Better Not Read the Bible During "Read to Yourself Time" in Second Grade

A second grader is alleging that her teacher took away her bible during the classroom "read to yourself time".  After all why would you want a child reading something as dangerous as a bible?  She may learn a few things about values.  We wouldn't want that now would we?  

One parent feels it was the right thing to do.  After all it is "pushing" religion on her child.  Really, how so?  This is quite time.  The little girl pulls her bible out of her backpack, sits quietly at her own desk and reads it.  How is this pushing this onto someone else?  Now if her child was forced to read it against their will, then an argument can be made, but that isn't what happened.  

The parents have decided to not be identified and went to The Liberty Council to address the issue with the school system.  It is very possible that they should have gone to the principal first before involving an outside organization, but sadly many people are attacked for their religious views in this country and called bigots and haters for espousing biblical based beliefs, such as traditional marriage.  

In any event no teacher has the right to tell a child that during a free reading time that the bible isn't appropriate reading material.  That is something for a parent to decide.  

Sorry I am unable to embed video, but you can see the news report here.  

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.  

Quote of the Day - Congressman Steve Stockman Edition

Liberals on Hobby Lobby: Corporations can't exercise personal values.
Liberals on Mozilla: Corporations should exercise personal values.

We are entering a very dangerous world if your private contributions for your personal held beliefs can be used against you in terms of employment.  

Welcome to the New America, folks.  You are no longer free to express your opinions, live by your faith, contribute money to causes you believe in without being called a bigot and a hater and apparently being forced to lose your job is an acceptable outcome.  

So I have decided to start my own business.  On the application I am going to put in bold red letters that I am a conservative.  If you have made political contributions to a cause I don't believe in don't bother to apply because I am not hiring you.  If you have made a statement on social media that I don't agree with you can't work here.  

This is about stifling speech.  Very scary indeed.  

Kindergartner Told Not To Pray in Lunchroom Because it is "Not Good"

These parents are considering homeschooling.  

My wife and I were shocked when our 5-year-old daughter began to tell us that someone on staff at her school saw her praying – told her to stop – and said “it is not good”. This is Kindergarten. She was praying to herself for her food, following the biblical values we are working hard to instill in our children. We are so proud of our little princess and as you can see – we continue to affirm her that prayer IS GOOD and that NO ONE can tell her she can’t pray. No doubt we will homeschool going forward.

We live in the United States of America – the land of the free, yet our traditional values and religious freedoms are under assault. This is just a small example.

This isn't about your personal views of religion.  It is about her views and her rights.  She was hurting no one by praying silently over her meal.  She was simply taking advantage of the rights that all Americans have to freely exercise their religious views.  

I just wish people would stop denying that religion is under attack in this country.  It most certainly is.  

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.  

Self Magazine Shames Itself and A Cancer Survivor. So Much For Women's Empowerment

Monika Allen, a brain cancer survivor and marathon runner, was asked by Self Magazine if they could use a photo of her wearing a Wonder Woman shirt and tutu while she was running a marathon.  Ms. Allen was happy about the use of the photo, that is until the issue came out.  

Along with her photo Self put this little editorial

"A racing tutu epidemic has struck NYC's Central Park, and it's all because people think these froufrou skirts make you run faster. Now, if you told us they made people run from you faster, maybe we would believe it."

Nice.  Not only was the woman undergoing chemotherapy at the time she ran this marathon, she made these tutu's herself.  You see she makes and sells them, then gives the money to charity.  She donates money to Girls on the Run.  A charity that helps young girls, aged 8 - 13, engage in physical activities and gain confidence in themselves by learning to enjoy running.  While people make think that isn't that big of a deal, running competitively can transform your self confidence.  When you start doing better you not only gain confidence but want to continue to improve yourself.  The program ends for these young girls by competing in a 5K race.  It is a charity that teaches not only self confidence, but also teaches them discipline and goal setting.  All qualities that young women will need to navigate the world as they get older.  

