Suspended Teacher Speaks at Public Hearing on her Students Get-well Letters to Convicted Cop Killer

Marilyn Zuniga, a third-grade teacher, has been suspended with pay for sending Mumia Abul-Jamal get well letters written by her students.  The board is deciding on what, if any, further action will be taken.  

During the meeting that was being held, Ms. Zuniga made a public statement.  In this statement she said:

"Growing up in a predominantly white suburb, attending a majority white school district, my teachers and peers marginalized me as a first generation immigrant, Peruvian-American. The cultural gap between my educators and me caused me to feel disconnected from my school work and learning altogether. It wasn't until my experience in the classroom my senior year of high school that I realized I could be the teacher I never had."

 Ok, fair enough.  I hope that every teacher in the country has a passion to help all students learn and to think for themselves.  That is what a teacher should be doing.  The problem is that she is going beyond that mission.  She is putting her viewpoints into the classroom and to the heads of very innocent 8-year-olds.  

Now the problem with the supporters of Mumia is that they never answer the question about why he has never told who the murderer of Officer Faulkner is.  There is no dispute that he was there and witnesses it.  There is no dispute that he had a gun.  There is no dispute that his brother assaulted Officer Faulkner.  There is no dispute that the police arrived on the scene within minutes of the shooting.  There is no dispute that Mumia was shot by the police officer.  He was a very short distance away with a gun shot wound and a weapon when the police arrived.  

Most people want to say he was arrested due to his political beliefs.  The problem is that he was arrested within minutes of the police arriving on the scene.  They didn't have time to find out about his political beliefs and writings.  Writing that includes talk about "killing pigs".  For those that may be unclear what that means, it is police officers.  

Anyone that has read my writing over the years knows that I am against the death penalty.  I have no problem with him be taken off death row.  But I certainly don't think he is some innocent lamb that is being led to slaughter.  

She is entitled to her beliefs, but she isn't entitled to bring those beliefs into the classroom.  No teacher is.  What really kills me is the people who were at this meeting supporting her.  

"It is teaching children at a tender age one of the most valuable lessons that they need to absorb in order to mature into adults who sympathize with the plight of their fellow human beings,"

It goes on:

"The lesson that was taught through this project is that in order for society to be peaceful and just, we must care about or reach out to those members of society who are most vulnerable, including children, the frail, elderly, the sick and disabled, the poor and, yes, even prisoners."

What about the family of the dead officer?  Don't they deserve someone to reach out to them as well?  What about the compassion for the young woman who had to go the hospital in very early hours of the morning to see her husband with a gunshot wound to his face?  A wound that was done at very close range and literally blew most of his head off.  Where is the compassion for a woman who didn't have her happily ever after simply because her husband was doing his job?  A car was driving down the wrong way on a one-way street so he pulled it over.  He didn't pull that car over because the driver was black.  He pulled it over because is was posing a safety hazard and violated the law.  She has lived her life without the man she loved enough to marry and pledge the rest of her life to.  

"We are here tonight because Marylin Zuniga is our hero," Larry Hamm, chairman of the People's Organization for Progress, said to the board members. "We ask that you restore her to her job and let her continue to teach the compassion that our children need to learn."

Sorry to tell you Mr. Hamm, that isn't her job.  Teaching compassion is the job of the parent.  Her job is to teach children how to think for themselves, not what to think.  Did she go over the evidence of the case?  Did she tell these students that this man has had two trials and numerous hearings and the best the defense can come up with is that it was a racist police force that sent an innocent man to jail because he was black and a political activist?  If not, that isn't compassion, that is indoctrination.  There are two sides to this story.  Now, don't get me wrong, I think this way beyond what a third-grader should be taught in a classroom.  But the point is still the same.  

Yes Ms. Zuniga should lose her job.  She wasn't doing her job.  She was making political points in a classroom.  That is a job of an activist, not an educator.  She should lose her job the same way the teacher who went an anti-Obama rant should lose hers.  You are not there to push your point of view.  You are there to help them develop their own point of view.  

If you have any doubts that she is an activist her tweet that caused this uproar says it all:

Just dropped off these letters to comrade Johanna Fernandez. My 3rd graders wrote to Mumia to lift up his spirits as he is ill. #freemumia

Comrade?  Oh yeah, she doesn't have an agenda.   

The part I think I like best about this whole thing is this:

"In April, I mentioned to my students that Mumia was very ill and they told me they would like to write 'get well' letters to Mumia,"

That's right, lets throw the eight-year-olds under the bus.  

Of Course President Obama is Disappointed by the World - He Doesn't See Reality

A biographer has told the world that he feels that President Obama is disappointed in the world.  Really?  Well my most obvious response is that many in the world are very disappointed in him as well.  But there is more to this.  He is disappointed in the world because he views with rose-colored glasses on how the world should be instead of what it actually is.  

He truly believes that if we just make the minimum wage a little higher people will get lifted out poverty.  Although we have raised the minimum wage throughout the years and we still have poverty.  So the latest is a "living wage".  Which is just another myth that will never work on a national level.  

If the government just gets involved we can make the world more "fair".  He doesn't seem to understand that life isn't fair, nor will it ever be.  

If the rich just give more of their money, the poor will get more.  Again, this is just another myth.  President Obama is a perfect example of that.  He has made less money in 2013 than he did in 2014, I didn't get more because he has less.  Nor has anyone else.  

He never seems to understand that many of the people who are stuck in cycles of poverty are so because they make bad choices.  Now, I have this crappy part-time job.  Many of the people I work with are on some type of public assistance.  Yet they have smart phones.  I don't have a smart phone.  I can't spend over a hundred month on the bill.  I don't live in the projects because I spend my money differently than they do.  I make different choices.  I am not trying to disparage the poor, but studies have shown over and over again that they very successful people makes choices in their lives that allow them to become that way, while the poor make very different choices that also allow them to stay in their circumstances.  It may not be the way it should work, but it how it works.  This is reality.  You want to change the cycle of poverty, teach them how to make better choices.  Giving them enough money to survive does nothing except allow that cycle to continue.  

