So the following is a disappointing display of fucktwattery  that took place on my Facebook page over the course of a week. This person is the boyfriend of a mutual friend of Andrey and I. I always have fun hanging out with him, but when all I wanted to do was update my Facebook status, this is the deliberate bigot-spew that he not only muttered in response, but by which he persisted to irritate my friends and I for days. I was calm until today — I’m sorry, Andrey, Olya, if this complicates our get-togethers, but I really don’t ever want to see him again. No camping, drinking, etc., and I hope he never comes to our apartment because I won’t abide such vitriol in our home.

Sadly, the following is an example (all too familiar to me) of general (though certainly not all) Russian sentiment on issues of sexuality, identity, and minorities in general. The original status post by moi: I’m disgusted with Cali.
Kirsi , Ray and Zak like this.

Ryan at 2:59pm May 26: Likewise. So so sad.

Thaddeus at 3:54pm May 26: A constitutional amendment intended purely to restrict the rights of certain people shouldn’t happen in the land of liberty.

Yuliy Muchnik at 5:30pm May 26: I am not!
Yuliy Muchnik at 5:30pm May 26: …and for god’s sake, California has much bigger problems to worry about these days.

Thaddeus at 6:00pm May 26: So…civil liberties for minority groups should be denied because there are also other things happening in the state???

Yuliy Muchnik at 7:23pm May 26: what i am saying is that, in the scheme of things, the problems that your gay buddies are having there don’t really matter much. do i make myself clear this time?

Ryan at 7:25pm May 26Wow Lauren! Your status has turned into a debate! LOVES IT!!!!!!!

PS: Whether you support it or not, you need to sit and think about some things. ie. if you loved someone and weren’t legally able to marry them. or how you would feel if you had that right and then it was taken away. Think about it. :) SMILES!!!!!

Yuliy Muchnik at 7:32pm May 26: man, that’s a total eye-opener! how did i never think about this before?? now, speaking of this, i love my cat. i really really do. when will it finally be legal in california for me to marry her??

man-cat rights!
man-cat rights!
man-cat rights!

Zak at 7:54pm May 26: Because a cat can sign a legal document moron.

L at 9:21pm May 26: Yuliy, stop it. Civil liberties are always salient issues, whether they immediately affect *you* or not (not that all of Cali’s other issues do). The fact that it *is* an issue of this scale is testament to the system’s flaw that Thad so clearly stated.

It’s unlike you to tout the illogical arguments of the Fundamentalists. Next you’re going to tell me that if abortion is legalalized, all the liberal women are going to get knocked up just so we can all have abortion parties.

Sometimes, Yuliy, you say things I only expect out of a small-town Russian homophobe who thinks women and gays are taking over society. *sigh*
L at 9:25pm May 26: (after thought) maybe the crazy rightist zealots secretly desire inter-species sex? Maybe for them it *is* the next logical step? Cause, honey, all the homos and sexual deviants I know (and that’s a LOT) really just have a thing for homo sapiens. Mmmmmm, homo sapiens! Yummy, mostly hairless bipeds, and their sexual dimorphism!

Ryan at 10:15pm May 26: Thank you Lauren. ♥ !!!

Thaddeus at 11:57pm May 26: California is not sinking into the ocean, there is nothing SO pressing going on there that they’ve just GOT to prevent one group of citizens from marrying each other.
Consenting adults (both of those words being essential) should be allowed to marry whomever they wish.
I’d say “consenting adult *humans*”, but like Lauren pointed out, it’s only the anti-gay marriage crowd that has any interest in bringing animals into the mix.

Yuliy Muchnik at 12:18am May 27: why should i stop it? why is it that the podium must solely belong to those who believe they are enlightened and sophisticated enough to understand that the true meaning of life lies in attempting (hopelessly, thank nature) to procreate with species of the same sex?

the only problem with the system that i see is that it even allows such things to be seriously debated. i have nothing against abortion and other traditionally “liberal” issues, but my opinion is definitely different on this issue, and i have no problem voicing that opinion.

p.s. the logic behind man-cat rights fits perfectly; no wonder nobody ever attempts to rebuff it on its merits.

Ryan at 12:55am May 27: Actually, it doesn’t fit perfectly. A human/cat relationship is ridiculous. Two humans that love eachother on the other hand, is NOT ridiculous. Think about stuff before you say it. ♥ !!!