Instead of Self doing any kind of reporting they just make fun of the woman.  I do not give them a pass by saying well maybe they didn't know she had cancer.  They are a magazine for pity sakes, they could have asked the question.  But no, they just dissed the woman and her outfit.  Now, would I wear that outfit?  Not likely.  But that doesn't mean I get to make fun of someone who does.  I have a few friends that run in marathons.  It is very hard work to get your body into shape to do this.  That is even without health issues.  Just imagine how much harder it is when your brain has cancer in it and you are undergoing chemotherapy?

Self Magazine has released a statement:

In a statement to NBC 7, SELF apologized "for the association of her picture in any way other than to support her efforts to be healthy."
"Of course if tutus make you run with a smile on your face or with a sense of purpose or community, then they are indeed worth wearing, for any race," the statement read.

In the first issue of Self, the Editor in Chief made this statement:

An extraordinary spirit and energy are emerging in women today. Fitness is the fuel. We have acquired a strong appetite for the full experience of life—the exhilaration of the outdoors, the challenge and success of professional work, the honest enjoyment of sex. Selfwill be a guide to the vitality we need to do all the things we want to do.

They certainly have strayed a long way from that mission statement.  

Sadly, the apology is of the non apology variety that is more about covering their own ass.  I doubt they have learned anything from this incident.  Yet one more reason I don't buy into all the hype about "empowering" women.   This is what they did to woman and are only now sorry because they found out she had cancer.  They never bothered to ask where she got the tutu or why she was wearing it.  They just wanted to be catty.  Well Meow to you Self.  

If you want to support Ms. Allen, you can find her facebook page here.  

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.

CPAC 2014 Straw Poll Results

Rand Paul 31%
Ted Cruz 11%
Dr. Ben Carson 9%
Gov. Chris Christie 8%
Gov. Scott Walker 7%
Rick Santorum 7%
Marco Rubio 6%
Paul Ryan 3%
Gov. Sarah Palin2%
Gov. Mike Huckabee2%
Condi Rice 2%
Gov. Bobby Jindal 2%
Gov. Rick Perry 3%

Close to half, 46% were between the ages of 18 and 25

51% disapprove of republicans in congress.  I am actually surprised it was that low.

52% would like to see Europe and other allies start to provide their own national defense.

41% would like to see marijuana to be legalized and taxed.

Just In Case You Were Unclear of NJ Teen Motives in Suing Her Parents

Oh my.  Ms. Rachel posted this on her Facebook fan page.  Education for Rachel.

“Suburban baby boomer types are the spoiled lot, they make massive amount of money a year, they are used to flying to luxury destinations when they want, and buy things that they don’t need, people should be inclined to see things Rachel’s way.  We have been stunned by the financial greed of modern parents who are more concerned with retiring into some fantasy world rather than provide for their children’s college and young adult years. In today’s economy there are no more meaningful jobs and without family help it’s usually military or bust. We see parents like this every day, children were always an accessory to them and nothing more, once that accessory grew up and went out of fashion, much like a marriage that people allegedly commit to, the child becomes a throwaway, that’s just how it is.”

Really?  How dare parents save for retirement?  What kind of monsters are they?  Go ahead and read the page, it is all me, me, me, and more me.  She talks about herself in the third person.

She may have legal standing with her college fund as they are usually set up in the child's name, but apparently that isn't enough for this young woman.  She wants 100% of education funded.  It just amazes that the adults in her life are funding not only this behavior, but this mindset.  What are these parents teaching their own children?  I guess if one of this family's kids commits a crime they can use the Affluenza defense.

I do have one question for Ms. Rachel, if there are no more meaningful jobs why bother to spend the money on an education, you can just then sue for your family to support the rest of your life, right?  Oh yeah, you want to party for a few years.

When Does Your Job as Parent End? New Jersey Teen Suing for Parents to Pay College Tuition

Rachel Canning, an 18-year-old senior in a private Catholic high school has filed suit in Superior Court in New Jersey to pay back bills on her high school tuition and to give her access to her college fund.  Rachel turned 18 last fall.  After her 18th birthday she moved in with the family of her best friend (whose father happens to be an attorney who is funding this lawsuit).  She has been attending school since that time and is an honor student.

