctors after the first complication: "Your having to give me surgery to keep me fertile and/or from dying is a sign that God wants me to stop pumping out more oxygen wasting crap factories. Tie my tubes."

Okay, I confess, I've done a little more research since then, but the basic gist stands. Now, I want to take it a little farther. Remember a while back I had some fun with math? Let's do this again because this is a wonderful argument in favor of limiting the number of children a family can have.

We'll look at the extreme example and ask: "What would happen if every one of these brats had 20 kids and kept that tradition going?" Let's keep it a short example and just say five generations. This is also an amazing example of what happens when you keep doubling numbers.

20 kids have 20 kids and they go on to have 20 kids on down the line to generation five. Want to know how many Duggars that'll make?

3,200,000. Yes. 3 million 200 thousand Duggars running around in 5 generations. Let's tack on two more generations. Ya know, for shits and giggles.

After 7 generations (lucky number, huh?) we'll have 1,280,000,000 Duggars running around.

1 BILLION 280 MILLION people from 1 fucking family. And we're already bumping up on the edge of the limits to the planet's resources.

Congratulations you selfish hypocrites. You can't survive without the charity of your church and the fame from your TV show; you've robbed your children of their childhoods because they're too busy raising the last crotch spawn you've shot across the room (and I have no illusions that by now it's less "giving birth" and more "baby's first slip-n-slide") and now you're contributing and promoting an ideal that will fuck up the planet very quickly all because you read in a book that you should "be fruitful and multiply" that was penned in a time when people were told to have 20 kids because 18 of them would die before they could walk and you're doing this because "God will decide."

You know what that passage would look like if it was written today?

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Closeth thou fucking legs, and let the earth have a medamned breather, and remember you won't get another if you fuck this one up:"

OWS, Cities and the First Amendment

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and a part of the Bill of Rights. You'll hear a lot of idiots screaming Freedom of Speech and citing the First Amendment in arguments that don't call for it and I am convinced that a lot of people can't be assed to read more than that when the Bill of Rights is taught in school. And it seems often, people think the First Amendment only covers the freedom of speech. There is more to it than just freedom of speech. It also gives you the right to print what you want without fear of government retribution. It allows you to gather in large groups to give a united voice to actions you disagree with. It allows you to demand that your government put right an injustice to yourself or to others.

These are things often forgotten but which must be remembered.

In Atlanta, GA a while back, Mayor Reed gave the Occupy Wall Street protestors until November 7th before they'd need to leave. Then he reneged on that and sent the police to clear the protestors out.

Over in Oakland, CA they ended up launching tear gas, flash/bang grenades, rubber bullets and 12-gauge beanbag rounds at the protestors. The reason sited? "Health and sanitation issues." So for those reasons, this is how they deal with it.



And the part that shows us the cops either think people are too stupid to think or that they just have more ignorance than is justified for police officers; when asked about the use of flashbangs during the protests, the was;

No, the loud noised that were heard originated from M-80 explosives thrown at Police by protesters.

Boy, people will fall for a lot; the world is flat, rabbits chew their cud, Piltdown Man shows science is wrong, Sarah Palin is qualified to be president. But when the video evidence is right in front of you and available for everyone to see?

Man, that's just fucking stupid to expect us to buy that.

Other mayors have tried to get OWS protests disbanded by saying that camping in city parks was illegal. This is where we need to remember that the Bill of Rights guarantees us the right to peacefully assemble and petition the government for a redress of our grievances.

It does not set a time limit on how long those assemblies can last.

The Revolution Will Be Trademarked!

I know I've been talking a LOT about Occupy Wall Street, and this actually makes me something of a hypocrite because I was criticizing IrregularTimes.com for getting a case of tunnel vision and only reporting on a select few things, such as Americans Elect to the exclusion of most everything else. Now here I am, reporting on little else besides Occupy Wall Street. However this post, while involving Occupy Wall Street, is less about the movement and more about people using them for a money grab. Capitalism strikes again! The revolution will not be televised! It will be trademarked!