Justin at 1:14am May 27: Ok whos the hick who wants to fuck his cat and call it normal? I think this person seriously needs heavy psychotherapy and a real lesson on what should and should not be ok for two people to do. If this is a problem for him because he is religious then why not sell everything you have and give all you time to the poor. Biblical realism is dead hunny get off your soapbox! If its not about the bible I really have no idea what to tell you. Your a waste to society evolving as we have for thousands of years.

Preeti at 3:28am May 27: join the club

Thaddeus at 10:50am May 27: In this case the “podium” is Lauren’s facebook page. She is entitled to ask you to stop. No one is trying to deny your right to free speech though as I doubt Lauren would try to quell your opinions if this was your facebook page where you were spouting your bigotry.
The only way that the “man-cat” point is the least bit logical is if you consider cats to be equal to humans. Do you think that cats should be considered full citizens with voting rights and full legal protection? If you don’t think that cats should receive those things then you must think that gay people should have them taken away because otherwise there is nothing “logical” about your argument.

Yuliy Muchnik at 12:13pm May 27: Ryan:
Man/cat is just as ridiculous to me as man/man. I have thought about this enough, thank you very much.

Justin:
I am not at all religious, but I have common sense. Technically, the only waste to society are creatures that cannot procreate. And on that note, you can go fuck yourself.

Richard at 1:25pm May 27: Man/man is not ridiculous, especially not as much as bestiality. Two informed adults can consent to a loving relationship to one another, while a cat cannot.

Either you consider cats to be sentient and capable of making informed consensual relationship decisions, or you consider men to be subhuman and incapable of making said decision.

As a man, I am offended. I can make choices, informed choices about who I love and how I love them. If the other person is an informed consenting adult, I should be allowed to love and to commit to a long term relationship with that person, with all the benefits and rights that would be granted to anyone else who does the same. It should be without bias from the law in regards to race, politics, religion, economic status or gender.

Practice what you want with your own life, but don’t try to dictate your bigotry against men onto other people.

Thaddeus at 1:30pm May 27: The ability to procreate is not a requirement for marriage in the United States.

Richard at 2:36pm May 27: Nor should it be. Since infertile couples would be excluded as well

Thaddeus at 10:26pm May 27: And any women post-menopause. Not to mention all of the couples who get married, but don’t intend to have any children.

L at 10:41pm May 27: Yuliy, you’ve crossed the line with your comment to Justin. I’ll ask you not to be so crude to my friends who are currently in awe of your bigotry. When it comes to sexual and gender science, Russia hasn’t even worked through Freud yet. Note Thad’s statements about the ability to procreate above — any infertile male or female obviously should have to be screened before getting a marriage license.

The Western, post-modern human marries for love and economic reasons. It engages in sex for physical and emotional pleasure, and procreates by accident or intent both within and outside of marriage.

The *only* reason to prevent same-sex couples from getting married is to spare them from the joke that so many heterosexuals make of marriage anyway.
L at 10:44pm May 27: For your information, Yuliy, Justin (and the same percentage of gay men as hetero men) CAN procreate. They could easily donate to sperm banks or even have sex with women (sorry for the squick factor, guys) — to help those hetero couples who CAN’T

Yuliy Muchnik at 11:46am May 28: Lauren, I was keeping it impersonal all along, but your buddy chose not to. So what do you suppose I do with a piece of shit that calls me a hick and “a waste to society?” What he really needs is a punch in the head to help him learn to think before opening his mouth.

Regarding procreation – what matters is the spirit of the idea. Childless heterosexual couples = a fluke of nature, homosexual couples = not meant to be in nature.

L at 1:36pm May 28: As the ‘moderator’ of my own page, I’m allowed to decide when a little sass is ok — saying ‘go fuck yourself’ isn’t even arguing anymore, it’s resorting to the level of white trash banter. So – no more of that, from anyone.

Regarding procreation — the spirit of the idea is hardly reality, it’s mere sentimentality. If you want to talk about nature, we can talk about nature, I have a degree in Anthropology and am pretty damn familiar with primate evolution. Even using language like ‘meant/not meant to be in nature’ belies your ignorance in this matter — it’s far more complicated than that.

L at 1:46pm May 28: The point of all this, by the way, is in deciding what is lawful and constitutional — not what fits an individual’s sentimentalities or aesthetics. Do you believe interracial marriage should be legal? People tried to use the same arguments you are decades ago about that issue.

