TRUFAX: You can raise a baby on $70 a month!

[Burris]

Through a link at the always entertaining Ladies Against Feminism site, I found mommy-blogger Connie who writes for Smockity Frocks (smockityfrocks.com/2011/12/an-open-letter-to-suze-orman.html).

It seems Connie's husband was channel surfing the other night when he came across a program by Suze Orman, who hosts a television show dealing primarily with family financial issues.

A couple, Jill and Brian, recently appeared on Orman's show with several questions regarding family planning and finances. [Link here]

Here's the low-down:

** Jill, 29, works as an oncology nurse. Brian, 30, works as a field representative (although there's nothing revealed about the nature of what he sells). ** Together they make $5600 a month after tax.

** Their current expenses every month - $6500 - are greater than their net income.

** They disagree with each other on family planning and money management: While Brian would like to have his wife at home with their current 17-month-old child, he looked at their finances and realized they would take a major hit if Jill quit working.

** Jill wants to have another child and stay home with both kids while they're young – although she may not want to stay home permanently.

** Jill and Brian work opposite shifts right now so that a parent is always home.

** Their 17-month-old son is doing well with the current arrangement.

** Jill's paycheck covers all the insurance – life, medical, dental, house, etc. If she stops working, then Brian has to shoulder not only the bills he usually pays but also the bills and insurance Jill usually pays.

Orman looked through their financial situation and said the following:

“Here is the truth of the matter. I looked through all of your paperwork. You do not live a lavish style, the two of you. You barely do anything other than work. You are at bare minimum right now.

“Here is the financial reality: If you stop working, and you have another baby, your expenses are actually going to increase because of the cost of that child, whether it's diapers, this and that, your expenses should go up $700-$1000 per month. So you add that thousand dollars on to what your current expenses are, you're looking at easily $7-8000 of expenses a month that you cannot reduce. But we have reduced Brian's take-home pay from $2800 a month down to $2000 a month for him having to pay for everything including extra insurance for you because your insurance goes away once you quit your job.â€

I don't know the specifics of their financial situation, but it sounds like they live in a fairly pricey area with a depressed labor market (hence an oncology nurse netting $2800 a month). She and her employer are the source of all their insurance right now.

Connie the blogger seems to have paid virtually no attention to the clip, and has a loose relationship with reality in general, so she wrote the following “Open Letter to Suze Ormanâ€:

We both watched as you were in the middle of counseling a young couple, 29 and 30 years old, who wondered if they could afford to have the wife quit her job and have another baby.

It’s not that we expected you to actually encourage them to make cutbacks and sacrifice whatever was necessary to have the mother home with her child. I mean that would be NUTS, right?

I watched the clip and transcribed some of it above. Orman didn't say they shouldn't restructure their finances; she said they couldn't – that all they do now is work and sleep and take care of their son and yet they're still overdrawn each month by irreducible expenses.

Now I'm sure they could probably cut a couple of things such that they no longer live with a net loss of $1000 a month – but there is no way, based on what they say and on what Orman says of their finances that either one of them – and especially the one paying all that expensive insurance – could quit work.

So yeah, having Jill quit her job and bear another child would be so crazy only a fundie would do it.

But we were absolutely dumbfounded when you told them that their expenses would go up $700-1000 each month due to necessary baby items, like “diapers and this and thatâ€. (Diapers were the only actual expenses you came up with.)

Diapers? $700? A MONTH??? Really?

Because I buy diapers and I can pretty much guarantee they don’t cost that much, at least here on Planet Earth, where I shop.

While I do NOT agree what Orman's assessment concerning the cost of a new baby – it's a bit off, unless she's counting the additional insurance Brian would have to buy for another child – I still think she's right in general: At this particular moment, this particular family should not have any more kids.

And until they can find a less expensive living situation or a higher paying job, Jill can't afford to quit work or even to drop back to part-time hours (which is kind of sad, because I can totally understand her wanting to work only part-time in this situation).

Most people aren't willing to stack their “blessings†like cord-wood and skimp as much as possible on child-rearing expenses merely so they can win the fundie baby derby.

And neither do all the other baby related expenses all added up, even if we went hog wild and bought Pampers without a coupon.

You told the couple “sorry, you can’t afford it,†and there was “no way possible†for their plan to work.

No possible way? Really?

