I came into the world with my legs forward:

The midwife wonder'd and the women cried
'O, Jesus bless us, he is born with teeth!'
And so I was; which plainly signified
That I should snarl and bite and play the dog.

Then, since the heavens have shaped my body so,
Let hell make crook'd my mind to answer it.

I will be deaf to pleading and excuses;
Nor tears nor prayers shall purchase out abuses:
Therefore use none:




my opinion of people like this has changed -


Save your lectures for people who need them. Talk to my mother who is afraid to wear a mask because it might give her covid.

That is the upcrust homely bumbler who becomes strong through finding her calling in Call The Midwife, sitting in the middle there.

She cleans up quite nicely! Amazing what hair and makeup can do, in both directions.

Here's some more information regarding the relative outcomes of planned home birth versus hospital births (in the US):

http://www.mana.org/blog/home-birth-safety-outcomes

"Of particular note is a cesarean rate of 5.2%, a remarkably low rate when compared to the U.S. national average of 31% for full-term pregnancies. When we consider the well-known health consequences of a cesarean -- not to mention the exponentially higher costs -- this study brings a fresh reminder of the benefits of midwife-led care outside of our overburdened hospital system."

>> with all kinds of drama and tests, and poking and prodding.

In the western world, infant and maternal mortality has plummeted thanks to improved hygiene and good medical care, but these days there is a big emphasis on offering choice to the woman. In the UK If the pregnancy is deemed low risk then midwife only hospital delivery is offered as a basic right and the women can choose often choose pool birth, or home birth if they wish.
The latest NICE guidelines even go so far as to say that a woman should be able to ask for a c-section even if not medically indicated.
If the woman opts for something like opiate pain relief or an epideural then of course it becomes more medicalised but again it's a choice.

When you are on your second or third child, it often just pops out with little fuss where as the first baby is much more of an unknown. I'd be a lot less worried about a lady like this who has had 3 normal deliveries which i assume were uncomplicated.

The only think i'd say here is that babies get cold very quickly and so should be dried quickly rather than doused in brook water.

Thanks for voicing my exact sentiments and sharing some of your experiences.

I know concerned parents such as ourselves are probably more likely to have well-adjusted kids, but I still wish there could be some way to really shield their brains from being deformed by all the poison that surrounds them.

In reply to this comment by spoco2:
>> ^lucky760:
I worry often and a lot about how I can possibly keep my sons from being perverted by this society.


Ditto. I think back to me growing up and the sort of soft introduction to adult material. First you'd see topless women in National Geographics, then maybe some 'lad's mags' in the store, nothing naked, just bikini stuff... then you might get hold of a Playboy and see naked women. And back then they were pretty much natural women too (sure, not 'average', but at least not silicon and botox plumped versions).

Then you might get to see some actual porn mags at your 'rough' friend's place...

These days: "Go on web, look up sex in google image search and get inundated with hard, filthy sex"

Yeah, quite concerned. Doing our best to shield our kids from it as much as possible. Plenty of talk about what sex is (we have 3 boys and a girl all under 9), and that side of things (my wife is a midwife, so it kind of comes up a lot), but shielding as much as possible from not just sex on the internet, but also what passes for mainstream music videos these days (I mean, fucking Katy Perry... FUCK).

I'm with you lucky. I have no problem with sex... no problem with masturbation, no problem with porn in and of itself (just what 90% of it has become)... but how engrained it's become and how central and how much it's pushing into the lives of younger and younger kids.

Yeah, it's not good :

>> ^lucky760:
I worry often and a lot about how I can possibly keep my sons from being perverted by this society.


Ditto. I think back to me growing up and the sort of soft introduction to adult material. First you'd see topless women in National Geographics, then maybe some 'lad's mags' in the store, nothing naked, just bikini stuff... then you might get hold of a Playboy and see naked women. And back then they were pretty much natural women too (sure, not 'average', but at least not silicon and botox plumped versions).

Then you might get to see some actual porn mags at your 'rough' friend's place...