Obama thinks if the U.S. is just nicer the problem of radical Islam will magically disappear.  No it won't Mr. President.  These are people who are true believers in the ideology.  Most of them are willing, no eager, to die for what they believe in.  They look at becoming a martyr as the very best thing that Allah has to offer.  Until that is marginalized within the Islamic community it won't change.  You cannot "Co-exist" with someone who wants you dead.  This is reality.  

President Obama doesn't seem to think that real evil exists in the world.  Putin may not be evil, but he certainly does believe that Mother Russia should rise again.  He and buddies on the left scoffed at Gov. Romney when this came up at the debate.  The running joke was the 80's wants their foreign policy back.  It was Romney who saw the reality and those on the left that see the world as they think it should be instead of how it is.  

Yes the world disappoints President Obama.  Maybe, just maybe, if he stopped seeing those rosy hues, he can begin to understand that life isn't fair.  Evil does exist and those evils have to be confronted with strong leadership, not the moving red lines that those in Syria are laughing about all the while killing their own people completely unabated.  

The "Ready for Hillary" Crowd Needs Some Imagery Lessons

It is more than a little scary that they don't seem to care about the image this is portraying.  How can they not see the likeness to Soviet propaganda posters.  Even how Mrs. Clinton's hair is done in this makes this look like the propaganda posters from the past.  

Truly terrifying.  

Don't Believe Your Ears, Senator Reid Never Said What He is on Video Saying

Don't believe your ears.  What you are hearing is simply not true.  White is black.  Black is White.  Up is down.  Just follow along, nothing to see here folks.  

I didn't think it was possible, but he has surpassed Nancy Pelosi.  That is quite an accomplishment there Senator.  

Parent's Night for Blacks Only - Apparently White Parents Don't Have Questions or Concerns About Their Child's Education

This happened in Portland, Oregon 

Do these idiots not realize how racist this is?  I guess not.  

H/T KXL 

Quote of the Day - Shelia Jackson Lee Edition

Frankly, maybe I should offer a good thanks to the distinguished members of the majority, the Republicans, my chairman, and others for giving us an opportunity to have a deliberative constitutional discussion that reinforces the sanctity of this nation and how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years operating under a Constitution that clearly defines what is constitutional and what is not. The Enforcement Act is not constitutional, but it gives us an opportunity to raise these issues. That’s what freedom is, that’s what the opportunity of democracy is all about.

 I go out for a few hours yesterday and all of a sudden The Constitution is now 400 years old.  I had no idea I was out for that long.  

Yes, she really said this on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.  Oh my.  

Sadly, there is no chance she will lose re-election in November.  Obviously it doesn't matter to her voters that she is as dumb as a box of rocks.  

Quote of the Day - Senator Cory Booker Edition

The first thing I did when I got my driver's license at seventeen is drive to Hawaii

Alrighty then.

Not quite Jesus as he walked on water, but close.  He drove across the Pacific Ocean.   How long does that take, I wonder?

I am sure those in New Jersey are quite proud.

Cindy Sheehan for Governor of California? Take a Look at her Video

Cindy Sheehan has decided to run for governor of California.  She has a little song for you.  Oh my.  She wants to close the prisons.  Yes, she said that.  She wants all college education to be free.  She is planning on getting rid of nukes.

Were you aware that California had them?  News to me.

The woman is certifiable.  Sadly, in a state like California you never know.  If she becomes governor I think the reasons to cede the land back to Mexico are strengthened.

The Huffington Post Strikes Again. - Steve Martin's Irony Misreported

Steve Martin, a state delegate from Virginia, made a facebook post that has recieved national attention thank to The Huffington Post.  

Here is the post:

I received a Valentines Card today with a two tone red heart on the front above the words, "Don't break our hearts." Inside was the following message:

"On behalf of women's Heath advocates across Virginia, we are disappointed in your record of voting to restrict access to critical healthcare for women and families. All women deserve access to their full range of reproductive health options - including preventing unintentional pregnancies, raising healthy children, and choosing safe, legal abortion - and your votes only make it more difficult for Virginians to plan and provide for their families. We are watching your actions closely, and hope that you will reconsider your position on this critical issue. Please don't break our hearts.
- The Virginia Pro-Choice Coalition"

~ How very heart warming - all while using ill defined terms. "Raising healthy children" in the context of access to abortions speaks only to the ability to "kill unhealthy children." Do they not see the sickness of that argument?

If it's your expectation that I should support such nonsense, I will be breaking your heart.
You can count on me to never get in the way of you "preventing" an unintentional pregnancy." I'm not actually sure what that means, because if it's "unintentional" you must have been trying to prevent it. And, I don't expect to be in the room or will I do anything to prevent you from obtaining a contraceptive. However, once a child does exist in your womb, I'm not going to assume a right to kill it just because the bearer of the child (some refer to them as mothers) doesn't want it to remain alive.

We finally get to to the truth at the end of that same line. What they want is access to "safe, legal abortions," any time one might be desired. Okay, then why did you write all the rest of that bologna about raising healthy children (by killing the unhealthy ones), having access to healthcare (which you do), and preventing unwanted pregnancies (don't have unprotected sex)?

Such nonsense, supposed adults have written, to celebrate love, on Valentines. These folks are really sick people!

Now, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see his use of irony in this post.  NARAL and other abortion activists have consisently used strategies about abortion that would absolutely frame the pregnant woman as a "host". The original post did use the word host instead of bearer of the child.  

  “disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the 13th Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest."