Yeah, really. Most people aren't willing that their existing children should have to eat boxes, toilet paper rolls, and chicken-etti for the next ten years merely so their parents can feel a sense of accomplishment by fucking like brain-damaged rabbits.

Suze, pardon me for saying so, but I don’t think you know what you are talking about here.

Connie, pardon me for saying so, but I don't think you know what you're talking about here either. Suze Orman had a detailed break-down of that couple's finances in her hand. You don't. Go cry about it.

You may not be aware of this, but babies are not that expensive, especially when it is not the first.

You see, families who are adding a second, third, or (insert freakishly high ordinal number here) child can actually re-use car seats, high chairs, baby beds, clothes, and all of the other stuff they spent way too much money on for the first kid.

If they are really interested in cutting expenses, they could breastfeed, cloth diaper, and skip preschool. Besides the very nominal start up cost of buying the cloth diapers, all those things are FREE.

What else does a baby need? Baby shampoo? Maybe. Dr. appointments? Occasionally. Baby food? Not really.

I know. It’s a radical thought.

Yeah...if “radical†is merely another way of saying, “Completely fucking brain dead.â€

“Baby food? Not really.†Yeah, I know, right: Breastfeed 'em 'til they're ten, along with the other 20 kids you have stacked in various closets around the ol' trailer, and then send them out to forage for their own damned food. See? Eating's FREE. Easy peasy.

Anyway, that family asked for Suze Orman's advice. They can either take it or leave it. I'd much rather they take that, however, and even despite Orman's overestimating the monthly cost of a second child, than see them follow in your foot-steps and raise a pack of Costco-shelf critters merely in service to some idolatrous natalist agenda.

But, it can be done. A family can actually sacrifice luxuries for a greater cause. And for far, far less that $700 a month.

Oh, and there's that old saw again: That the only reason anyone ever abstains from having kids is because they'd rather have all those luxuries – you know, food, shelter, power, insurance – instead.

If only they'd stop with the bingo and the haircuts, they could get busy with popping out kids every autumn for the greater glory of gawd.

Babies take time. They take patience. And sacrifice. Lots of it. But not a lot of money.

Oh for crying out loud: Yes, babies do cost money – assuming you're not running a fucking feed-lot for kids, that is.

I would wager that an additional baby can be added to a frugal-minded family for less than $70 a month.

...and unless you're dumpster diving to meet the baby's basic needs, that's a bet you'd lose.

And if you’ve got God on your side, He will make a way. There are lots of people just like me who do the “impossible†every day.

...or you could stop bothering God and actually plan ahead and take care of your own affairs.

God gave Connie a brain, or so I would assume, and I think she should use what little she has between her ears rather than continuing to presume upon God's mercy to put food on her table.

I think you were way off base with that young, disappointed couple. And I think you should check out diaper prices next time you hit the local discount chain.

And I think Connie should listen to that entire clip again, rather than merely dropping in from time to time as a result of hearing whatever buzzwords her politics have conditioned her to respond to.

[snarkbillie]

As a breastfeeding, cloth diapering, baby food making mom I have to say the woman who wrote that blog is a nutzo. Kids are fucking expensive. Babies not so much but kids are and if you're even a remotely adequate adult your babies get to be kids one day.

Cloth diapers are cheaper than disposable but they take more TIME. Breastfeeding is free at the pump (so to speak) but it takes more TIME and I had to eat more food to have enough energy to make it. Making baby food actually costs more than buying it. I did it because I wanted my kid to eat fresh food.

[HijabiLady]

I cloth diaper and breastfeed and yeah, this kid is still expensive. Between the co-pays of delivery costs and well baby check ups we've spent a pretty penny. And my delivery was textbook perfect, I delivered in less than 3 hours after arrival, no drugs or intervention. I even checked out the day after delivery because I was doing so well and so was my daughter. But if we didn't have insurance we would've paid upward of 10K just to bring this bundle home.

So how exactly are these people supposed to budget in another child, sans insurance? What if she becomes high risk and requires high risk management as well as a lot of intervention? What if the child isn't healthy and requires NICU time? Now that is serious $$$$. I don't get this mentality to just wish away bad stuff and not have a good safety net in place before purposely bringing more children into your lives.