These days: "Go on web, look up sex in google image search and get inundated with hard, filthy sex"

Yeah, quite concerned. Doing our best to shield our kids from it as much as possible. Plenty of talk about what sex is (we have 3 boys and a girl all under 9), and that side of things (my wife is a midwife, so it kind of comes up a lot), but shielding as much as possible from not just sex on the internet, but also what passes for mainstream music videos these days (I mean, fucking Katy Perry... FUCK).

I'm with you lucky. I have no problem with sex... no problem with masturbation, no problem with porn in and of itself (just what 90% of it has become)... but how engrained it's become and how central and how much it's pushing into the lives of younger and younger kids.

Yeah, it's not good

This is the original swiftboating... ronpauling...

We begin with two simple questions:

Why would he put out publications under his name without the slightest idea what was in them?
And if he didn't write the stuff, why hasn't he identified the author and revealed his name?



Based on comparing the writings and positions of Dr. Paul and several other people involved, it would appear the people responsible would be:

Murray Rothbard,
http://murrayrothbard.com/category/rothbard-rockwell-report/


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My google quest began with this article and the comments in it, i have compiled my results:
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/22/about-those-racist-ron-paul-newsletters-that-he-didnt-read-and-completely-disavowed

------------------------------------------------ RESEARCH

HERE'S RON PAULS RESPONSE:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

-------------------------------

OK, fair enough. Now for a 1995 interview, go to 1:54, here is transcription with his interview proving that he knew newsletters existed, not all the content. In fact, he seems more concerned with finance:

“Along with that I also put out a political, uh, type of business investment newsletter, sort of covered all these areas. And it covered, uh, a lot about what was going on in Washington and financial events, especially some of the monetary events since I had been especially interested in monetary policy, had been on the banking committee, and still very interested in, in that subject.. that, uh, this newsletter dealt with that… has to do with the value of the dollar [snip] and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending that our government seems to continue to do.”

Watch video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW755u5460A

A constant theme in Paul’s rhetoric, dating back to his first years as a congressman in the late 1970s, is that the United States is on the edge of a precipice. The centerpiece of this argument is that the abandonment of the gold standard has put the United States on the path to financial collapse.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98811/ron-paul-libertarian-bigotry

------------------------------------------------------

So what about that, he did have a newsletter? Did it talk about more than money, and did he author those writings? Well it gets more interesting..

this is from a comment here:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/22/the-ron-paul-newsletter-and-his-jeremiah-wright-moment/#comment-152657

"Wish I had saved the links. This Dondero guy was supposedly part of a group of people that wrote the content of the newsletters (maybe seven different people), and that Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard were the main brains behind the content. Ron Paul wrote some of the content too (probably about sound money, lol). They have also hinted (maybe Rockwell did), that the writer of some of the extreme articles was now dead. It seems that multiple people from that time have died, but the most relevant is Murray Rothbard. He’s like a messiah to this sub-culture, and Rockwell would probably never spill the beans on Rothbard. The tone of the racially offensive parts does seem like it would be written by Rothbard. If you are unlucky enough to attempt to listen through one of his lectures on YouTube, you will notice his attempts at sarcastic humor, if you don’t fall asleep first.

Dondero: “Neither Rockwell or Rothbard are/were “libertarians.” In his later yers Rothbard called himself a “Paleo” aligning with the conservative southern successionists. Rockwell, today calls himself an Anarchist, and has distanced himself greatly from any part of the libertarian movement.”

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2011/02/1970s80s-libertarian-party-stalwart.html

“The newsletters’ obsession with blacks and gays was of a piece with a conscious political strategy adopted at that same time by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. After breaking with the Libertarian Party following the 1988 presidential election, Rockwell and Rothbard formed a schismatic “paleolibertarian” movement, which rejected what they saw as the social libertinism and leftist tendencies of mainstream libertarians. In 1990, they launched the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, where they crafted a plan they hoped would midwife a broad new “paleo” coalition.”

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter"

---------------------------

Ok now we're getting somewhere.. so what about Dondero, Rockwell, and Rothbard?

Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.
Paul: He's a disgruntled former employee who was fired.
http://reason.com/blog/2007/05/22/ron-paul-on-9-11-and-eric-dond

-----------------------------------
What about these mid 1990's interviews like this one from the Dallas Morning News:

In 1996, Paul told The Dallas Morning News that his comment about black men in Washington came while writing about a 1992 study by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia. The comment about black males being fleet of foot came from a 1992 newsletter, disavowed by Paul.