This is from Dawn Johnsen's brief she filed on behalf of NARAL.   She compared being pregnant to slavery. As a person who is an elected official who is obviously pro-life, Mr. Martin has seen many instances where the unborn have been referred as any number of things, including the most frequently used, a clump of cells (like we aren't all just a clump of cells from a biological standpoint).  See what I did there? I put my own opinion in parens.  Sort of like what Mr. Martin did.  

HuffPo knows that Mr. Martin never meant, nor does he believe, that a pregnant woman is nothing more than a mere host.  He views them as mothers.  That is what the irony of this whole thing is.  He was mocking the beliefs of many pro choice advocates and they turn it around to attack him on his views.   

Could it be because when they see it in writing in that fashion they realize how dehumanizing that opinion really is?  (Just a thought)

Liberal Meme Fail of the Day – Paul Ryan Edition

This is floating around social media.  I guess they have problems with reading comprehension.  They are correct that a congressman named Ryan voted yea on the minimum wage hike in 2007.  The problem is that Ryan is Tim Ryan of Ohio, a democrat. Paul Ryan voted no.  Read the Roll Call on the vote here.  

Asshats.

Yep, The Democrats are Proud of Fewer Jobs in Our Future Due to Obamacare

Truly sad.  This is something that the Daily Kos is circulating through social media.

Feminist Blogger Now In Fear - Men May Have Discovered That We Are On To Them

A "radical feminist" blogger wrote a post a while back on how all "Penis in Vagina" or PIV intercourse is rape.  Of course myself and others who read this dribble rebutted and or made fun of the post.  Well, that caused more traffic at her blog.  Most bloggers are happy to get additional traffic.  Isn't the entire point of writing these posts is getting others to read them?  Not in her case.

When men view our blogs in such large numbers, it’s a threat. They’re not just looking at it, they view it with the intent of harming radical feminists and women in general. They do it to collect information so they know what next to do to prevent women from going there. They batter radfem work in public for all women to see and show the result of their verbal and written battering as an example of what will await women if they do, think or say the same. They write nasty and threatening comments, that in order to trash, I have to read at least a few words of. Even though it doesn’t hurt my feelings, they are still harmful and inevitably affect my thoughts.

How exactly does she know the gender of the those making the hits?  I need to update my analytics, I don't these type of break-downs immediately.  Anyhoo, at least some are men.  Those men are hateful beasts that only want to destroy.

85,000, that’s the maximum number of views I had in one day a couple of weeks ago when the liberals and MRAs circulated my PIV blogpost for punishment. Unlike a normal blogger, attracting 85,000 hits isn’t something I want to celebrate. It’s threatening: you know they’re after you, it only means you’ve hit men’s radar and you have no idea what they plan to do. Will they attempt to hack into my blog? Will they try to find info about me? The kinds of thought this leads me to is 85,000 men going after me in real life. Probably a bit less if you discount the women. If that happened, how on earth could I hide from tens of thousands of men?

There is no denying there is a whole lot of crazy out there, but hey isn't this type of talk adding to it?  I mean does she really believe that men are worried about her getting the word out that having intercourse is rape that they want to silence her?  We. Must. Not. Let. This. Out.  She must be stopped at all costs.  She is letting out their little secret.  They only want intercourse to subjugate us.  We are nothing without them and they must be allowed to continue to rule the world.  Oh my.

All this is gaslighting and bullying, men’s lies are meant to sound convincing. They convince with the use of force, ordering me to comply to their view by using an authoritarian, terrorising tone. ‘How dare you see otherwise. You’re crazy. You’re a bully. Etc.’ Which is why it works so well to instil self-doubt because it’s a mindfuck, it’s thought-blocking, it’s also an assault and it creates fear and willingness to appease to avoid further assaults. Brainwashing works through a mix of mind assaults, terror and constant repetition of a same message until it’s hammered into our brain, which is psychological violence. 85,000 views and hundreds of trolling comments is in effect a blitzkrieg brainwashing attack by men and male-colonised women. Hundreds of men and their pawns attempting to reprogram the minds of deviant female bloggers, women who don’t comply and who break through men’s myths and lies.

It’s interesting that Cathy Brennan’s response to the whole thing led a commenter, Tracy, to comment about what it meant on reformism: I hadn’t framed it in that way (see discussion here, here and here). I’ve been thinking about it for a while but haven’t had the time to comment on it properly so I’ll continue my thoughts in this post. Tracy defined CB’s post as reformist to the extent that CB doesn’t name the agent, that is why men isolating us from one another is so dangerous, why it’s so important to huddle together in this circumstance [because men are waiting in line to rape and kill us]. CB asks us to take safety measures against a threat -men- that she won’t name, and at the same time treats men as an audience to appease, as if they would take note and change their behaviour accordingly. Tracy named that gaslighting because it’s acting as if two opposites (truth vs. omission/lie; threat vs. safety) were the same. Of course it’s not CB’s fault because she herself is victim of it.

Men are waiting in line to rape and kill us?  Really?  I have never seen nor heard of such a line.  May I make a suggestion, if such a line exists outside of your home, move.  My neighborhood is quite safe.  No men actively trying to rape you on a daily basis around.

I get that most women that call themselves a "feminist" call this thinking silly.  The problem is that this is the logical conclusion to that thinking.  Men are bad.  Women are victims.  Women are treated so unfairly that the government must step in to  protect them.  If the entire belief system is based on that women are tough enough and smart enough to be like just like men why in the world would you need the government to step in?

Life will never be fair nor will women and men ever be totally equal.  There are differences between men and women that just are.  Most men are stronger.  Our upper body strength isn't what there is.  Of course there are women who are stronger than men, but generally speaking that isn't the case.  There was just a scientific study released that our brains are hardwired differently.  It shows up in the scans. We are built this way.  It is biological.