Robert and Diane Maresca of Long Island are seeking trademark protection for the phrase “Occupy Wall Street,” with the intention of placing it on products, according to a report on The Smoking Gun website, which recently obtained a copy of the couple’s application to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Robert Maresca said the OWS slogan is “important,” and expressed interest in having the supporters of the movement get the benefit of the trademarked brand, going so far as to say it is his hope to transfer ownership of the trademark to OWS, “if it’s feasible,” CNN reported.

They know damn well that it isn't feasible. OWS doesn't have a central leadership or anything resembling a hierarchy, so there's no entity to transfer the trademark to. This is such a transparent money grab I can't even laugh about it. As reported by CNN.com;

"The goal of OWS is not to become a profitable business," said Tyler Combelic, an Occupy Wall Street spokesman. "Anything that misconstrues it as such, such as trademarking for the sake of profiting, is missing the point of protest."

This seems to be a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. And maybe this guy has all the best intentions of trying to protect OWS (doubtful, considering he wants to put it on T-shirts and bumper stickers and all sorts of shit to sell), but how can one not see the mind-boggling money grab behind this?

He's trying to profit off of people who are protesting income inequality.

Teabaggers Getting Their Lily White Panties in a Bunch

It seems now that the Teabaggers are still huffing and puffing over the Wall Street Protests. Every 'bagger from Glenn Beck to Rand Paul are swarming and eager to paint OWS as a bunch of violent, radical hippies/Commie/Nazis. And we've even got that little pinhead Eric Cantor calling the protest a "mob." I guess only the Teabaggers are allowed to protest things they view as unjust. But what I want to focus on is the vast, vast difference in how these two movements have been treated by the establishment. And there is one picture that can do that best:

Do the Commies Have a Point?

A personal saying I try to follow is; "If advice is good, its good, regardless of where it came from." This is true of quotes, as well. So to that end, I have to ask; do the damn dirty commies have a point when it comes to Occupy Wall Street and the American government's reaction to it? For clarification, I have to point to two clips, one from the Chinese state news agency Xinhua and the other from former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev.

Protests reveal US 'messy house'
Xinhua said they showed "a clear need for Washington, which habitually rushes to demand other governments to change when there are popular protests in their countries, to put its own house in order."

Gorbachev calls Wall Street protests just; Flaherty says they have a point

The Americans, he [Gorbachev] said, need to ensure that everything is right in their own country "before trying to put the house in order in other countries."

In Ottawa, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said the American protesters decrying the income gap between rich and poor have a point.

Stop and give thought to the dawn of the Arab Spring. Remember when we first started hearing about the uprisings in Iran? The USA told them to listen to the people. Same then happened with Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Libya. When the people there started taking to the streets and demanding a change to their systems, the USA was behind them every step of the way whether they wanted it or not. And now our own people are rising up, demanding change and equality and economic security so loudly and so passionately that the fires of anger we've started have spread to every state in the USA and has kindled on the other side of the Atlantic to spread through Europe...

...and the American government is turning a blind eye to the suffering and demands of it's own people.

No Still Means No Even if The Person Saying It Has A Dick

I was linked to a story that was one of those times where the blatant double-standards risked blowing a vessel in my head. I want to point at the states of Florida and Michigan scream "FUCK YOU!" but I can't really pin the blame on just those state. I also have to fault most everyone who's commented on this story in the main article.

I'm looking at you; Men-can't-be-raped troglodytes.

The story I was linked to is about a young man now 23, who was raped when he was 17 by his then 18 year old girlfriend. That alone would be bad enough, but things seemed to take a turn for the truly bizarre.

On Jan. 6, 2006, when he was still 17 and she was 18, they had sex in the back seat of a car and made a baby she named Joshua.

A paternity test confirmed Kris was the father.

Kris was not present at Joshua's birth.

He did not contribute anything — not time, not money — to Joshua's care.

Jessica never asked Kris for help.

