Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Cerridwen

Cerridwen's Journal
Cerridwen's Journal
April 14, 2012

brewer's AZ bill and "menopause babies".

This is what happens when legislation isn't based on science.

As I understand the new law, the gestational age of the fetus is counting back to the last menstrual cycle of the woman. Is that correct?

Now, read and think about this:

When a woman goes through menopause, her body phases out menstrual cycles until they stop all together. The woman may go for months or even a year between having one period and the next. This long time frame is at the heart of the undiscovered menopause baby.

During the time when the female body is not having a menstrual cycle, the body may still be releasing those last few eggs. If the egg is released and there is a viable sperm waiting to fertilize the egg, the female can, and will, get pregnant.

Thanks to the lack of a normal menstrual cycle, the female may not notice they are pregnant until they are months into the pregnancy. There have even been cases where mothers of climbing age have gone to the hospital with stomach and back pains only to leave the hospital a few days later with a baby in their arms.


From this link: http://www.babymed.com/gettting-pregnant-during-menopause

"A year between having one period and the next"

Based on an exceptional case, it is conceivable (pun intended) that the gestational age of the fetus - based on the AZ law - would make what would normally be a 16-week pregnancy (~4 months) into a 16 month pregnancy? I wonder how many 21-month-old babies will be born in AZ in the coming months and years? *sigh*





April 9, 2012

Why would neo-cons be anti-HIPAA?

This question is part rhetorical and part WTF?

Several weeks ago I took note of an article in my local neo-con, online, rag in which a neo-con pundit attacks HIPAA as 'anti sunshine'.

I won't provide a link as it's from a source known to go after DU for 'intellectual property rights.'

It is posted at the Las Vegas review journal site and is entitled " HIPAA an affront to sunshine" by glenn cook; our 'resident' neo-con pundit. It was posted March 11, 2012.

I took note of it because it didn't make any sense to conflate a criminal investigation into ethical standards of politicians (seriously?!) with HIPAA. It was too weird.

I have a long history of tracking the media's reporting of events and their spin on said events. My BS meter went ballistic.

Trial balloon? Foreshadowing? Whatever.

My best guess - somewhat informed - is that ALEC, neo-cons, the republican party, are going after HIPAA next.

I've found some vague dots to connect; but not yet anything substantial.

If you're in the medical industry, especially medical coding, please keep an eye out for a "Obamacare"=HIPAA="bad for business"="we want to invade your privacy while pretending PRIVACY is sacrosanct" theme.

There is something called ICD-10 compliance which adds to this puzzle.

Something is up. Stay vigilant. There will start to be many anti-HIPAA stories.

March 5, 2012

"Congress shall make no law respecting...the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."

"Congress shall make no law respecting...the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." providing you have a permit, for a protest zone, and you don't stop traffic or disrupt the business of business (profit!), that you don't "peaceably assemble" on the commons owned by the government which is no longer "of the people, by the people, and for the people" but of the businesses and other non-human 'persons'...



It can't happen here

Unless, of course, it can.

Thank you for the picture, pepperbear



March 4, 2012

1990-ish gopac(newt's pac) mentions book, "tax payer's tea party"

newt's ethics violation investigation is posted: http://ethics.house.gov/committee-report/matter-representative-newt-gingrich

I think it's the 3rd link down; they all open .pdfs.

Also remember to check out, ”Language, a Key Mechanism of Control” also from newt's gopac.

If you ever have time, click and read at each of the 4 links available at the link above. You'll see 'republicans for a change' and other fun and entertaining (that was sarcasm) ideas catapulted by gopac and very apparent today.

Though newt wasn't the first to come up with many of the strategies listed, I'm pretty sure he's the only one, so far, who has put the right-wing ideology in handbook form. I could be wrong about that, of course.

Any similarity to language and tactics being used today, in 2012, is purely intentional.

March 3, 2012

1993: When the repubs & rush forced rush on the troops' airwaves

The Pentagon did a survey about Armed Forces Radio programming. The results of the 50,000 troops surveyed included .02% who wanted limbaugh's spew on their radio and only 3.9% wanted any talk radio. The troops wanted more music and sports; not more talk radio.

In the usual republican way of 'supporting' the troops, 70 republicans, led by Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove) and Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), made a PR nightmare for the Pentagon with the aid of limbaugh and his dittoheads, of course, squealing about rush's First Amendment right to have a stage, a megaphone, a captive audience, and to make millions from his 'free' speech.