What really gets my goat about feminism is the fact that the majority of the work for women and "fairness" is done in the industrialized west.  If they spend the majority of their time talking about how in some cultures the physical abuse of women is not only commonplace, but perfectly acceptable it would be different.  In some countries, such as Afghanistan, women were beaten in public for having one strand of hair showing.  The same still happens in Iran.  Some women are not allowed to work.  To heck with the fact that their husband or main provider has been killed or is missing for any reason, she still is not allowed to get a job to support herself.  At least not without the threat of jail, physical abuse, up to and including the threat of death.  I don't hear these topics being discussed much in the world of feminism.

Feminism also makes great assumptions about men that I take issue with.  Why do these women think that men don't feel bad about working long hours and being away from their children?  Do they think that they don't care that they miss the school plays?  Do they honestly believe that men don't get wanky when the house needs work?  It is assumed that they don't feel overwhelmed by a weekend of yard work, soccer games, shopping, and whatever else their particular chores end up being.  I am sorry but I find that very hard to believe.

I know plenty of men who feel just as overwhelmed as women do when it comes to using their time most efficiently to get everything they want done accomplished.  I also know men who are stay at home dads, so it is their job to clean, to cook, to do laundry, and whatever else needs to be done around the house all the while taking care of the kids.  It is simply a silly assertion that men don't feel the same type of things that women do.  We all feel a certain amount of guilt in our lives.  We all question our choices from time to time.  I don't think I have ever met a parent, male or female, that doesn't wonder if they could have done certain things differently.  That don't dwell, even temporarily, on the mistakes that we all make when raising children.  They don't come with a handbook, it is trial by fire.  That is especially true with the first one.

 Just because we make different choices in many instances it doesn't mean that men don't have the same type of emotions that women do.  One of the main differences is that men tend to keep these things to themselves.  They don't dwell on them in the same way that some women tend to do.   Many men look at this as part of life and complaining about it makes them "less manly".   Men deal with them differently, that doesn't mean that they don't feel it.  That is what feminism today says.  That somehow men are emotionless and guilt free.  They live lives that they actively believe makes them superior to women.  A very silly and uncaring assertion.

Being Your Own Worst Enemy - Black "Community Organizers" Drive Out Trader Joe's

In Portland, Oregon a small organization called Portland African-American Leadership Forum decided to rally against a proposal from Trader Joe's to build a store in a building that has been empty for decades.  This construction would have been done by a minority owned company and would have provided more jobs once the store opened.

But no, we can't have that can we?  The organization (whose leadership don't actually live in the neighborhood that is in question) felt the construction project wasn't doing enough to help the "oppressed".  They want racially based jobs and small business loans as well as affordable housing.  Well, had you put up a new grocery store that gives people more options maybe you would get more foot traffic that creates more jobs.

What is really sad is that is this organization could care less for the people in this neighborhood, which largely wanted the store to open.  They wanted an empty lot to be filled with a new business.  The neighbors were hoping that would help keep the neighborhood safer and cleaner.

“All of my neighbors were excited to have Trader Joe’s come here and replace a lot that has always been empty,” said Nghi Tran. “It’s good quality for poor men.” Like many residents, Tran pins the blame on PAALF. “They don’t come to the neighborhood cleanups,” he said. “They don’t live here anymore.”

I fully understand arguments about gentrification.  It happens to many neighborhoods, especially in larger cities.  I have friend who lives in Brooklyn and it is happening in her neighborhood.  But the upside to it is that her neighborhood has gotten safer and it has prompted her to purchase their apartment instead of continuing to pay high rents that line someone else's pocket.

This is why poor neighborhoods stay poor, this is why so many people say that the poor blacks are their own worst enemy.  Because they do bone-headed things like this.  Yes working at Trader Joe's isn't going to make one a millionaire, but it will pay your bills.  It will give you benefits.  It will give your resume a boost.  It could potentially lead to management positions.  The good far outweighs the bad in this case scenario.

Basically what this "community organization" ended up doing is costing the people who could have gotten that job more unemployment.  The construction company likely lost thousands of dollars in profit, it may even have to lay people off for lack of work.  The neighborhood won't get a make over.  The people won't have an additional shopping option.  Trader Joe's can be quite economical on many items.  You can buy bananas for .19 each at the one near my house.  The cost didn't change when I moved hundreds of miles away either.  So I would assume this is a national price for them.  I don't know of another store that has better prices on nuts than Trader Joe's.

You just have to shake your head at these people.  What did they accomplish in the end?  Nothing.  They go back to their own neighborhoods that likely don't have buildings that have been empty for decades, having shopping options, and to heck with the people who actually have to live there.

The neighborhood is 25% black.  What about the other 75%?  They don't count?  This is what happens when you look at everything based on color.  Every bad thing that happens to you is because you are "oppressed".  The big scary man is out to get you.  The evil white man is keeping you down.

One can hope that people of this neighborhood see for themselves that far to many "black activists" are more worried about raising money for themselves, lining their own pockets and could care less about the people who actually live in these neighborhoods.   Trader Joe's will be just fine.  They will just open their store in a neighborhood that wants them there.  The people who live near the abandoned lot, well they have been living with that for decades now.  What is another ten years?

Quote of the Day - Andrea Mitchell Edition

alienated our “ally” in Iran and paved the way for rocky relations even to this day.

MSNBC reporter/political pundit Andrea Mitchell on the most impactful State of the Union addresses when President Bush identified Iran as part of the axis of evil.  

I could be wrong here, but I think there a whole bunch of hostages that would disagree with this statement.  

To think that people actually listen to this, more horrifying is that she actually gets paid to say this crap.  