In March 2009, Kris got a letter from the state of Michigan. Jessica had moved there and gone on welfare and Michigan wanted Kris to start paying child support.

Kris hired a lawyer. He said he shouldn't have to pay child support because he never wanted the baby.

Jessica, he said, raped him.

Stop and try to picture this for a moment or three. You're going about your business, doing your best to put that time of your life behind you, wanting little more than to forget The Night when you find a piece of mail in the box addressed to you from the government of another state. They're wanting you to pay your attacker. Wow. Honestly, I can't imagine anything more surreal than that.

Well, no...there is something more, also from the same article.

Around the country there are plenty of cases of underage boys who got a woman pregnant and then tried to avoid paying child support. The 15-year-old in California who was seduced by the 34-year-old mom next door. The 13-year-old boy in Kansas who had sex with his 17-year-old baby­sitter. The 15-year-old boy in Florida who impregnated a 20-year-old.

It baffles me that the courts would actually order minors to pay child support. I'm sure the 13-year-old's school lunch money will pay for a few bottle of apple sauce.

But that aside, let's go back to the issue at hand. Let's reverse the genders, shall we? If this was a man who was fingered as the aggressor and it was a woman who was being coerced, would we even be debating whether or not it was even rape? No, of course not. But, you see, men suffer from a mind-boggling double-standard. See, because a male has Tab A to insert into Slot B, somehow that means that only we can insert Tab A into Slot B but never, ever can Slot B be wrapped around Tab A without Tab A's permission. That's just for guys in general, but what about this kid? While the public at large may dismiss his claims, surely his parents would support him or at least give him the benefit of the doubt...right?

In February 2006, Kris said, he and Jessica sat down on the soft brown couch in the living room of his parents' home in Brooksville.

They told his parents that Jessica was pregnant.

How did this happen? his mother asked. The doctor had told them to be careful. They had agreed to refrain from sex.

Kris, his mother and his father all say that at that moment, Jessica admitted that she forced Kris to have sex against his will.

"I made him," Connie Bucher recalls her saying.

Kris' dad, Steve Bucher, was initially skeptical, but he didn't say anything.

"How does a girl rape a guy? I just couldn't see that," he said in a recent interview.

Well...hmm...you know, that's a good point dad. Let's see...how could a woman rape a teenage male? I must be a freak of nature, but I could remember back then it would seem to come up on it's own. I mean, I didn't look at those old National Geographic pictures of the Honkin' Hooter Tribe of East Africa and think "Wow, look at those cans!" in fact, I wasn't ever really attracted by those pics but I'll be damned if pinky didn't pop up anyway for a look. Surely it must be a purely voluntary thing, right? Here's let's preform an experiment;

"ARISE, PENIS!"

...huh, nothing. Odd. Let's try something else.

"GO, GO, GADGET GIGGLE STICK!"

Well I'll be damned...nothing. Okay, one more.

"PENOR! I CHOOSE YOU!"

Well shit...maybe it's not voice activated. Maybe it's touch activated. Let's see, they call it a Belly Button, maybe if I press it I can trigger the Cock Up ability...surely that's the key. Hmm...no, nothing. Well, I kinda gotta pee now. Oh, wait, what's this?

Experts say it is physically possible for a man to be raped by a woman, or, put another way, to get an erection without wanting to have sex.

"Teenagers, in particular, often have an uncontrollable genital response," says Debby Herbenick, a research scientist in sexual health at Indiana University and author of Because It Feels Good.

"Many men, for example, recall getting erections when they felt scared, angry, or even nervous — like having to go up to the chalkboard to write out a math problem," she said. "And certainly seeing someone naked could lead them to get an erection."