Ignoring 99.08% of the troops, rush and the republicans forced rush into the AFR programming line-up.

The following year, the repubs in congress would make rush an honorary member.

Here are two links to a couple of the stories from that time. I was there. It was ugly.

There are a few more details in the articles linked below.

Pentagon Accused of Giving Bum's Rush to Limbaugh

Pentagon Retreats, Says It Is Considering Airing Limbaugh

February 26, 2012

Filtered, bottled, or tap water?

Hi all.

I followed a link from GD. No, I won't talk politics here.

I notice many have concerns about our pet's food but I don't see a lot about the water they drink. As I was reading the threads about food and pets' problems with digestion and elimination I got to thinking about the water we provide and wondering if others had noticed a difference in your pets' health by changing water sources.

As I thought of this I realized that our tap water here; Las Vegas, NV; has a long and ugly history with the quality our tap water. We have elevated levels of perchlorate in our aquifers. We were a big manufacturer of WWII ammunitions and such and the industry was 'kind' enough to leak into our very limited water sources here in the desert.

If your pet experiences food issues or presents with digestive problems, do you also change their source(s) of water?

January 20, 2012

"archaeolog[ists]...uncovered 10,000 year old bones....believed to be the first politician"-updated

"An archeological (sic) team has uncovered 10,000 year old bones and fossil remains of what is believed to be the first politician."




eta: fix link

January 16, 2012

Could I get a realty/mortgage/forclosure expert to check my work, please?

If you would look at the property records linked to below and just let me know if I've read them correctly.

It looks to me that it was a purchase, then a refi, then an auction then a transfer from one mortgage servicer to another mortgage servicer. As I said, please check my work. Thanks.

The records in question are here: (broken link removed on edit) Result Starting with the purchase date 12/13/2007 to current.

Please let me know what I've missed.

Search criteria:
Borough: BROOKLYN / KINGS
Block: 04300
Lot: 0115
Date Range: To Current Date
Document Class:

(edit) Fixing link issues:

First doc: http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/DocSearch.dll/Detail?Doc_ID=2007012501041001

Next: http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/DocSearch.dll/Detail?Doc_ID=2007012501041002

http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/DocSearch.dll/Detail?Doc_ID=2007012501041003

Final: http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/DocSearch.dll/Detail?Doc_ID=2008102700199001

Oof! That looks like too much clicking. Oh well. I'll leave the OP in case someone has time.

December 23, 2011

I would like to dedicate this song to piperlime and all those marketer types who agree with them...

and anyone else who agrees with their advertising and would take us back to those days.

With a hat-tip to Are_grits_groceries for bringing this wonderful ad agency and their wonderful ads to my attention in Piperlime Ad Tells Sweatpants-Wearing Women They'll Send Men Running and to obamanut2012 and Sarah Ibarruri who brought Women's self-loathing is big business and supports a global capitalist system to my attention.

From Burt Bacharach as performed by Dionne Warwick, I present to you the 60s rendition of Wives and Lovers so that we can all return to the hairy, scary, pie-in-the-sky 60s/70s where 'man' thought he could go to the moon and Americans had something called 'ingenuity.'



Hey, little girl, comb your hair, fix your make-up, soon he will open the door,
Don't think because there's a ring on your finger, you needn't try any more.
For wives should always be lovers too,
Run to his arms the moment that he comes home to you.
I'm warning you,
Day after day, there are girls at the office and the men will always be men,
Don't send him off, with your hair still in curlers, you may not see him again.
Wives should always be lovers too,
Run to his arms the moment he comes home to you.
He's almost here, hey, little girl, better wear something pretty,
Something you wear to go to the city,
Dim all the lights, pour the wine, start the music, time to get ready for love.
Time to get ready for love, yes it's time to get ready for love,
It's time to get ready, kick your shoes off, baby...


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: Las Vegas, Nevada
Home country: United Corporate States of the US
Current location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Member since: Thu Jun 24, 2004, 11:32 AM
Number of posts: 13,258

About Cerridwen

Hairy, scary, pro-abortion, 'rad fem', doing my best to piss off the "religious" right and MRAs everywhere.
Latest Discussions»Cerridwen's Journal