[Mokek Kwe]

Another "naturally minded" parent chiming in here, and though I also think Suze's estimate of $700+/mo for a new baby is pretty high (at least for the area where I live), I certainly don't think $70/mo would cut it. On any freaking planet. Okay, so car seats DO expire and have to be replaced every few years, so that's $50-300 right there. Cloth diapers and supplies (while I didn't use them very long) can wear out and need replacing, and hell, I just like to buy clothes for my kid because kid clothes are cute. A first kid probably is more expensive, and for where I live and the things we would spend money on, a second child for me would probably be an extra $200-300/mo, not including how/if it would affect our health insurance from my husband's take-home pay.

I think Suze was very accurate in saying it would be extremely difficult or not feasible for the young family to SAHM-it-up and reproduce again, but I would probably offer the couple ideas for ways they could set money aside, save, etc, just throw out any plans that would work, however unpleasant, so it doesn't feel so black-and-white.

[masagoroll]

I feel like Suze Orman is often overly cautious, but yeah, there is no way their plan of the wife just quitting work and having another baby will work!

They must live somewhere expensive as fuck, though! My husband and I (who have no kids, but still) live on about $1500 a month. (Hey, and my real name is Emily! I should write a blog...)

[GatorGutCasserole]

Such people never fail to amaze me...

They are 900 dollars short every month. WHERE do they get that money from, though? The amount that is lacking?!

And, they want the lady to quit working. And they want to spew out another kid.

These people are financially immature, and irrisponsible. Many people think this way btw. Then they go whining that they need moned. Wow. Why didn't you think ahead?

[Rosa]

When my son was in toddler daycare, the cost rivaled our mortgage - $900/mo, or $225/week. And we're not in a super high-cost area - costs in Chicago, DC, or New York City easily double that. Combine that with rent or mortgage, and the kind of student loan costs lots of people have, and you can hit $2500/mo easily without such luxuries as food, electricity, phone, transportation, or clothing.

[doggie]

so if you have 20 does the cost go down to about 10.00 a month?

[Burris]

Such people never fail to amaze me...

They are 900 dollars short every month. WHERE do they get that money from, though? The amount that is lacking?!

And, they want the lady to quit working. And they want to spew out another kid.

These people are financially immature, and irrisponsible. Many people think this way btw. Then they go whining that they need moned. Wow. Why didn't you think ahead?

In looking at their expenses, Orman actually said they were "not lavish." I expect part of the problem is related to working in an area with a high cost of living. I also expect they're gathering credit card debt each month - possibly to pay for necessities. I do hope Orman addresses this somewhere outside the clip. From what I gather, however, the couple is actually trying - and the husband is the one who wants his wife to keep working.

She's an oncology nurse, though, and I think she might want to get away from some of the job stress which is part of the reason for her floating this plan.

If Connie and her anti-feminist bed-buddies were so concerned about "this young couple," then perhaps they should raise some money for them even as they did for the utterly thankless Kelly Crawford.

[wordsfromthewest]

Not to mention that as your kids get older, they get more expensive! My daughter that is 12 wanted to participate in cross country running, then swimming. We had to buy shoes, uniform, pics and snacks/water/etc for the meets. When she started swimming, it was the swimsuit (at least $40), sweats for meets cuz we live in the Rocky Mountains where it is cold, cold, cold in the winter, pics, bag, etc. Plus, she dances ballet and just went on pointe, $78 later. Kids cost more the older they get and the activities they are involved in.

I also have 2 sons that participate in soccer and gymnastics, respectively.

They also want more expensive Christmas gifts as they get older. When she was little, she wanted a play kitchen. Now she wants an ipod touch. Many fundies don't take into account that everything costs more the older they get if you want them to be involved in anything.

My husband works full time, and I work as a substitute teacher. I was a SAHM when my kids were little, but now we need both incomes to pay for things. Kids are expensive if you actually plan to raise them in a normal world.

[doggie]

fundy kids get cheaper. you feed them worse foods you don't send them to school you give them crappy used clothes you buy them flipflops give them closets or shelves to sleep in or on and they don't have hobbies. plus they are built-in daycare. one room per sex so you don't need a large house.

[GatorGutCasserole]

fundy kids get cheaper. you feed them worse foods you don't send them to school you give them crappy used clothes you buy them flipflops give them closets or shelves to sleep in or on and they don't have hobbies. plus they are built-in daycare. one room per sex so you don't need a large house.