Well, fuck me sideways. You mean a cock coming up isn't always within the man's ability to control? Why, shocking! Scandalous! Unheard of! That time I got hard looking at the tile in the bathroom wasn't because of some involuntary bodily function that just happened to strike when I was washing my hands, it was because that tile was trying to seduce me! It's nothing but a white hexagonal hussy, I tell you! Or, maybe, just maybe, guys get hard for no fucking reason, so it's not a stretch to see a guy can get it up when someone's pawing at his crotch, even if he doesn't really want to. Still want to debate it? Let's see the fucking definition of rape:

Rape
[reyp]   Origin
rape
1    [reyp] IPA noun, verb, raped, rap·ing.
noun
1. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic . the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
verb (used with object)
6. to force to have sexual intercourse.
7. to plunder (a place); despoil.
8. to seize, take, or carry off by force.
verb (used without object)
9. to commit rape.
Origin:
1250–1300; (v.) Middle English rapen < Anglo-French raper < Latin rapere to seize, carry off by force, plunder; (noun) Middle English < Anglo-French ra ( a ) p ( e ), derivative of raper

Okay, okay, so, why didn't he fight back? Well...

What happened in the weeks after the miscarriage, and specifically on the night of Jan. 6, 2006, is where the couple's stories begin to diverge. Kris told his version at a child support hearing in Brooksville in 2010. Jessica was not present.

Kris testified he wasn't ready to be a father. And the doctor told them Jessica would now be particularly fertile, so they decided to avoid sex.

On Jan. 6, 2006, Jessica and Kris fought and she broke up with him again. He was in love, he said, and he begged her not to leave him. So she invited him to her church youth group meeting that night.

Their friends drove, but the church was closed, so they headed to Hudson Beach in Pasco County. The other couple went for a walk.

Kris and Jessica sat in the back seat. He said he was looking out the window at the smooth water when she got on top of him and said: "You know you want me."

The passenger seat in front of him was tilted back at a 45-degree angle. She used one arm to pin him down, he said, the other to unzip his pants. At the time, he said, he was 5-foot-7 and 150 pounds and she was heavier.

"At any time do you make a statement to her about you will not have sexual intercourse with her?" asked his lawyer, Kerry O'Connor, at the hearing.

"I told her, 'No, I do not want this.' And that's when she said, 'It's going to happen.' "

"And did you specifically use the word 'no'? "

"Absolutely . . . several times."

He said he tried to push Jessica off. He said he tried to pull the door handle to open the car door. He said she slammed her hand over the lock. He said it was over pretty fast.

He got out of the car, sat on the tailgate with his head in his hands. Their friends returned and he said nothing. They dropped him at his house.

Okay, sure, but why didn't he go to the cops? Well...

Did you go to the police immediately? his lawyer asked.

"No, I did not," he responded. Kris said he called the Sheriff's Office a few weeks later and spoke to a deputy. The deputy seemed to doubt him but said he would follow up. He never did and neither did Kris.

"At this point, I was a senior in high school. I didn't want to lose respect amongst friends. I was in a respected position in JROTC. I didn't want to lose that. I didn't want any kind of unwanted attention drawn to me."

Now, I feel I must provide a little background as to the effects of rape on men. I could paraphrase an articlefrom the National Center for Victims of Crime, but for fear of botching it up, I'll simply quote it;

Male Rape
Victims' Response

It is not uncommon for a male rape victim to blame himself for the rape, believing that he in some way gave permission to the rapist (Brochman, 1991). Male rape victims suffer a similar fear that female rape victims face -- that people will believe the myth that they may have enjoyed being raped. Some men may believe they were not raped or that they gave consent because they became sexually aroused, had an erection, or ejaculated during the sexual assault. These are normal, involuntary physiological reactions. It does not mean that the victim wanted to be raped or sexually assaulted, or that the survivor enjoyed the traumatic experience. Sexual arousal does not necessarily mean there was consent.

According to Groth, some assailants may try to get their victim to ejaculate because for the rapist, it symbolizes their complete sexual control over their victim's body. Since ejaculation is not always within conscious control but rather an involuntary physiological reaction, rapists frequently succeed at getting their male victims to ejaculate. As Groth and Burgess have found in their research, this aspect of the attack is extremely stressful and confusing to the victim. In misidentifying ejaculation with orgasm, the victim may be bewildered by his physiological response during the sexual assault and, therefore, may be discouraged from reporting the assault for fear his sexuality may become suspect (Groth & Burgess, 1980).