Yuliy Muchnik at 1:58pm May 28: often, you don’t need a degree in something to be able tell what makes sense and what is nonsense. it is really that simple.

i’m not sure what point you are trying to achieve by continuing to make personal remarks such as “white trash,” “small town homophobe,” etc. I don’t remember calling anyone (especially you) a fag here, eh?

the only reason same sex marriage is not explicitly unconstitutional is because the founding fathers, i am sure, could not in their wildest dreams imagine that one day something like this would even come up. and finally, it really isn’t up to us to *decide* what is lawful. that decision has already been made.

L at 2:43pm May 28I haven’t called you anything – read more carefully. I’m trying to tell you how your comments sound. You’ve been sassy from the beginning, for no good reason.

The Founding Fathers probably didn’t foresee 50 states and emancipation, either. That’s a matter of futile personal interpretation better used for musings only, anyway. They’re dead.

What we DO know from their writings and other documents are their thoughts on the nature of civil liberty — the law exists to protect people and enable them, not limit their freedoms — this is the context from which we ask “is ______ constitutional?”

Cultures DO decide what is lawful. The decision has been made by *whom*? Processes don’t make decisions. Besides, societal law is never fully based on what people think is ‘natural law’ (that has changed over time, obviously); this is impossible in the case of humans, as they are prone to reflexive contemplation.

Thaddeus at 3:51pm May 28: It *is* up to us to decide what is lawful. We live in a democratic nation with an evolving culture. Laws are made and changed by the people and to serve the people.
The founding fathers did not give women the right to vote because they did not conceive of a time when women would be living on their own and forming opinions that were different from their husbands. They didn’t think that women were stupid or incapable, but rather thought of households as only having one vote. Women voters would mean that some households got stronger votes which didn’t seem fair to them.
However, our culture evolved and by the 1920s it was becoming clear that women needed to vote too.
The Founding Fathers were products of their culture, but they were also VERY rational men and extremely progressive for their time.
Thaddeus at 3:57pm May 28: Childless heterosexual couples are NOT a fluke of nature. They are a very common and prevalent part of our modern society. As a species we boarder on over-population and it is no longer necessary for our survival that all biologically capable society members procreate.
Some amorphous and no longer relevant notion of the “spirit” behind the institution of marriage cannot serve as a logical determinating factor in who may now engage in the *modern* institution of marriage.

Yuliy Muchnik at 4:11pm May 28: when i said “the decision has been made,” i meant that the people of california and the california supreme court have made themselves clear. if you think that your opinions expressed here are somehow more important, you are kidding yourself.

likewise, on the issue of what is and what is not meant to be in nature, i have also made my point clear. the sophistic arguments that you’re using to try to rebuff it make no difference.

the idea of looking at the “spirit” or laws and rulings is very common, and very relevant, in the american legal tradition. just because you wish it was “no longer relevant” does not mean that it is :)

Justin at 8:20pm May 28: To Yuliy: I am very sorry that I called you a waste to society. Fighting ignorance with anger will never solve anything. I just get very upset when I hear heterosexual people compare what I am to the nature of pedophiles and bestiality. I could not ever imagine what would happen to someone if they ever compared you (a Russian, whether natural born or immigrant) to an animal or someone who demoralizes children by sexually molesting them. If you want to be technical you would be unnatural to america had the people who founded this nation not had a dream for america to be a resting place for anyone who felt unwanted or just needed a place to go.

Whether something is normal to you is truly for you to decide but please step aside and let me and people like me (GLBT) have our rights as you do.

Thaddeus at 2:17am May 29: Try to remain consistent, Yuliy. We were discussing the “spirit” behind the institution of marriage; not the spirit of the law. It isn’t the same thing.
While I dispute that the “spirit” behind marriage was ever primarily geared around procreation and even more strongly dispute that procreation is the “spirit” that drives the modern institution of marriage let’s assume for a moment that what you are saying is true: The purpose of marriage is to foster procreation.
What does that mean? That marriage is a socially and legally recognized entity that exists to encourage men and women to procreate by establishing a system of legal benefits and protections for both the parents and children, yes? Would you agree with that?
Thaddeus at 2:22am May 29: Guess what? Like Lauren said, gay people can have children too. And furthermore, many of them DO have children! By denying them the right to get married the system is failing in its obligation to provide the legal benefits and protections that you claim exists purely to promote procreation. This isn’t hypothetical, I know real people who have raised children together, but because they couldn’t get married the non-biological parent had no rights. If something had happened to the bio-parent the other parent might likely never see their children again.
Thaddeus at 2:26am May 29: Sorry for filling up your page with my posts Lauren, it’s just a topic that I feel very strongly about.