Giving them cheap food is the most horrible thing you can do to a child. Sugar? GMO? Monsanto meat? White flour? MSG, what else? It's KILLIN them . Slowly and painfully. I'd rather have 1 or too and give them the best food available.

[wordsfromthewest]

I agree gator. If I had it to do over again, I would have become a chef. I feed my kids a wide variety of foods. We try new things, they assist in cooking, we research foods from around the world and the kids take turns trying new foods/cooking techniques.

I refuse to feed them tator tot casserole when they can have cassoulet instead.

I realize that some people can't feed their kids a wide variety of foods. But since I can, I do.

[uber frau]

Yeah, our latest blessing has probably cost us $70 a month-possibly less. But that's only because he's a third child (so there's lots of hand-me-downs and I'm not losing any income because I'm at home looking after the other two but we haven't gotten to a point where we need to upgrade to a bigger car or house), we live in a country with taxpayer funded healthcare (hate to see the bill for an uninsured 7 day stay in NICU)so the only additional costs at this point are the water and power to run the washing machine and a few bucks worth of extra food for me because I'm breastfeeding him. But ask again this time next year when he's eating real food and he's at the point where clothes get worn out, rather than grown out of. And ask again another few years after that when he's at school and we have to shell out every couple of months because the free public schools around here are terrible. And then again ten years later, when he's a teenager...

Fundies live in a existence a little like the majority world-children cost only what it takes to feed them and in return you get an extra person to work for the family. The difference is that fundies live in a country where they can do better for their children, but they CHOOSE to deny them them even the basics required for them to grow into productive, healthy adults.

[FloraDoraDolly]

If kids really did cost only $70 a month, I would have had one. I might have been able to afford two!

[Kelya]

700 might be high, but I figured that included insurance costs and delivery costs (probably spread over the next 8-12 months as they pay it off if their insurance doesnt cover it all).

Also, water is hella expensive where I live, and cloth diapering turned out to be nearly as expensive as throwaways once you took into account the time and utilities costs of washing and drying the diapers, especially since we don't have any sun for 6 months of the year!

Plus, as everyone else mentioned, babies turn into kids and if they're really running a deficit of 1000ish dollars a month, and doing that on credit cards, they're gonna be paying them down while the baby turns into a kid. And I'd feel like a shitty parent if I couldn't have my kid do youth soccer or ballet lessons because we're paying off all the costs associated with having them at a poor financial time while they're growing up.

[AnnoDomini]

Well baby visits? Who needs THOSE? Kid wanting to be involved in extracurriculars like swimming, ballet or something else requiring money? Frivolity, unnecessary things.

[demgirl]

Giving them cheap food is the most horrible thing you can do to a child. Sugar? GMO? Monsanto meat? White flour? MSG, what else? It's KILLIN them . Slowly and painfully. I'd rather have 1 or too and give them the best food available.

I disagree. I think this: http://freejinger.yuku.com/reply/185580 ... vSDpFaYPKQ or this: getoffmyinternets.net/2011/11/03/bathroom-baby-saga-allegedly-continuing-at-grandmas/ or this: http://www.freejinger.org/viewtopic.php ... 2&start=20 is all much more horrible. I point that out not to be a snarky bitch, but simply because I constantly hear nowadays about how the WORST thing we can do for children is feed them junk food like white flour and sugar, and I'm tired of hearing about it, especially after reading this board all day and seeing children denied food, shelter, comfort, love, freedom, individuality, freedom from fear of physical harm, education, and the list goes on. Yes, Americans should feed their kids better and teach children to have a healthy relationship with nutritional food. But really? Sugar and white flour is "KILLIN" children? The "most horrible thing you can do to a child" is serve them cheap food? Well, not everyone can afford non-cheap food and I can think of far more horrible things done to children which we discuss every day.

I'm sorry, I just can't take this new-ish, incessant judgment by some groups and people of perfectly responsible and loving parents who allow their kids to eat hot dogs and white bread and the attendant, "It's killing them!!! Won't someone think of the children!?! It's the WORST THING YOU CAN DO." No, it's not.

[bananacat]

I don't think $700 per month is a high estimate. The thing is, you can plan it all on paper but you will always forget to include something. There will be additional expenses for that baby that come up, and even though they already have one kid and think they know what to expect, they'll still pay more than they think. It's that way with everything. Suze isn't being overly cautious; she's being realistic.