Another major concern facing male rape victims is society's belief that men should be able to protect themselves and, therefore, it is somehow their fault that they were raped. The experience of a rape may affect gay and heterosexual men differently. Most rape counselors point out that gay men have difficulties in their sexual and emotional relationships with other men and think that the assault occurred because they are gay, whereas straight men often begin to question their sexual identity and are more disturbed by the sexual aspect of the assault than the violence involved (Brochman, 1991).

To say it simply, there are many factors as to why this wasn't investigated; not the least of which was being met with disbelief by the fucking authorities. There's also the very real feeling that he not only wouldn't be taken seriously by others (as was evidenced by the sheriff and his own fucking father) but the real chance of facing ridicule from his peers, a possible own engrained belief of his own in the old Men-Can't-Be-Raped bullshit among other things. To be honest, after all this, I find it amazing that not only could he move on, but have gotten married to a woman with two kids of her own. And he's trying to support them on about $21K a year.

And now he's being hit with an order from another state to pay child support to his attacker.

Wow.

Just...wow.

Job 13:16

Why entitle this entry after a bible verse? Because the verse is apt for the topic I am about to post. It's a topic about hypocrites. Now, I'll admit readily to having hypocritical tendencies, but they're small (or so I hope) and limited mostly to opinions and philosophies. I want to talk about the kind of hypocrisy that impacts others.

I'm talking to you, American Family Association.

Before I get too far ahead of myself, allow me to give some back-story for the reason for this entry. The state of Mississippi is going to vote on an amendment to their state Bill of Rights that will redefine the term "person" to apply "from the moment of conception." The move was challenged by a citizen in court "because it failed to comply with the state's official ballot initiative process which forbids making modifications to the Bill of Rights." The court, in all it's infinite stupidity, refused to block the amendment so it'll go to a general vote.

So now I come to the main reason for this rant.

But anti-abortion groups such as the American Family Association and Pro-Life Mississippi welcomed the judge's decision.

"Today we rejoice and celebrate this hard-won victory, but tomorrow we roll up our sleeves and return to work," Stephen Crampton, the attorney for the proponents told the Associated Press. "Our opponents are discouraged, but not yet ultimately defeated. They will be back, spreading fear, confusion, and dire 'sky-is-falling' warnings about this simple Amendment, and we must be ready to rebut their baseless charges and set the record straight."

The AFA loves to scream "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!" as though they actually give a shit about the kids. They say they do, but it's clear that they don't and you can see this most glaringly from their inaction. They go around, protesting abortion clinics and trying to strip women of their constitutional right to privacy and the decision about her own medical needs, and yet they have done nothing to stop the horror children face every day in the form of Christian "teen homes." A Teen Home, in this sense, is a place well-meaning but naive parents send their kids if they're having emotional issues with a promise from this place that they'll show the kids tough love and put them on the straight and narrow. What emotional issues? It can range from drug abuse and acting out to being gay.

I want to say they're well-meaning but naive because many of these places will say right on their website that if the kid says they're being abused to ignore them because they're lying. In case you didn't know, this is a flagrant case of Poisoning the Well. "Ignore your child, he'll lie to you to go home." I have to say naive, but if they're not naive, they're malicious. Why is this? Because the teen home will suggest or offer the services of "Teen Escort Services" and no, that's not the name of a brothel. A Teen Escort Service will come to your home at around three in the morning and take your child by force across state and national lines if need be to be delivered to this place, often times with no requirement that proof be shown the kid needs this sort of treatment. On the way they'll use whatever tactics they need to in order to keep the kid from getting help from the authorities, not limited to simple intimidation.