L at 12:30pm May 29: That’s ok, Thad. Yuliy, the science of biology is what it is. You’re using the popular arguments that the lay population uses, so they make perfect sense to you. However, what we’ve learned from the last twenty years of evolutionary biology and primate sexuality indicates a far less black and white world. These arguments DO matter.

Let me ask you this — what does it mean that Neandertals were supporting their elderly, maimed, and otherwise incapacitated group members? These individuals created stress on the group because they could not contribute to hunting or other activities, and they are not selectively ‘ideal’ sex partners … why use vital resources to keep them around?

Your argument about procreation is debunked, and I get the sense that you are arguing for emotional reasons (as you don’t really address anyone’s arguments other than to say you don’t care). You probably haven’t come to terms with the fact that homosexuals (and probably intersexuals) exist at all.
L at 12:38pm May 29: The fact is, homosexual acts can be observed throughout the mammalian world and even others — birds, for example, engage in homosexual acts. Humans, like other mammals, display a very liquid sexuality — one’s preferences and habits can change over one’s life time. By that I mean human sexual and romantic (pair mating) choices fall on a continuum and rarely stay the same. Included in this continuum is same sex sexual acts and pairing. Sexuality, contrary to what popular American culture dictates, is neither ‘gay’ nor ’straight’, but amazingly complex. The beauty of this complexity is that it encourages us to refrain from categorizing people into clearly delineated groups, but take into consideration the individuals within those groups.
L at 1:24pm May 29: Marriage, as it were, was never about procreation alone — it was (and in many places still is) a contract designed to protect the interests of two families or two individuals.

What is significantly different about most of the contemporary Western world is that individuals a) decide who they wish to marry and b) can decide not to get married. Human children need a stable emotional and physical environment in which to develop, so having two parents and combined income is often key in places like the United States, where single parents may not be able to financially support themselves and a child.

Sweden has a different cultural and structural model — funds are allocated to provide for single or unmarried parents. Thus, the trend in Sweden is that most people no longer marry. This doesn’t preclude that these couples/parents are estranged, just that a binding contract isn’t necessary to provide for children.
L at 1:32pm May 29: And, of course, in much of Western culture it is perfectly fine to choose not to have children — I personally know plenty of heterosexual couples across generations who have *decided* not to have children or adopt.

In fact, the world NEEDS more committed parents to raise the children who have none, just as it needs many people to to decide not to have children or have only one child.

One way to think about the modern phenomena of same sex couples (just for a moment assuming they won’t have children) is that it IS an adaptation of our species as we confront the reality of limited resources and the earth’s max bio capacity. Biology doesn’t work in a linear way — it seeks balance.

Marina at 2:04pm May 29: to Justin and Lauren-Russia(or other countries people come from) doesnt have to do anything with what person has to express period In my opinion,gay couple can be married (not in the church though)but they cannot have kids-a person has to be raised by male&female

Thaddeus at 7:55pm May 29: There are absolutely ZERO reliable studies to support the notion that a proper upbringing requires the presence of a mother and a father.
Should we forbid couples with children from getting divorced? Should we take children away from single parents?

L at 9:12pm May 30: Marina – growing up in a country and being enculturated DOES matter. There are people in Russia who think homosexuality is alright and support the decriminalization thereof — however, the dominant culture there either speaks of it the way Yuliy has or links it back to Christian belief (if you read Russian papers and blogs about the last couple Pride parades local GLBT community has tried to have, you know what I mean). Even if one’s opinion deviates from the norm of one’s dominant culture, it still is interconnected therewith.
L at 9:18pm May 30: Many cultures idealize two parent, hetero ‘parents’, while others do not for a myriad of reasons. If you think it’s better to have children grow up in foster care or an orphanage rather than have a stable, two parent home which happens to be comprised of two moms or two dads, I staunchly disagree. Besides, anyone who thinks the hetero marriage and parenting deal is ideal needs to consider the shit job many mothers and fathers do, from neglect to abuse or worse. I’d rather a child have loving caretakers devoted to his/her upbringing, whether those caretakers be a grandparent(s), single parent, biological parents, or adoptive hetero or homo parents. All of these potential devoted caretakers need to be supported by the law for the sake of the children involved.
L at 9:24pm May 30: Personally, I dislike the institution of marriage *because* it invokes religion — if it didn’t, this (national) debate would be very different I’m sure.