When I had to move for a new job, I asked for a relocation bonus. The move ended up costing me twice as much as I was approved for, so I ended up just paying out of my pocket for a lot of it. Then I bought some new furniture because a coffee table (that was already old and cheap) go damaged in the move. My mom offered to buy me a new coffee table set as a housewarming gift. I thought the total would be about $400 and it ended up being about $700. I even took into account extras like taxes and delivery, but it was still far more expensive than I expected. So it's really just a pipe dream to write a list of things that the baby will need and expect to never go over that. You have to make that budget, and then also factor in extra money to cover the things you didn't expect. If you think the baby will cost $500 a month, it will probably be more like $700.

And I'm sure that fundies are paying more for their kids than they realize, but they just don't count the things that are used by other people too. They wouldn't count a bigger car or bigger house as part of the expense of having a new baby, and they wouldn't factor in replacing furniture more often, buying more food, and buying more laundry detergent.

[bananacat]

I disagree. I think this: http://freejinger.yuku.com/reply/185580 ... vSDpFaYPKQ or this: getoffmyinternets.net/2011/11/03/bathroom-baby-saga-allegedly-continuing-at-grandmas/ or this: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2622&start=20 is all much more horrible. I point that out not to be a snarky bitch, but simply because I constantly hear nowadays about how the WORST thing we can do for children is feed them junk food like white flour and sugar, and I'm tired of hearing about it, especially after reading this board all day and seeing children denied food, shelter, comfort, love, freedom, individuality, freedom from fear of physical harm, education, and the list goes on. Yes, Americans should feed their kids better and teach children to have a healthy relationship with nutritional food. But really? Sugar and white flour is "KILLIN" children? The "most horrible thing you can do to a child" is serve them cheap food? Well, not everyone can afford non-cheap food and I can think of far more horrible things done to children which we discuss every day.

I'm sorry, I just can't take this new-ish, incessant judgment by some groups and people of perfectly responsible and loving parents who allow their kids to eat hot dogs and white bread and the attendant, "It's killing them!!! Won't someone think of the children!?! It's the WORST THING YOU CAN DO." No, it's not.

It's the new type of purity. We've decided (rightfully) not to be judgy about what people put in their vaginas. But now you're only pure if you never put these bad things in your mouth. It's the same kind of moralizing. Sugar and white flour are fine unless you're diabetic. There's no evidence that MSG is universally bad. Some people are sensitive to it and they should avoid it, but that doesn't mean it's bad for everyone. It's like saying that nobody should ever eat peanuts because some people are allergic. GM foods are fine. People who have this knee-jerk reaction don't understand genetics. It's not surprising because of our dismal science education. There are legitimate concerns about GM foods, but I've never heard anyone other than a genetic scientist actually bring them up. Instead it's always about it being unnatural or unknown. And this all ties into the obesity crises. If you can't call someone slutty, you can judge them for being fat and supposedly impure, but pretend it's all about health. It's real-life concern trolling.

Fundie diets are dismal, but not because of the reasons GatorGut thinks. And in any case, it's bad but not the most horrible thing ever. I'm more concerned about their mental health and the basic neglect that makes accidents much more likely to happen. Putting your kids in shelving or inside a close overnight is far more dangerous than feeding them any "bad" food other than actual poison or rotten food. And neglecting them emotionally will give them more problems throughout their lives than giving them a tator tot.

[AnnoDomini]

Enlightened fundies know there is no need for new furniture. Buy it all used when the old furniture falls apart, and ignore any dents the stuff gets from moving. Doncha know that wanting pristine furniture with no dents or paint chips is a sin of indulgence?

[ZTwist]

My daughter is an adult, but because we only have two kids ( so selfish!) we can help with their rent while her husband is in law school and also pay college tuition for our son. To me, that's a blessing

[gilora]

The comments on the blog post are really distressing. One person even said Suze couldn't know what she was talking about because Suze's preferences made her an "abomination."