Her parents claim that she wasn't following the rules of the household.  They say she wasn't doing her chores, wasn't coming home by her set curfew, was disrespectful, didn't treat her sisters very well, and there seems to be an issue with a boyfriend that her parents don't particularly care for.  They believe he is a "bad influence".

Sean Canning said that a DCP&P representative visited his home for about three hours last fall, found nothing amiss, determined that Rachel was “spoiled” and discontinued the investigation. He said that he and his wife are beside themselves that discord with their daughter has reached this level.

Attorney Laurie Rush-Masuret, who represents the parents, said in court papers that Rachel emancipated herself and removed herself from her parent’s “sphere of influence” by voluntarily moving out of their house “as she did not want to abide by her parents’ rules....”

Rush-Masuret and Sean Canning said that Rachel was seeing a therapist long before moving out and is supposed to take medication. The parents contend she had disciplinary problems at school last term, was suspended twice, ignored her curfew at home and bullied her younger sister.

This in many ways boils down to our house, our rules.  Virtually every young adult has heard that coming from at least one of their parents.  But how far does the responsibility of parenting go once the child has turned of legal age?  She is still in high school so it does seem fair to me that her parents pay the back tuition of the school they had her enrolled in before this incident took place.  That seem very reasonable to me.  But she kind of loses me when it comes to the college education.

No parent should be forced to pay for a college education.  Has that become a "right" now as well?  My parents didn't pay for mine.  My mother was from a generation that believed that girls didn't need to go to college.  She has since realized that is not true in the world we live in today, but when I was in high school and college, she firmly believed that.  Should I have taken her to court to try to get money?  That seems more than just a little absurd to me.

We don't know the details of what happened.  This is going to come down to the parents word against hers.  I am sure they will both be able to find witnesses that can testify to their version of the story.  It then leaves a judge to decide is it really the parents responsibility to support an adult while they are in college if they don't want to?

It seems that New Jersey law may be on her side:

The mere fact that a child has turned 18 is not an automatic reason to stop financial support, according to Helfand and several longtime family attorneys in Morris County. A key court decision in the state specifies that, “A child’s admittance and attendance at college will overcome the rebuttable presumption that a child may be emancipated at age 18.”

Prominent family-law attorneys Sheldon Simon and William Laufer both called the lawsuit highly unusual and Laufer said he has seen nothing like it in 40 years of practice.

“A child is not emancipated until they’re on their own,” Simon said. “Even if a child and the parents don’t get along, that doesn’t relieve the parents of their responsibility.” Laufer noted that under New Jersey law, a child can still be declared nonemancipated even if there is a hiatus between high school graduation and college.

So let me get this straight, a child turns 18, the legal age of adulthood in this country, finishes high school, hangs out for a year or two doing heavens knows what, decides to go back to college and then should be expected to remain a child and stay the financial responsibility of the parent?  Got it.

Is it any wonder that people today are leaning more and more to nanny state government?  Now it could be that this law was designed for purposes of getting student loans.  If the child is still dependent on the parent for financial support, then the parents income is what grants and loans for college is based upon.  Most will likely receive more aid if they are nonemanicpated.  But in any case, it is still telling an adult that someone else is responsible for your life, your finances, and your choices.  I have no problem saying that to a parent who is under the age of 18 or still in high school.  But when do we draw the line, legally speaking?

A parent that has a child that they feel is disrespectful and acting like a spoiled brat may have very good reason for saying hey honey, you are on your own.  You made these decisions now you live with the consequences of them.  The parents in this case have kept the car that they bought for their daughter.  They also say that they have done nothing with the college fund that they had set up for her and that she will have access to it.

It will be very interesting to see how this case plays out.  Ms. Rachel should consider herself very lucky that I won't be making this decision for her.  Her parents don't owe her that college fund.  They did that because they wanted to, not because they "had" to.  It isn't the responsibility of the parent to pay for a college education.  If they want to and can help that is wonderful, but it certainly isn't something that is a "right" or should be forced by the rule of law.  The parents should pay the remaining tuition of her high school education.  After that, their job is done.  A college education can be had when the parents don't pay for it, I am living proof of that.