The whole point of this argument is that American citizens should be concerned with what has happened in California — Prop 8 was introduced a while back because a bunch of religious conservatives (both within and outside of California) collected millions of dollars in order to suppress a minority’s rights. Mob rule is one problem of democracy, and our courts are designed to check and balance that tendency — they failed. The reason citizens of all states are paying attention is because what is playing out in Cali is part of a larger cultural discourse on the issue.

Yuliy Muchnik at 11:52pm May 30: i don’t care what neandertals did with their old, and i don’t need studies to form an opinion on certain issues.

what american citizens need to be concerned with is one obnoxious group of people that whine and cry about their inexistent rights given every chance they can, and trying to impose their perverted beliefs on the society at large.

Thaddeus at 1:42am May 31: Nothing validates an argument like embracing ignorance.

L at 12:36pm May 31: NO ONE is imposing their beliefs on anyone, EXCEPT bigots (like you — yes I am calling you one this time) and religious fuck nuts. I’m sorry you don’t care — just recognize that your opinions aren’t based on anything factual, and that they are NOT well thought out.

You’ve commented on issues just for the sake of being a dick before, and I get the sense you’re doing the same now. I’m disappointed to discover I can’t have an intelligent conversation with you, and because of that any respect I had for you in spite of your persistent negativity (about *everything*) is exhausted.

Please don’t pretend to know what our constitution is about, or what the US should be concerned with.

Now I understand you a little bit more, and why you really don’t get out much. I do hope you get over this irrational fear of a minority population who really doesn’t give a fuck about you.

If you don’t care about actual data or people, why don’t you just shut your face next time?
L at 12:38pm May 31:
As this is my page, I’m going to kindly ask you with the last of my patience not to post here – again. I hope you’ll respect that, if only.

My connections with Starbucks customers are typically heartwarming and encourage me to feel good about humanity. However, as I was on my lunch yesterday, a couple came in looking pretty downtrodden. While I hadn’t met their acquaintances, my coworker knew them as regular customers and immediately asked what was wrong. Needless to say, the holiday that should mark remembrance was met with grief, the sort of soul-shredding wounding and scarring that can only come from religion. Both men, like myself, will probably never fully recover from these ravages, but their soul-wounds had been ripped open again by their hate-mongering Christian families — telling from what they retold, this nonsense won’t stop with them, but will continue on to the next generation within their family.

There are only a few non-Christians where I work, and so far nothing of note has come up between myself and the religious there. I’m successfully  diplomatic when the situation calls for it, i.e., when I genuinely like the people I work with and their religion, so far, is nothing but a distasteful fashion accessory. I go out of my way to avoid conversations that have to do with morals and could go down ‘that’ path.

8 Household Cleaning Agents to Avoid
By the Gaiam Staff

A surprising number of the most harmful toxins ever created are found right in our own backyard — indeed, right inside your mop closet. Here are ways you can detoxify your home, make it safe again, and keep it that way.

The air in our homes is filled with fumes from petrochemical solvents added to cleaners to dissolve dirt. The average household contains anywhere from three to 25 gallons of toxic materials, most of which are in cleaners. No law requires manufacturers of cleaning products to list ingredients on their labels or to test their products for safety. It’s up to you to make sure your home is not only clean, but also nontoxic.

Unfortunately, it isn’t easy to identify which products contain these hazardous ingredients. While cleaners are the only household products regulated by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission under the Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act, their sellers aren’t required to reveal these products’ ingredients. These ingredients are considered “trade secrets,” so government regulations are actually designed to protect this proprietary information, not to protect human health or the environment.

When it comes to cleaners, the consumer has little to go on beyond the warning labels that manufacturers are required to put on their products. The labels DANGER, WARNING and POISON give only a very general idea about the seriousness of the unknown substances a product contains. In fact, a New York Poison Control Center study found that 85 percent of product warning labels are inadequate.

These warnings apply only to a product’s immediate health effects; they don’t illuminate what happens when we use them over a long period of time. If you’re using common household cleaners, you’re likely to encounter the following chemicals (among many others), and the following effects, while cleaning:

* Chlorinated phenols found in toilet bowl cleaners are toxic to respiratory and circulatory systems.
* Diethylene glycol found in window cleaners depresses the nervous system.
* Phenols found in disinfectants are toxic to respiratory and circulatory systems.
* Nonylphenol ethoxylate, a common surfactant (detergent) found in laundry detergents and all-purpose cleaners, is banned in Europe; it has been shown to biodegradeslowly into even more toxic compounds.
* Formaldehyde found in spray and wick deodorizers is a respiratory irritant and suspected carcinogen.
* Petroleum solvents in floor cleaners damage mucous membranes.
* Perchloroethylene, a spot remover, causes liver and kidney damage.
* Butyl cellosolve, common in all-purpose, window and other types of cleaners, damages bone marrow, the nervous system, kidneys and the liver. The list could fill a book. And it’s a book that would include thousands of other chemicals — some so dangerous that they’re found on lists of chemicals associated with Superfund toxic waste sites and in the toxins section of the U.S. Clean Air and Water Acts.