Open Letter to Amy Glass

Amy Glass, who I am assuming is a feminist, wrote a blog post entitled I look down on Young Women With Husbands and Kids and I'm Not Sorry.  Now, I think that she and I agree that not every person, whether it be man or woman should become a spouse, let alone a parent.  Neither of these tasks are easy and some people just don't have the capabilities of doing it well.  She seems to think that getting married and having children is the easiest thing in the world:

 Having kids and getting married are considered life milestones. We have baby showers and wedding parties as if it’s a huge accomplishment and cause for celebration to be able to get knocked up or find someone to walk down the aisle with. These aren’t accomplishments, they are actually super easy tasks, literally anyone can do them. They are the most common thing, ever, in the history of the world. They are, by definition, average. And here’s the thing, why on earth are we settling for average?

If these things were so easy why do we see the skyrocketing rates of people using dating sites and fertility clinics?  Yes, it is the easiest thing in the world to go out and date and find that person who actually makes your life feel more complete.  The person you can be totally honest with, even when you know they aren't going to like what you have to say is the easiest thing in the world to find.  I mean just open up your front door and the lines of people to choose from is a massive one.  

 I would love for her to go and say that to woman who has health problems that make it impossible for her to conceive.  Go talk to the couples who spend virtually their entire life savings to have fertility treatments to make the dream of being a parent come true and see what they have to say.  Once they get done slapping her silly they may have calmed down enough to laugh in her face.  Getting pregnant would seem like an easy task, but for many it is Mission Impossible.  Go sit with a woman who is doing everything under the sun to get pregnant when her period arrives and watch the tears and the feelings of inadequacy that she haunted by. Talk to a man who finds out his swimmers don't do the job that God and biology intended them to do.  Many men that I know that are having problems conceiving don't want to get tested, even though the test for the man is much more simple, straightforward, and far less invasive.  

 Go and talk to the woman who does want to be married and have a family but is in her thirties and tell her it is an easy task that "literally anyone can do them".  Some people who remain unmarried aren't that way by choice.  That is their reality and they eventually make the best of it, or one would hope.  Many married couples that don't have children, aren't childless by choice.  That is the fate they were dealt and become the best Aunties and Uncles that they can be to their siblings and friends kids.  

  You will never have the time, energy, freedom or mobility to be exceptional if you have a husband and kids.

What makes her think that women without a husband and children are exceptional?  I work with a woman who was never married nor did she have children.  She works two jobs and barely supports herself.  She is on public assistance in the form of food stamps.  She is bitter woman who is angry, especially when she says out loud that most of her problems she created for herself with the choices she made in life.  The simple act of not getting married and becoming a parent isn't an automatic entry into the world of exceptionalism.  

 Is a woman who gives up  on the idea of marriage and family to become a professional woman automatically exceptional?  Say this woman is the VP of marketing for some large international firm and is really good at her job but has no family to share this with as she ages more exceptional than the stay at home mom who raised a child to become one of those teachers.  You know the one that I am talking about.  The teacher that really affects a child and helps that child see something in themselves that they wouldn't have otherwise.  We all had that teacher.  I know in my case I had several.  The most remarkable thing about that teacher is that they didn't just give that light to one child, they gave it to many.  One of my high school reunions just recently passed, I am not going to say which one, but one of my "that teacher" attended the get together.  Just judging by the people who hugged him and the amount of photos taken of him that splashed across my Facebook page the next day shows it wasn't just me that looked at him as "that teacher".  He helped hundreds, if not thousands, of young adults feel better about themselves and find their own way in the world.  Isn't the woman who put the energy into raising such a man just as exceptional?  I say yes she is.  

 Obviously Ms. Glass has no children.  Otherwise she would never with a straight face say that it is easy.  Child rearing is one of the hardest jobs in the world.  You worry that every little thing that you do is going to influence them (which in most cases is true) and you second guess the choices that you make when something goes wrong.  I would love to see her try to comfort a small child that is feeling ill, especially when the older sibling is in the other room pulling all the toilet paper off the roll while you are attending to the child that wants nothing else but the comfort of mommy due to a fever or cold.  

 I have strong feelings that children should have a stay at home parent if at all possible.  I have no issue with a man being that parent that stays at home, if that is what works better for that particular family.  I am a realist, I understand perfectly well that it isn't always an option.  Life doesn't always work out that way.  Nor do I dismiss that fact that many women today want to work even if they could financially stay at home.  They feel they are a better parent by going out into the world and being productive at a job and bringing home at least part of the family income.  I do happen to believe it is best for the child to have a parent who is involved in the life of the child.  But I also understand that not all stay at home parents are good ones.  It all comes down to putting the work and the effort into raising a child to become a happy and productive adult.  That is something that can be done in a variety of ways and there is no one "right" way.  Every child is an individual and has their own needs that don't necessarily line up with the needs of other families.  

 But it is more than just a little insulting to hear another woman say that children and marriage is what keeps you from being exceptional.  For some people being exceptional is nothing more than being the best possible parent and the person who always had a clean home that was ready for anyone that dropped by.  

 I also must ask is the women who clean homes for a living lacking in the exceptional department as well?  After all they aren't doing much of anything according to this logic.  I guess they are just serfs who live to make the exceptional women such as she is lives a little easier so they can spend their energy being exceptional at their much more important jobs.  Seriously, how elitist is this woman?  There is no other way to take her little post other than a person who cleans homes is loser.  

 I hear women talk about how “hard” it is to raise kids and manage a household all the time. I never hear men talk about this. It’s because women secretly like to talk about how hard managing a household is so they don’t have to explain their lack of real accomplishments. Men don’t care to “manage a household.” They aren’t conditioned to think stupid things like that are “important.”

