"I thought they were technically equivalent, or that formula was at least an "acceptable alternative"?

Formula, which is derived from cows's mlk and lab-synthesized additives (like the newly-added DHA and ARA proteins) is as close as we can come to human milk. And it's a great alternative if mother's milk is not available.

But, it's not equivelant. Because baby cows require different balances of nutrients than baby humans, the formulations are not identical (which is why we don't simply feed babies actual cow's milk.) There are thousands of compounds in human milk that we haven't figured out yet (but we suspect - as more studies seek to confirm preliminary findings- many compounds protect against allergies, diabetes, cancers and obesity.) Plus there's all the antibodies. Then there's the fact that milk changes its composition over the course of months, so that the milk a 6 day-old gets is different than the milk he gets at 6 months, even if Mom stays on the same diet. Human milk also changes over the course of a single feeding, going from a watery foremilk to a higher-in-fat hind milk (soup to dessert), while formula stays the same. And the iron in formula can be constipating for babies, while human milk is easier to digest. And there's a much lower risk of contamination, since Mom is the lab and can exercise quality control. Human milk is considered a "clear liquid" when a baby can't tolerate formula. Though the formula manufacturers would have you think it's "equal", or that it's actually superior to human milk, which is exactly what many marketers of formula claimed ... and claim.

No, I don't think formula feeders are evil, ignorant, lazy or abusive. And I raised an eyebrow at the mechanical bull-riding ad. But, formula makers have used many an underhanded tactic to ensure moms have no alternative to formula. Nestle workers dressed in labcoats, persuading brand-new mothers to not nurse because formula is "so much better for the baby", for example. The moms thought they were being given medical advice, not a sales pitch. More recently, there as the scare press release (I think this was also Nestle, but I may be wrong) that quoted a study that found traces of rocket fuel in breast milk. Ergo, "feed your baby our fuel-less, wholesome formula, or be a selfish baby-killing mom and nurse your baby wiht your diesel milk." Even though the study concluded the traces came from water that moms would either drink, or use to mix with ... formula.

And the big food lobbyists have been screwing with PSAs for decades. I think it was in "Animal, Vgetable Miracle" by Barbar Kingsolver where I read about the beeef lobby. In the early 1950's the FDA concluded that eating too much beef and dairy could kill you. The PSA went from saying (I'm paraphrasing) "Reduce your consumption of beef and cheese if you don't want a heart attack" to "Eat lots of good foods to stay healthy. Like, beef. And cheese. And, oh, other things."

Having seen so many moms make really tough choices when feeding their babies (and simple as "breast or bottle?" may sound, often times it's *far* more complicated than that.), I will never condem any wman forchoosing formula, so long as she has made an informed choice. I vote we start making PSAs that actually inform.

"They're too busy looking for the next blowjob, fuck, or drug to bother maturing into adult men. Trapped in arrested adolescence, they have no self-control, no wisdom, and no ability to imagine a life outside of their insular clone-like community."

Gee, I wonder why some gay men act this way? Maybe because they live in a society that defines solely onwhere they put their dick? Maybe because this society does not allow them to form legal relationships that confer rresponsibility and maturity? Maybe because it's still considered ok by some (even the likes of Tucker Carlson) to beat up these men for not being straight?

If people really want "mature" behavior from gay men, perhaps we should recognize and support mature sexual behavior. Like allowing him to marry the guy.

I think it actually originated in "Little Mosque on the Prairie", the Canadian tv show. The Muslim women were taking swim class, and had a substitute male instructor. This is how they solved their modesty dilemma.

Which doesn't make Lola Granola or Steve Dallas any less funny. Thanks again, Mr Breathed! More Diet Coke sprayed on my keyboard ....

"find a misogynistic comment of mine. You can't."

Indeed. Because you post anonymously.

A life of hard drinking, hard partying and general mild depravity will age you pretty quickly. Whereas, the life of a yoga-loving Amish Nudist probably keeps you young forever :)

Clearly, the dozens of Iranian women arrested in May of this year for allowing their hair to show hadn't read the salon letters.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2070293,00.html

Is anyone else getting tired of loyal Bushies having a change of heart long after they've done their damage? And that change just happens to coincide with a book release? Is it the allure of fame? Or is the devil coming for their soul and they're trying for a last-minute redemption?

Why can't these people speak out, resist, whistle-blow, leak, whatever when they can still impact the outcome?

I have to ask: Why couldn't Jack Goldsmith (or Colin Powell, or what's-his-face McNulty, or the former SG, or anyone else) have these moments of conscience while they were still on the White House payroll?

While I'm pleased to see more rats leaving the sinking ship of this administration, and relieved to see that so many "loyal Bushies" are at last made queasy by their boss, I'm tired of the tell-all after the fact. When the damage has been done, the checks have been cashed and the country is that much more a mess.

Please, please, speak up when you have the chance to do something about it!

to see how this is all really Clinton's fault.