Paul cited the study and wrote (NOT SAID): “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“These aren’t my figures,” Paul told the Morning News. “That is the assumption you can gather from the report.”

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

"If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the congressman was practicing medicine at the time the newsletters were published and “did not write or approve the incendiary passages and does not agree with them.”

“He has, however, taken moral responsibility because they appeared under his name and slipped through under his watch,” Benton said. “They do not reflect what he believes in: liberty and dignity for all mankind. … Dr. Paul, renowned as a straight shooter who speaks his mind, has given literally thousands of speeches over the past 35 years, and he has never spoken such things.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

"Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."

-----------------

And all the confusion because he wanted to take responsibility. .. and the real issue? Not with what he may have said, or how consistent he has been denying this lie, but merely:

"Would he even check in to see if his ideas are being implemented? Who would he appoint to Cabinet positions?"

it comes down to an EITHER/OR false choice:

Either Paul is so oblivious to what was being done in his name that this obliviousness alone disqualifies him for a job like the presidency
— or -
he knew very well that horrific arguments were being published his name and he lent his name to a cynical racist strategy anyway.

Is there not any other choice?

There is your answer. The GOP is trying to sow any and all doubt at any and all cost. The content of the newsletters is just convenient; they would have done this anyway.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250338/
-------------------------------------

So Why Smear Ron Paul? Here is why... and the answer may NOT surprise you:

http://www.infowars.com/cnn-poll-ron-paul-most-popular-republican-amongst-non-whites/

yet we're supposed to believe this man, a physician and politician, has actually uttered words like, ""Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?"

Please. It is VERY unlikely.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165290/why-do-gop-bosses-fear-ron-paul

Thank you for your time.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

^No, I'm not kidding. I've experienced an atmosphere of intimidation in a standard hospital birthing ward. I've also experienced a home birth. It's night and day.

In the hospital, women are strapped up to incredibly uncomfortable fetal monitors and made to lie in a certain position so the computers back in the nursing station can get an accurate reading- there are women screaming, alarms going off and an atmosphere of medical emergency. It's no wonder that labor often stops - when women feel they are not in a safe place - and a Caesarean becomes necessary.

The birth of our second child was in an environment much like the one in the video - except no pool. We had a qualified midwife there to help us- with all of the gear, and a backup hospital on standby. We also had my partner's trusted friends - a group of strong women to be supportive through the whole process. Back rubs, soothing music and lots of support made for a fantastic birthing experience that I would recommend to anyone. Our baby was breach, and over 12 pounds.

My partner was also a member of a 100 strong homebirth support group, and we did six months of Bradley classes - so no, I don't think I'm speaking from a position of ignorance- but I'd love to hear your story, and why you think I am.

>> ^deathcow:
Hah! these people werent adequately prepared for anything but success.
My wife (midwife) says bleeding is what kills women. I doubt seriously they were prepared for any such thing.


Exactly, and it's things like this that those wanting to further the hospital system will point to and say 'Look, they're all reckless risk takers'. It aggravates me (and my wife who is studying as a midwife).

Hah! these people werent adequately prepared for anything but success.
My wife (midwife) says bleeding is what kills women. I doubt seriously they were prepared for any such thing.

My wife had all of our children naturally with no pain relief and no intervention, and the last one we had at home in water like this.

BUT.

Doing it at home with no midwives is just stupid as far as I'm concerned. What if something went wrong? Could they handle resuscitating? What if she had a large bleed out? Would they really know if the baby was in trouble? Really, what is gained by doing it on your own without a knowledgeable midwife (or two as we have to have here... well, did... they're kinda doing their best to make it effectively illegal in Australia to have a homebirth )?

Why do they feel it's a good idea to put themselves and the baby at risk? What? Just so they can boast that they did it all themselves?

I hate the hospital system and f*cking OBGYNs who prowl halls asking if anyone wants a spinal block (I kid you not, at our first birth, that's what was happening). I hate that they manufacture reasons to interfere and stop a woman being able to give birth as she was supposed to.