To detoxify your mop closet, first rid it of cleaners that are toxic or that you suspect may be toxic.You can be sure of this if the label says WARNING, DANGER or POISON.

If you’re like most people, you’ve probably got more than a few rusty, crusty, almost-empty bottles of cleaning products, along with some dried-out sponges and a furniture-polish-soaked T-shirt hanging around in your mop closet.With a little organization and attention to labels, you can transform it into a complete and efficient collection of products that will not only help keep your house spic-and-span, but also help reduce dangerous indoor air pollution created by most conventional household cleaners.
Some cleaners may advertise that they are “environmentally sound” but fail to provide a full list of ingredients.

The manufacturer that gives you the most information about its product is usually the manufacturer you can trust.

Start by pulling everything out and making three piles: one for the things you use every week (laundry detergent, toilet paper, trash bags, paper towels), the second for things you use every once in a while (window cleaner, hardwood floor cleaner, stain and odor removers), and the third for things you can’t remember using and things that look caked on, rusted over or petrified beyond recognition.

Take a close look at the labels on the products in piles 1 and 2. Anything that you know to be toxic,move to pile 3. The items in pile 1 go back into the closet. Store products you only use now and then (pile 2) on an out-of-the-way shelf in the closet. And items in pile 3 get banished from the house forever — but do not dispose of them down the drain or in the garbage; your local department of public works can tell you how to safely dispose of these hazardous household wastes. After this exercise, you might find that you need to do some restocking to meet your cleaning needs with safe and natural products.

When you buy new cleaning products, look for those that list their ingredients on the label, and make sure those ingredients include no petroleum-based surfactants, chlorine or phosphates. Also look for the words “nontoxic” and “biodegradable.” A host of products now available in naturalfood stores and in many supermarkets are designed to clean as effectively as their petrochemical counterparts, but won’t pollute your home or the earth in the process.

If you use sponges to clean any part of your home, make sure they’re pure cellulose sponges that are not treated with a synthetic disinfectant. Most sponges sold in U.S. supermarkets these days are impregnated with triclosan or other synthetic disinfectants. Packaging that claims “kills odors” or “resists odors” makes these sponges easy to distinguish. In reality, a disinfectant-laden sponge is ineffective at sterilizing countertops or other surfaces; the disinfectant simply gives you a “germ-free” sponge. This, in and of itself, is not a bad thing.

Sponges by nature are perfect breeding grounds for germs, since they are a moist, warm habitat and come into close and frequent contact with bacteria when wiping up spills, meat juices, etc. However, the disinfectants used in these sponges may help contribute to the evolution of drugresistant “super” germs. It’s easy to keep a pure cellulose sponge germfree by boiling it in a pot of water for three to five minutes, tossing it in the top rack of the dishwasher, or microwaving it on high for one minute. Pure cellulose sponges can be found in natural-food stores and hardware stores.

Home Made Cleaning Solutions: Nontoxic recipes for effective cleaners.
Furniture Polish: Mix 1 teaspoon of lemon juice in 1 pint of mineral or vegetable oil. Apply a small amount to a clean cotton cloth and wipe wooden parts of furniture.

Rug Deodorizer: Deodorize dry carpets by sprinkling liberally with baking soda. Wait at least 15 minutes and vacuum. Repeat if necessary.

Mothballs: Use cedar chips or a sachet with any or all of the following: lavender flowers, rosemary, mint, white peppercorns.

Whitening Scouring Powder: Combine 1 cup baking soda, 2 teaspoons cream of tartar, 1/8 cup borax, 1/4 cup grated lemon, orange or grapefruit peel and mix well. Scrub using a damp sponge.

Glass Cleaner: Combine 1 1/2 cups vinegar, 1/2 cup water and 8 drops citrus essential oil in a spray bottle and shake well. Spray and wipe with a dry cloth or towel.