Matthew McConaughey Acceptance Speech for Best Actor Oscar - Video

I simply loved this speech.  Very sad to see all the comments on you tube.  But, I am not at all surprised.  I did see the movie and thought it was well deserved and his humility at the win is quite refreshing.  

Another Seemingly Good Idea That Isn’t – Tennesse Wants to Label All State Issued ID’s with Sex Offender Status

The state legislator in Tennessee has come up with absolutely horrible idea of making every state ID stamped with the words "SEX OFFENDER" in red in three different places.  Seriously?  While this may sound good on the surface we all know that the reasons that some people end up on these lists are bogus, the laws are too broadly written.  

Think back to that young man who was pulled a high school prank of streaking at football game.  While we don't know what would have happened to him but before his suicide he was told he would end up on the state registry for sex offenders.  Streaking is hardly a crime that constitutes being labeled a sex offender for the rest of your life.  

I am all for protecting children from predators.  But the truth is this, if these people are so dangerous that they can't be trusted to be around young children without raping them why aren't they in jail where they belong?  

The lawmaker, Matthew Hill(R), says the idea came to him from a constituent talking about how many day cares ask for an ID in order to pick up the child.  Again, on the surface that sounds good, but let's be realistic here, don't they have a list of adults that are able to pick up the child?  If not, isn't that the answer to the problem?  

Some of the crimes that can get you listed on a sex registry list is prostitution.  Engaging in consensual sex for money is not something that I would personally do, that doesn't mean that you are a "sex offender".  Some states go as far as putting people who are convicted of public exposure onto these lists as well.  Again, not behavior I would engage in but is that person really a danger to society for the rest of their lives?  

There are many instances where the sex is consensual but one person is under the legal age.  We are legally allowed to label an 18-year-old who is having consensual sex with his 15-year-old girl friend.  While I wouldn't approve of that behavior in my son or daughter I would like to think that they wouldn't have their driver's license stamped in big, bold, red letters for the rest of their lives because of it.  

Your ID is used for many things that have nothing to do with being a danger to children.  You need to cash a check, get into many businesses around the country, get on an airplane, and hundreds of other things that are have nothing to do with your past sexual history.  

The real goal should be to protect children by not allowing these people, who have a proclivity to harm, out of everyday society by strengthening the amount of time they spend in jail.  Not putting a scarlet letter on the ID's of some high school kid that decided it would be funny to take his clothes off at a football game.  

This bill needs to go the scrap heap where it belongs.  

A Little Twat and a Whole Lot of Controversy - When Republicans Are Their Own Worst Enemies

Bob Fitzsimmons, Treasurer of the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) used the word twat in a facebook discussion a few nights ago.  Twat in case you don't know is sometimes used as slang for the female vulva.  

Now, I am not going to sit here and defend the use of that word.  It never should have been used.  The problem is that if you read the exchange in context, he was referring to the comment that someone else had made as ridiculous.  He used the wrong.  Obviously he isn't up on sexual slang words.  He should have used the word twaddle, which means stupid speech.  

Now, what you can't see in the above graphic is the comment he was answering.  That comment was about why Delegate Barbara Comstock should be the nominee in the hotly contested republican primary simply based on the fact that she is a woman.  His comment was about identity politics.  I am not sure who, if anyone, he is backing in this contest, but I can tell you that I support Barbara.  I like Barbara.  I have worked many a days knocking doors in her elections for the state delegate seat that she currently holds.  But I don't support her simply based on the fact that she is a woman.  I HATE identity politics.  It is a losing game and I have little respect for people who voted based upon gender, skin color, or financial status of the people in the race.  To me that is the democrats game and played a big part in why President Obama won his election.  On this Mr. Fitzsimmons and I agree.  We are never going to beat the democrats in that game, so lets put up the best possible candidate in each and every race.  I happen to believe that Barbara is that person.  Her voting record speaks for itself.  At the end of the day that is what really matters.  