Here's a snippet:

Taryn December 6, 2011 at 2:30 pm

Psalm 1:1 KJ-â€Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly…â€

Reply

Rebecca L. December 6, 2011 at 3:58 pm

Exactly! I was going to post this and some similar comments. No Christian should be taking advice from this woman. She is ultra liberal, massively against men, a feminist to the point of being a religion. She is not a mother, not married and last I heard, living with her girlfriend. Light and darkness cannot be walking here in harmony, unequally yoked. I understand the frustration of her comment though, as targeting the cost of a new baby at $700 or more per month. My teenage children don’t cost an extra $700 a month and in my opinion, they are about the most expensive age bracket. I never watch Orman, I flip it or turn it off. I’d rather watch grass grow. I do like Dave Ramsey and believe his advice is closer to what the Bible says, although I still don’t know if he would advocate having large families, I’ve never heard anything one way or the other about his stand there.

Reply

Lisa December 7, 2011 at 4:33 pm

What hateful and un-Christian things to say.

Reply

Rebecca L. December 7, 2011 at 4:59 pm

I have no idea what you mean by that……everything is true. Christians shouldn’t be taking advice from someone who is not a Christian. Sorry if my plain spokedness offended you. Not intended but I just speak plainly.

Here's another:

Paul French December 6, 2011 at 4:53 pm

I give my wife $60 per week. That’s all I can afford to give her. With it, she buys all the necessary non-food items. We have 5 kids, aged 2 – 11. Susie is a typical liberal lesbian hack making money off of people’s ignorance. My background is insurance, and most of everything she advises on insurance is wrong, but it sounds good to people and she like all the other so called financial gurus use insurance companies the way Hitler used the Jews to rally everyone behind her. Without insurance, no bank would loan you money for a car or a home. Can you afford to pay cash for these things? The problem with insurance is you cannot eat it, wear it, drive it, watch it, or play with it, so people resent paying money to provide for themselves, their children or their future when the typical liberal attitude today is that someone else should provide for me at no expense to myself.

And another...

L. A. Stanley December 9, 2011 at 11:08 pm

I do not know who “Suze Orman†is, where she comes from, how she became a topic of discussion, or why she is occupying anyone’s time, but the stated fact that she is up-front “a lesbianâ€, and somehow in a position to dispense advice to people too un-informed and/or too illiterate to know better than to solicit her “adviceâ€, tells it all to begin with. A product of the “entertainment industry†(anyone who considers this entertainment is an idiot) that will promote anything and anyone, no matter how idiotic, that will produce revenue, and take from the poor to give to the rich, is the obvious answer. How can anyone with an I.Q. above 50 ask for advice from someone with an obvious I.Q. BELOW 50? Caveat Emptor.

Still more ...

MarkyMark December 11, 2011 at 4:47 pm

Perhaps the fact that Suze Orman’s a LESBIAN might have colored her perspective in some way?

Reply

Lisa December 12, 2011 at 10:25 am

Connie, do you moderate comments? Because maybe you should. There are some really hateful homophobic things here, not the sort of thing I would want my children exposed to. Thanks.

Reply

Smockity Frocks December 12, 2011 at 10:46 am

Lisa, Suze Orman is an admitted lesbian in a “marriage†with another woman. I’m not sure how it’s homophobic to state that. I try to keep this site family friendly, but there may occasionally be content that is not suitable for children. Use your own judgement as to what you want your children reading.

Reply

[browngrl]

It makes me mad to see how short sighted fundies are. A newborn may not cost that much; particularly if it is a second or third child and if breastfed and if one parent is already at home full time. However, costs will go up if you want your children to have a decent education and health care and clothes/shoes and special activities that will enrich their lives (e.g. music lessons, sports, dance, camp,trips to museums etc). None of this takes into account what the costs will be if your child has special needs. Case in point: my nephew was born profoundly deaf. He has two cochlear implants and multiple extra sets of batteries for his implants. The cost: tens of thousands of dollars. My sister wanted him to have the best chance possible so he saw (and still sees) both an audiologist and speech therapist regularly. He saw developmental specialists so that my sister could find out if there was anything else she could do to help him. The costs just keep adding up but they are worth it. My nephew is reading/writing well above his grade level and his speech is entirely normal (you could not tell he was deaf - even when talking to him on the phone). Luckily my sister is a doctor (another evil mother who works outside the home) they can afford these things. So if you want to just give your child the bare necessities of life - it probably won't cost much. If you want you child to have better - count on the costs being higher.

[demgirl]

I think "Lisa" the commenter should probably consider reading a different blog. She obviously missed the part about "Only Foaming-At-The-Mouth Gay-Bashers Welcome. All Others Need Not Read".