Feminists seem to have this real disconnect when it comes to men.  That somehow they don't feel the guilt and they don't question what they are doing and how it affects their families.  Many men who travel a great deal with their jobs feel just as guilty that they aren't there for their kids.  They don't like missing virtually every soccer game.  They also seem to have this disconnect that children don't feel like something is missing from their lives because their dads are too busy working to have time for the little things that matter to them.  I guess those little goals and events that kids feel are important aren't exceptional enough for Ms. Glass.  

 My brother, who grew up with a father that didn't attend games or pretty much anything else, promised himself he would be a different kind of dad.  He has three boys that were all active in sports while they were growing up.  He rarely missed a practice, let alone a game.  My eldest nephew would sometimes get crazy over the fact that his father was "always around".  This kid also went to a private Catholic school.  He was involved with church group within the school.  One of the exercises they did in this group was to have the kids sit face to face and tell the other kid what they envied about them.  One of the kids told my nephew how jealous he was that his father was always at the games.  You see his father was an executive with some big corporation that required long hours and travel.  Yes, those kids had financial advantages that my nephew certainly didn't have, as my brother is on a much more limited budget, but what he got in return was time.  Which is really more exceptional?  I would have to say that putting the time into being the very best parent you can be as opposed to having a big house and large bank account is the far better choice.  But what do I know?  Obviously my life wouldn't rate as exceptional.  

My final quesiton would be, who is having all these exceptional young women?  Are only non-exceptional women giving birth and raising all these mighty exceptional women?  How is that even logical?  

The Myth of a "Living Wage"

This is the new war that the democrats are fighting to retain political power.  The others, such as the "War on Women", will be trotted out as needed, but this is the one that they are concentrating on this election season.  The mid-terms are now just 10 months away.  

The President and his ilk are talking about a raise in the minimum wage and income equality with vigor.  There is also a push for the workers at McDonald's to get a rate of $15 per hour, so they can live on it.  Wonderful.  But what does a "living wage" really mean?  I relocated a year ago to just outside of New York City from just outside of Washington, DC.  While I was growing up in Fairfield County, CT it was then the most expensive county in the country to live in.   Now that county is the one I just left,  Fairfax County, VA.  Another words I have spent almost my entire life living in very high cost of living areas.  My cost of living is much higher than someone who lives in say rural Nebraska or Wyoming.  

In Virginia, I could have gone say thirty miles south and my cost of living would have dropped, considerably in fact.  The rents in Fredericksburg, VA are substantially lower.  But I wouldn't have made nearly the same amount of money.  The same holds true in Connecticut.  I could go live in the "valley" and the housing is much cheaper.  A smaller percentage of my income would go to housing.   But the better paying jobs are closer to New York City.  I could commute that distance I suppose, but then I would then be spending my money on transportation instead of housing.  I would also have fewer hours to live a life outside of work.  

Making a national minimum wage that is a "livable wage" may sound good on the surface, but it won't work.  You can't compare the cost of living of very rural areas of the country to large cities.  They are just not the same.  Buzzfeed did a comparison between two twenty-somethings who made virtually the same salaries, but live in very different areas of the country.  The way they live is very different.  

Twenty-two-year-old Madeleine Harrington of Greenpoint, Brooklyn, makes slightly less than Brooklyn’s average median income of $32,135, racking in $31,000 a year working two part-time jobs. Harrington also pays less in rent than Brooklyn’s average: Her home costs only $2,000 a month. Still out of her price range, the two-bedroom apartment has been converted into a three-bedroom, although the additional room is “questionable.” There are no walls, and you have to walk through it to reach the bathroom.

While this might be standard for a NYC lifestyle, it is an anomaly in other parts of the country: In Waco, Texas, for example, the average cost of a two-bedroom apartment is just $683. Mia Francis, 22, of Waco, makes well over her city’s average of $26,264, pulling in $33,000 a year, and is able to live in a spacious three-bedroom, two-bathroom house, equipped with a backyard, patio, washing machine, and a driveway for her car. The monthly rent is $900, and she splits it evenly with her fiancé.

Madeleine will have to make a really good bank to live in New York the way Mia lives in Waco.  Many people who live in New York aren't really all that interested in owning a large single family home with a backyard, when it  doesn't have a great deal to offer in terms of entertainment and cultural activities.  Many people who live in Waco  want no part of the all the noise and congestion that comes with living in a large city.  Different people have different needs and that dictates how they live.  I personally would never want to live on a farm or in the middle of nowhere.  I have friends who recently relocated to a small town in New Hampshire.  While I like going to visit them on occasion, the desolate nature of that town is not for me.  I am a 'burbs girl.  I live living close to large city, but not actually living in one.  I want access to a 24 hour store, but one single CVS works just fine for me.  

How can we possibly pass legislation on the federal level that addresses all of these issues?  The short answer is that we can't.  The country is far too diverse to say that this is a "livable wage" for the entire country.  Small rural areas of the country couldn't possibly support paying the wages it costs to live in a large city.  

If this is to be done, which I am not advocating at all, it would have to be done on a state level.  Even then it wouldn't work, because the costs from one part of the state to another can differ just as widely.  Another issue that is not being really being addressed is how do we define "livable wage"?  

Does this wage mean that you can live with four roommates in a tiny cramped apartment or does it mean that you can afford a single family home?  Does everyone have to able to afford a car?  If so, a Hyundai or BMW?  What foods does this wage need to cover?  Does everyone have to eat rice and beans or do they get surf and turf?  I personally am a big fan of Salmon.  Should I be able to afford to buy it daily, weekly, or monthly?  Does my television have to have WiFi, as many of the brand new models now have?  A laptop, desktop, or I-Pad?  After all, we had disgraced, and currently jailed, former Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr, talking about how I-Pads are a right.  So that must fit into the equation of "livable" does it not?  We have had other progressive elected officials saying that homeownership is a constitutional right.  In my neck of the woods a single family home can, and normally does,  cost over a million dollars.  