Why are Americans all up in arms about the Mexican ad for Absolut? I, for one, understood the nuance in the ad, and rather liked it. Anyone who is pouring their Absolut down the drain needs to grow up; the Swedes are not war mongering, they’re not anti-American. They are hinting at what many Mexican consumers might refer to as golden days of their country’s history.

I’m quite sure that after seeing the ad, Mexican citizens are not going to bomb us to reclaim their territory. I bet many of them smiled — is that what drives Americans up the wall? Why is it that Americans react like children whenever they hear that they’ve been talked about?

I’ll toast the Mexicans and the Swedes later on tonight, with a chilled bottle of Absolut vodka.

As someone in the scientific community, I am outraged that the censorship of research has ever been allowed to flourish. The common lay person would dismiss claims of government censorship or even outright control of research as conspiracy theory or liberal panic. What must be done to get the point across?

Are the many career scientists who resigned during this regime for having felt their integrity compromised simply invisible? What has happened these last eight years has been a tragedy. Many others and myself seriously doubt if government funded science will ever again have integrity enough to function.

Most unfortunately, and, likely what will spell our doom, is that the American people as a whole are drowning in empty idealism and patriotism, and as a result, don’t have the balls or the will to analyze themselves or their government. They are hand fed sound bites by the media, and this has resulted in an overall distrust and dismissal of anything, including good research, that doesn’t have media endorsement.
Does anyone else see this for the crisis it is?

I decided to write briefly on this topic after spotting the following article from AFP:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080407/sc_afp/usclimateenvironmentnasa_080407051048

I have mixed feelings about this article’s publication in Yahoo News; I feel the majority of Americans have already decided (with a curious but false sense of authority ) that global climate change is unprovable, or that both ‘opinions’ in the scientific community are politically fueled. Our government and its bed partners, the oil and other energy companies, have succeeded in their goal — enough dissent and confusion were spun that the people have dismissed the issue as unproven and far from being decided. Now, the average person is likely to dismiss any statement or research as just another discordant voice in the overall cacophony — if they haven’t already closed their minds completely.

In the shower today I caught myself wondering if 9th and 10th cent. Scandinavians saw Christianity in a similar way as I do. Did individuals see the doom of their spiritual lifeways, and, in some cases, even their way of life? I’d like to think Eirik Rauði saw this religion for what it is. I have to wonder if similar thoughts have occurred before, in different times and places, among different people…trippy.

Eric the Red (Týr)

Why I take refuge here, my father was
outlawed from the old land in east
A story of bloodshed and I too was outlawed,
now I take refuge here

What brings you here my friend, what brings
you north to where hell is of ice
South from the sand dunes where hell is of
fire, why have you come so far
Anywhere, you don’t care where you

Go as long as there are faithless you can
make believe need help
And that you have the cure, of your
intentions, I’m sure
I can’t bring it all to reason you’ve
convinced these people that all
Their ancestors were wrong, disoriented they
do not know where they belong
Like a virus you’ll go on, and when I’m dead and gone
Both sides waging war will be for one true divinity

Like a virus you’ll go on, and when I’m dead and gone
Both sides waging war will be raging in the
name of one true divinity

This I don’t understand, why this perverted
superhuman ideal
So we are born to nothing but torture and
torment, that, I don’t understand

Clearly I see the end, I pray that the embers
will persist from my faith
Clearly I’m outnumbered, allegedly outdated,
since your arrival here.
Anywhere, you don’t care where you

Go as long as there are faithless you can
make believe need help
And that you have the cure, of your
intentions, I’m sure
I can’t bring it all to reason you’ve
convinced these people that all
Their ancestors were wrong, disoriented they
do not know where they belong

Like a virus you’ll go on, and when I’m dead and gone
Both sides waging war will be for one true divinity
Just convert the whole wide world, into the
abyss we are hurled
Sentenced come end of the world, spare me
your self righteous word

Since this is my unofficial year off from the Academy, I’m really enjoying my freedom in reading whatever the hell I want.

Having finished the second Sell Swords book (R.A. Salvatore), I went to the bookstore to see if the third book was out in paperback yet (I’m behind anyway, so I figured it very well might be). I didn’t find it, but was then distracted by a St. Patty’s Day display of Irish authors and what not.
I picked up a copy of Wilde’s Dorian Gray and haven’t put it down since. I’m simply ::sigh:: in love.

Over the last six years or so, I haven’t had any courses that would have meant my reading the Victorian novel, or, indeed, anything written later than 1300 (that’s not entirely true, I’ve read a lot of 19th/20th cent. academic material, probably several thousand pages worth). In any event, I’m rather pining for the stuff now and would like to devote the rest of my time away to the literature of which I’ve been so deprived!