Here's an excerpt about one such escort service from one of these teens who's crime was being gay:

On May 10th of 2007 at around 2:30 in the morning two strangers barged into my bedroom. I started screaming and crying, as in my mind I was sure that these two strangers had broken into my house and were going to abduct me, rape me, kill me, or in some way harm me. They immediately told me that if I did not shut up that they would handcuff me. I was not being in any way violent or threatening. I was reacting in fear for my life by being vocal and hoping that someone would come to help. I had no idea what was going on. I stopped screaming, still in fear for my life. They started going through my closet digging out clothes as I was only in a night gown. They still had not explained what was going on. I asked, frightened, what the wanted from me, trying to see if I could in some way appease them and get them to leave. They then explained that they were going to take me to a school. It took me a second to understand what they meant by this, as this was an extremely bizarre way to introduce a child to a new school. It then occurred to me that this was what my mother had arranged for my brother several years ago when she had him shipped away to Cross Creek. The two strangers were from Teen Escort Service, a for-profit company that transports teenagers, usually by force, to WWASP (World Wide Association of Specialty Programs) facilities.

I was extremely upset and cried the entire trip, but I obeyed all of their orders. Even though I was being cooperative they said it was their policy to put a belt around the bust of the child and hold the belt so that there would be no chance of attempting to run. It was so humiliating to be led around like a fucking dog around the airport. It was also extremely uncomfortable to have this strange older male putting his hand so close to my breast. I never understood how any of this was legal but definitely knew that none of it was ethical. To this day I feel extremely angered, disturbed, and violated by this entire experience. In addition to this they “forgot” all of the psychiatric medication I had been on at my house. It’s not that I am for psychiatric meds, but it certainly did not feel healthy or normal to go from taking this medication regularly, to just not having it and stopping with out tapering off of it.

Any parent who would use this is, I honestly believe, either willfully stupid or maliciously evil. This young woman was sent to a place called "Cross Creek" which is, sadly, one of many abusive places teens get sent to.

Shortly after I left the program I was raped. I shared what happened with my mother, who then told me, like Cross Creek did, that it was my fault, I asked for it, and that I should have known it would happen. She then proceeded to share her own twisted version of the story with my Cross Creek therapist, who shared it with my group. I was mortified and my self-esteem was completely destroyed by this utter lack of confidentiality and complete betrayal of trust.

I still can't understand why these places are allowed to exist, but an article from another website has yet another horror story.

New Beginnings describes itself as a character-building facility for "troubled teens," and what Jeannie Marie heard in church that day was that this might be a place for her daughter to heal. While jogging earlier that year, the 17-year-old (whom I'll call Roxy) had been pulled into a vehicle and assaulted by a group of men. Since then, she had begun acting up at home, as well as sneaking out and drinking. Two weeks after seeing the girls in church, Jeannie Marie and her husband left Roxy in McNamara's care with the promise that she would receive counseling twice a week and stay at New Beginnings no longer than two months. "It sounded like a discipleship program," Jeannie Marie recalls. "A safe place where a daughter can go to have time alone to find God and her direction."

Instead, Roxy found herself on the receiving end of brutal punishments. A soft-spoken young woman, blonde and blue-eyed with a bright smile, Roxy confided to me that she found it easier to discuss her ordeal with a stranger than with the people closest to her. She told me how, in her first weeks at the academy's Missouri compound—a summer-camp setup in remote La Russell, population 145—she and other girls snuck letters to their parents between the pages of hymnals in a local church they attended, along with entreaties to congregants to mail them. When another girl snitched, Roxy said, McNamara locked some girls in makeshift isolation cells, tiled closets without furniture or windows. Roxy got "the redshirt treatment": For a solid week, 10 hours a day, she had to stand facing a wall, with breaks only for worship or twice-daily bathroom trips.