All of this opens up all kinds of questions about who gets to decide what "livable" means.  Does some politician I have never met, that lives off a tax payer salary, get to decide what foods I need to be able to afford to call my way of living "livable"?   What if I prefer to eat beans & rice and pasta every night instead of filet mignon and arugula.  

This is the problem with politicians making broad statements about "inequality".  They never define what it really means nor does anyone explain how we get there.  Yes, we can have the federal government force businesses to pay a higher wage all across the country.  But that doesn't mean that people will live "better".  Those increase costs in labor will show up in costs to the consumer.  That is simple economics.  President Obama doesn't tell us how a much a bar of soap will cost in this utopia he is trying to create.  Yes, people will make more, but they also will be spending more on goods and services.  We also find that certain businesses will have fewer people doing more, as that is what they can afford to pay out in labor costs.  So we will find fewer available jobs and fewer hours.  That will not help people live better.  

Many of the goals of progressives can be described as laudable.  That doesn't mean that in the real world they will work.  While I am not making light of the people who live with limited means.  It is a difficult life to be sure.  The reality is that today in America, what we define as poverty is still rich in comparison to the poverty that we see around the world.  With few exceptions in America, we have electricity, we have indoor plumbing, we have potable water, and access to basic needs of life.  If we are truly looking to address poverty in the world, America really isn't the place to be doing so.  We should be looking at the huts that people live in South Africa and India.  Most of Africa lives in poverty that very few in this country can understand.  We can even move much closer to home to Mexico and South American countries and see what real poverty is.  We hear that people in the richest country in the world shouldn't be living in poverty.  When you go and look at the rest of the world, we aren't.  A "livable wage" is a myth and won't address the real issues of why people in this country live in "poverty".  But government never really addresses the real issues, do they?  

Any Inkling I May Become a Feminist is Now Gone

While it is true that wasn't likely to happen in any event, this certainly cured me.  A friend of mine pointed out this blog post to me, and oh my.  I honestly don't know what to say about this except there sure is a great deal of crazy out there.  

PIV is always rape, Ok?  

It took me a little while, but I finally figured out that PIV is Penis in Vagina.  Not allowed in the feminist world apparently.  Which I am very confused by.  I was always led to believe that a main tenet of feminism is that you get to "have sex like a man".  Apparently we were wrong for thinking that.  Intercourse, bad.  Always.  Just bad.  

First, well intercourse is NEVER sex for women. Only men experience rape as sexual and define it as such. Sex for men is the unilateral penetration of their penis into a woman (or anything else replacing and symbolising the female orifice) whether she thinks she wants it or not – which is the definition of rape: that he will to do it anyway and that he uses her and treats her as a receptacle, in all circumstances – it makes no difference to him experiencing it as sexual. That is, at the very least, men use women as useful objects and instruments for penetration, and women are dehumanised by this act. It is an act of violence.

I am surprised the word empowered doesn't appear in this paragraph.  After all that is what feminism is supposed to be, right?  Empowering women.  So ladies if you like to have a little somethin' somethin' from time to time, you are anti-woman.  Hear that.  No more penetration for you.  Apparently if you want to have a baby:

 Penetration of the penis into the vagina is completely unnecessary for conception.

Well yes that is true.  One doesn't have to have intercourse to become pregnant.  That can happen if a couple uses the "pull out" method of birth control or if a man doesn't quite make it to the "promiseland" before finishing the deed.  You can absolutely get pregnant without intercourse.  But, speaking of pregnancy:

As FCM pointed out some time ago, intercourse is inherently harmful to women and intentionally so, because it causes pregnancy in women. The purpose of men enforcing intercourse regularly (as in, more than once a month) onto women is because it’s the surest way to cause pregnancy and force childbearing against our will, and thereby gain control over our reproductive powers. There is no way to eliminate the pregnancy risk entirely off PIV and the mitigating and harm-reduction practices such as contraception and abortion are inherently harmful, too. Reproductive harms of PIV range from pregnancy to abortion, having to take invasive, or toxic contraception, giving birth, forced child bearing and rearing and all the complications that go with them which may lead up to severe physical and emotional damage, disability, destitution, illness, or death.

Oh my, when you put it like that I wouldn't want to have a baby either.  Bad, horrible, little creatures aren't they?   While I suppose that some women have complications during childbirth, most don't.  It is a relatively natural process that keeps the human race going.  Maybe that is a bad thing too.  Who knows?  

But I am impressed to hear a feminist say that abortion is inherently harmful to women.  After all you don't hear that coming from that side of the aisle too often.  Normally it is their "right".  I recently saw a photo of young boy, maybe six or seven holding a sign telling me to stay out of his mommy's vagina.  Apparently the next nominee for Mother of the Year didn't get the memo of how bad intercourse, birth control, and abortion are for women.  They must be a bad feminist, or at least very misguided.  

I am not going to go into detail here, but I would venture to say that most women find consensual sex to be pleasurable.  But alas, we have been programmed to believe that is true.  

There’s a reason men need to groom us into it, and why this grooming takes so long- because it’s so grossly violating and traumatising that we would otherwise never submit to intercourse. The only reason we may now not feelraped or have the impression we desired or initiated PIV, is because men broke down our barriers very skillfully and progressively from birth, breaking down our natural defences to pain and invasion, our confidence in our own perceptions and sensations of fear and disgust that tell us male sexual invasion is painful, harmful and traumatic.

Through an all-pervasive and powerful male propaganda, they stuff our minds from infancy with the idea that PIV is normal, desirable and erotic, before we can even conceive of it as something horrifying, and make sure we never see any alternative to their lie – or that if we do, we can no longer take in the information, are punished for thinking and saying otherwise. The fact we may not immediately feel raped doesn’t mean it’s not rape, objectively speaking

I guess we can add bad media, bad hollywood, bad culture.  All of which tells us that intercourse is a normal, healthy thing that both man and women can enjoy.  I personally think it is far better in a committed relationship between two people who love each other as opposed to scratching an itch, but that is neither here nor there in this conversation.  All.Bad.  All of it.  