BUT

You should have people who know what to do when things go wrong, who know the signs that things are going wrong, who can tell you what's normal and what isn't. Doing it with just you and your husband there is just plain out stupid, selfish and dangerous. And doing shit like this just makes it harder for other parents like myself who are fighting the battle to keep the ability to birth at home an actual option at all.

Oh, and fjules, you're a fuckwit, plain and simple.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
I don't understand why any woman would want to give birth to a child outside of a hospital setting. What would a midwife do if the baby was born and had some kind of medical emergency? Probably go to a hospital or call an ambulance.

The funny thing is, that stats on home birth emergencies point to a fraction of 1% of there being an emergency. Also, if there is any risk to the child or mother, a midwife will not let you have a home birth, because it is at risk. What cracks me up is that hospital births are a relatively recent concept. Women have been birthing on their own for thousands of years. A birth is a natural event, not a medical problem to be solved.

The same thing goes for the mother, my mother almost died while giving birth to my youngest sister because of excessive bleeding; and she WOULD HAVE if she was at home.

Probably not. The midwives would not have let your mother birth at home or they would have recognized the signs early and moved the birth to a hospital. You cannot actually say what would have happened because you already have judged home births, so you cannot come to any other conclusion.

I'm all for your right to chose, but I've been arguing for healthcare in the US for a while here, if i were in Australia I'd take advantage of the healthcare that you already enjoy.


Both of my children were water births at home. In town here, there are many home births each year. In the province, I believe the last home birth death was over 20 years ago and it was revealed that even in a hospital, the baby would have died. So, basically we have been having home births with a 100% "survival" rate (since your view is negative) for a very long time.

I am very sorry to hear that you are not allowed to birth at home. My wife and I and the thousands of other home birthers (and their children!) support you!

what a beautiful lady you are!

my brother spent 8 years as an army intelligence officer. one of his friends got deployed while his wife stayed back home pregnant. she was astranged from her own family, so my brother took on the role of her birth coach and support while her husband was away. she went into the labor a few weeks early. she called my brother, he rushed from work at the base to go and pick her up and head to the hospital they thought they had at least a few hours ahead of them. on the way they got stuck in traffic. jam. stuck. san antonio traffic is a beast. he pulled over, called the ambulance and hopped in the backseat with her. when the ambulance finally arrived the babies head was out. the paramedics took over just in time and my brother who has no children of his own and is terrified of anything medical, literally goes into shock whenever he gets an iv, quietly hyperventilated while they got mommy and baby stablized and into the ambulance. they rode off the hospital mommy and baby were fine and well and my brother accidentally helped deliver a beautiful healthy baby boy in the back of his convertible. yayayayay!!!!

and yeah, id say there is an information vacuum when it comes to what your birthing options are.
both of my children were born at the hospital i worked out and we had excellent care and a fabulous doctor. but i think if i ever do it again id like to have a midwife and a doula with more natural pain control options, especially since neither of my epidurals took and i had a really really bad pain control experience with my first child.

I don't understand why any woman would want to give birth to a child outside of a hospital setting. What would a midwife do if the baby was born and had some kind of medical emergency? Probably go to a hospital or call an ambulance.

The same thing goes for the mother, my mother almost died while giving birth to my youngest sister because of excessive bleeding; and she WOULD HAVE if she was at home.

I'm all for your right to chose, but I've been arguing for healthcare in the US for a while here, if i were in Australia I'd take advantage of the healthcare that you already enjoy.

I'm sure there are many people who take it seriously (yourself counted), but having a few professionals believing in something doesn't do anything for me. Our excellent, excellent independent midwife who has birthed our three children, and one more to come, believes in homeopathy... which is a huge pile of nonsense. I fully trust her on the fronts of birthing etc. but that doesn't mean I believe in homeopathy because she does, I need science to show me it works (which is doesn't).

So, I'm not flat out saying that this isn't beneficial at all (hell, massage in general, bring it on, especially in keeping boobs firm), just that I'm always skeptical about things until I've seen some sort of empirical evidence it does anything, and I just haven't seen any about this.

Also I find it funny that you list light therapy in your list of bogus treatments when in some cases it has been clearly shown to be of great benefit. (jaundiced babies comes to mind immediately)