She was monitored day and night by two "buddies," girls who'd been there awhile and knew the drill. They accompanied her to the shower and toilet, and introduced her to a life of communal isolation and rigid discipline. Girls were not allowed to converse except from 6 to 9 p.m. each Friday. They were not allowed contact with their families during their first month, or with anyone else for six months. By that time, Roxy said, most girls are "broken," having been told that their families have abandoned them, and that the world outside is a sinful, dangerous place where girls who leave are murdered or raped.

The girls' behavior was micromanaged down to the number of squares of toilet paper each was allowed; potential infractions ranged from making eye contact with another girl to not finishing a meal. Roxy, who suffered from urinary tract infections and menstrual complications, told me she was frequently put on redshirt, sometimes dripping blood as she stood. She was also punished with cold showers, she said, and endless sets of calisthenics after meals.

To be completely fair to this story, the girl's mother seems to have been genuinely deceived. She went nuts trying to get in touch with her daughter and was only able to do so after two months. They finally pulled her out of that place shortly after the call.

When Jeannie Marie arrived at New Beginnings, she had a tense conversation with the school counselor, who insisted that Roxy wanted to stay. She extracted her daughter nonetheless. The school's effects on Roxy were striking, Jeannie Marie told me. When they stopped at a restaurant on the way home, she robotically asked for permission to speak or to use the bathroom. After months of punitive mealtimes, including five-minute "force feeding" sessions for girls on redshirt, she wolfed her food. Back in Maryland, she showed signs of an eating disorder, self-destructive behavior, and severe depression. "I was only there for three months," Roxy said, "but because we weren't allowed to keep track of time, it felt like six."

Desperate for a way out, she'd attempted suicide—many of the girls did, she added nonchalantly, if only for the chance to get taken to a hospital and beg for outside help. "They take away any feeling that you are capable of doing anything outside the home," she said. "You have this sense of total isolation: There's no way out of it, you're there for the rest of your life."

This was after just three months in that place. We don't treat criminals, prisoners of war, or even war criminals that badly. The article goes on to say about why these places are allowed to exist;

A week or so after the disastrous conference call, Jeannie Marie traveled to La Russell with a friend who'd heard about places like New Beginnings—sketchy teen homes drawn by Missouri's laissez-faire policy toward faith-based residential facilities. Authorities in the state are barred from inspecting the homes or even keeping track of them. (New Beginnings has operated under multiple names in Florida, Mississippi, and Texas.) "It's hard to understand it, but faith-based is just taboo for regulation," says Matthew Franck, an editor at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who authored an investigative series on the state's homes in the mid-2000s. "It took decades of work to get just the most minimal standards of regulation at faith-based child-care centers," he adds. "I just knew that when certain lobbyists would stand up to say, 'We have a concern about how this affects faith-based institutions,' the bill was immediately amended—it was a very Republican legislature—or it would immediately die. That's still true." (Missouri isn't alone. In April, Montana state Rep. Christy Clark, who campaigned on a "faith and family" platform, joined 11 other Republicans in scuttling a bill that would have regulated religious teen homes; a mother of three, she cast the homes' residents as unreliable witnesses who "struggle with truthfulness.")

These places are all over the USA and even in other nations.

And so what do those hypocrites, the AFA, want to do about it? Apparently not a god damn thing. They're rather silent on the matter. Oh, but they'll yell and scream about the person-hood of a clump of cells so small you need a microscope to see them. But as for these real, living, established thinking and feeling children? It seems George Carlin was right.

If you're pre-born, you're fine, if you're pre-schooled, you're fucked.

The AFA says they care about children, but they refuse to actually help children. Children who can think, who can reason, can feel, can be hurt emotionally, who can be broken so far they're ambivalent about committing suicide just to escape the torture. These people are hypocrites of the worst sort. They wrap themselves in hypocrisy and call it righteousness. At best, it seems they're likely to have forfeit their place in their heaven.

He also shall be my salvation: for an hypocrite shall not come before him. ~ Job 13:16

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. ~ Matthew 23:23-24

At worst, there is a special place in hell for people like them; those who have the ability to prevent suffering and yet turn a blind eye to those most in need.

Dear God, save us from your followers.