Lastly, from a structural point of view, as a class oppressed by men, we are not in any position of freedom to negotiate what men do to us collectively and individually within the heterocage. Men, by whom we are possessed, colonised and held captive, are the sole agents and organisers of PIV. Men dominate us precisely so we can’t opt out of sexual abuse by them; intercourse is the very means through which men subordinate us, the very purpose of their domination, to control human reproduction.

I guess just saying no doesn't cut it.  

Seriously?  It is very hard to wrap my head around this type of thinking.  I have to assume this author is a lesbian or asexual.  Not to get into too much graphic detail here, but don't lesbians use sex toys such as a vibrator?  I was always under the impression that they did.  Which is another reason that I have never fully understood being a lesbian.  If you are going to simulate sexual intercourse between a man and woman, why not just be with a man?  But I could be wrong.  Most of my homosexual friends are men, so this has never really come up in conversation for me before.  Nor would I necessarily want it to.  But that has been the impression that I have had for many years, maybe I got it from a movie or book.  I am not quite sure where I got it and I could very easily be wrong about it.  

In any event, this is reason 2,394,294 of why I will never a feminist.  You should read the comments.  Again, oh my.  Apparently people agree with her.  

A&E and the Dangers of Political Correctness

I will say at the offset I have never seen Duck Dynasty nor do I plan to.   It doesn't seem like something that I would be all that interested in enough to spend a half hour of my life sitting in front of the television for.  I have heard of the family and seen pictures of him with various people, but I really know very little about the show except it has something to do with duck hunting.

A&E has decided that it goes against their values to employ someone who holds a biblical worldview on sin.  You can disagree with the premise all you like, but it doesn't change what the bible says.  Homosexuality is a sin according to Christian belief.  I fully understand that there are churches out there that ignore that and have no problem with openly gay clergy and will marry same-sex couples.  That still doesn't change what the bible says about it.

Phil Robertson gave an interview with GQ Magazine.  During that interview he was asked a question on his view of homosexuality.  He answered the question coming from a biblical point of view.  He is a person who believes that the bible is the living word of God.  Yes his words may have been crude, but they were not bigoted, nor did he liken homosexuality to having sex with a goat.  He simply gave a list of things that are sinful, he also included having heterosexual sex outside of marriage in his list.

"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."

All he said is that sex outside the confines of  traditional marriage is sinful, which according to the bible, it is.  That shouldn't be up for debate.  Again, you can feel that the bible is outdated, fake, or anything that you may feel about it, but it doesn't change what scripture says.  If you are to follow the bible and its teachings you shouldn't be having sex of any kind outside of traditional marriage.  Once you do that, you are committing a sin.  

Another part of his quote gets left out in almost all of the media coverage:

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

Is it any wonder that this gets left out?  How can you say that he is "hating" on homosexuals if he says he is not judging them?  As a Christian it is part of your duty to spread the word of God.  People will do that in different ways and to different degrees.  But a true Christian never makes statements about someone else's salvation and how God will ultimately judge a person and how they lived their life.  Not only isn't that our job, it way above our pay grade.  

But of course the media coverage is he is a bigot, he is a hater, or he is some crazy right winged nut job.  He isn't allowed to have a biblical worldview and share that openly.  That is something you must keep in the closet and act like it doesn't exist.  Of course the same people who are hitting him hard have no problem with talking about homosexuality in sex ed classes geared to 6 year olds.  That is perfectly acceptable.  But don't tell them the other side of the equation, oh no, you are a hater then.  

If activists for the gay community are as open-minded as they claim to be, they will have a debate on this topic.  But that isn't what happens.  The debate gets shut off by people losing their income or labeled a bigot and a hater.  My gosh even feminist and openly gay Camille Paglia understands what is happening by these fanatics

"utterly fascist & utterly Stalinist"

Having a debate on the legalization of gay marriage is worth having in this country.  But it devolves into name calling and threats.  What does it say about people who say they are only trying to be accepted and have their rights protected by our society when they care none about the rights of those who believe otherwise?  

We have gotten to the point where any talk of religion must be closeted and must be whispered in the confines of your own home.  We have even gotten to the point that sometimes you can't have a bible study in your home without interference, putting up Christmas lights on the outside of your home gets you a letter from your neighbors telling them how offended they are.  

That isn't tolerance folks, that is tyranny.  This is how far we have fallen as a society; a major public university gives classes on the fine art of fellatio and that is deemed a perfectly acceptable use of tax payer funds for "educational" purposes, but a Christian man can't give the biblical view that he tries to live his life by without losing income.  

A&E has every right to end their contract with Mr. Robertson.  They are a private business and they are under no restrictions constitutionally, as this isn't a free speech or free religion issue.  The government isn't interfering.  Just because A&E has the right to end his contract doesn't mean that it should.  So far the sponsors of the show seem to understand what is at stake here and are standing on the right side.  The side that says he has a right to religious liberty and his viewpoints.  

A sad day in America.  A very sad day.  

No, There is No War on Christmas - Video

This is just disgusting.  Why bother to sing this song at all?  I mean really.  Listen to the words, they took out "Christ the Savior" and "Holy Infant", but left "Holy Night".  

They didn't want to "offend" non-Christians, but apparently had no problem offending Christians.  

Christmas is about a birth of baby and that was the son of God.  That is what it is.  There is no way around that.  Christians follow Christ.  

Head meet desk. 

President Obama, The Narcissist, Keeps it Classy at Mandela Funeral

We should all be so proud.  Seriously?  A selfie at a funeral?  That goes for you to Mr. Cameron.