After Wilde, I’m diving head first into Jane Austen.

The following is a piece of journalism about deforestation and death in Canada’s boreal forests. I encourage everyone to read and learn about , not to mention travel to, the boreal areas. I was in the boreal forests around Ladozhkoye ozero and Petrozavodsk in the summer of 2006, and felt myself in a dream of otherworldly, mythological proportions.

These amazing areas are going to be gone very very soon, as extensive logging and climate change take their toll. I witnessed effects of climate change on the amazingly precarious, primordial lifeforms first hand in 2006. Together with logging and mining, these breathtaking forests and expanses, which act as the lungs of our world, won’t survive but a few more years.

If you want to meet Leshii, Baba Yaga, trolls and elves and all manner of old beings (including more mosquitoes and no see ums per square inch than anywhere else on earth), you don’t really have much time.

Do read.

http://www.sacbee.com/static/live/news/projects/denial/c2_1.html

http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/15-02-2007/87441-army_prostitute-0

I just finished reading some testimonials and articles about sexual and other abuses in the Russian military. I have to say, what annoys me as much as the abuses themselves are the responses in English. American readers respond with comments like “wow, I’m so glad I live in the USA”, ‘”typical Soviet Union”, or other annoying remarks.

Why are Americans so incapable of looking at the world around them, with all of its problems and issues, without relating back to childish American idealism? These fools take blind pride in the American military, refusing to believe that our own soldiers are subject to hazing, sexual abuse, rape, and even torture — I haven’t encountered a study in the US media, for example, on the large number of suicides and attempted suicides among our own military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While I am so outraged at the situation in the Russian military, which I should note, is not volunteer-based, I am sickened and embarrassed by American attitudes on the issue. They need to grow up and judge their own country the way they judge others. Maybe they should spend more time contemplating what our military environment would be like should the US reinstate a draft? Or the lawlessness of Iraq, where our soldiers and citizens are raping and abusing each other because they know they can get away with it? Just a suggestion.

Former boxer who killed pedophile wins prosecutors’ hearts

Law-enforcement agencies of St.Petersburg investigate a murder case filed against former boxer Alexander Kuznetsov who murdered a pedophile rapist. The jury will decide the man’s fate in the next several days. It is not ruled out that Kuznetsov can be fully acquitted, Vesti.ru reports.

The former athlete committed the crime in a state of temporary insanity on New Year’s night, January 1, 2008. Alexander Kuznetsov entered the apartment building where he lived with his family and saw an unidentified adult male abusing a little boy. The boy was Kuznetsov’s eight-year-old adopted son.

The defendant said that the boy was unconscious, beaten and stripped. The boy’s step-father, formerly a professional boxer, killed the pedophile with a few blows. The latter was subsequently identified as a 20-year-old native of Uzbekistan (a former republic of the Soviet Union), a student at one of Russian universities.

“I wanted to detain him. I don’t know how it happened. I could not control myself,” Kuznetsov said at court.

There are no eyewitnesses in the case, but all facts testify to Kuznetsov’s honesty. Prosecutors tend to believe the defendant too. The state of affairs will be cleared out completely when investigators are granted a decision to interrogate the boy, the victim of attempted rape. Psychologists do not allow to conduct the procedure at the moment yet not to harm the child.

For the time being, Alexander Kuznetsov has been charged with causing grievous severe bodily harm entailing a lethal outcome. The defendant can be jailed for up to ten years.

Alexander Kuznetsov’s case is reminiscent of that of Alexandra Ivannikova, a female resident of Moscow. The young woman was charged with murder in 2003. Ivannikova, was returning home late at night on 8 December 2003. On her way home, the woman decided to flag down a car. The first driver was able to take the woman home only halfway. Alexandra Ivannikova had to stop another car. Instead of taking the woman to her address, the young driver, named only as Sergei B., stopped the car in a dark side street and asked the woman to perform oral sex on him.

The driver was trying to force the girl to oral sex, but she was fighting. When Alexandra said “Wait” and reached out to her purse, Sergei loosened the grip: the young man apparently thought that the girl wanted to take a condom. The girl pulled out a small kitchen knife and stabbed the man in his leg. The blade went into the femoral artery and caused profuse bleeding. Alexandra opened the door of the car and escaped. Sergei B. died from loss of blood.

Ivannikova was fully acquitted on November 25, 2005.

Translated by Dmitry Sudakov
Pravda.ru