What really sits in craw about this entire unfortunate episode is that people who don't like Mr. Fitzsimmons, for reasons ranging from he is a supporter of conventions over primaries (which I am not) and he is also a big supporter of Ken Cuccinelli and more libertarian leaning people, have used this to try and force him from his job.  Insert primal scream here.  

This has turned into a national story that has been on HuffPo and in The Washington Post simply because people, who I won't mention by name, even though I would bet my bottom dollar are involved, are using this to oust someone they disagree with.  

The man made a mistake.  He used an unfortunate word when he wasn't clear on the meaning.  There is no way that anyone reading what he wrote can misconstrue that he was calling Delegate Comstock a twat or even the young woman he was having the discussion with that word.  

Here is the post he was responding to with the name of the person not included:

I also think women are going to be very frustrated about about a man trying to usurp Barbara's position in this race. If women come out in force for her, it will create a battle cry for Republican women so loud that Howie Lind won't have a prayer of competing with her. Republican women are a force to be reconed with and I for one want to see this power harnessed effectively in key political races.

His response was the he doesn't like sexist twat.  Now, if he was talking about this woman or Barbara it would make sense that you would be able to replace the word with the name and it would still make sense.  But you can't do that in this case.  Because he wasn't referring to a person, he was referring to the thought of using identity politics.  

So, now we have a national story about how republican men and party officials were using sexual terms to talk about a woman when clearly that isn't what happened.  

We don't need the democrats to do anything, we are doing a bang up job all on our own.  Should he have apologized for using that word?  Absolutely.  Should he lose his job over it?  No, a very clear and unambiguous NO.  This has been blown out of proportion by people who don't like him and his stances.  Those are the people who should be called out in all of this.  Not a man who obviously needs to spend more time with a dictionary.  

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)

Don't Slut Shame Me, My Porn Career is Paying for College

A student known only as Lauren (not her real name) is a porn star and student at Duke University.  She uses the proceeds of her career choice to pay tuition.  She believes that she will leave Duke University with a good education, ready for law school, and be debt free.  Good for her on being debt free.  

The problem has become that someone on campus saw on of her "films" and has outed her as a porn star.  She feels she is now being bullied for her choice.  She tried waitressing, but apparently that didn't work out as well for her:

"I worked as a waitress as a job for a year in high school," Lauren told Duke’s student newspaper, The Chronicle. "Not only did it interfere with my school where I was barely sleeping and wasn't doing my work, but I also was making $400 a month after taxes."

She also found working as a waitress humiliating.

"I felt like I was being degraded and treated like s***,” Lauren said.

I don't know, I managed to waitress/bartend my way through college and never felt degraded.  Where are going as a society that a college freshman feels that being a waitress is more demeaning that taking your clothes off for a rough sex porn site?  That is the better alternative?  

“For me, shooting pornography brings me unimaginable joy. When I finish a scene, I know that I have done so and completed an honest day's work. It is my artistic outlet, my love, my happiness, my home,”

How often is she tested for STD's?  That is something that you don't need to take into consideration when you are working as a waitress.  At least that was not my experience.  

Sexually transmitted diseases are highly prevalent in the pornography industry. Among 825 porn performers screened in 2000–2001, 7.7% of females and 5.5% of males had Chlamydia and 2% overall had gonorrhea. Dr. Sharon Mitchell confirms the STD prevalence in an interview with Court TV, in which she states: “66% of porn performers have Herpes, 12-28% have sexually transmitted diseases and 7% have HIV.”

Well if that isn't something that should bring joy to your life, I don't know what is.  Oh, but it gets better.  This from a male porn star:

“Drugs are a major, major problem in my business. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you. I can’t tell you the number of girls who have disappeared and dropped out of the business because of their drug problems. It is unbelievably sad to think about, and seeing some of them fall into a downward spiral hurts me more than others. But I think we all can agree that a huge majority of drug users will never change unless they get professional help. I have seen all manner of drugs on set, at parties, in cars, everywhere. If I had to guess, I would put marijuana use at 90 percent of ALL people involved in the industry (performers, directors, crew, agents, drivers, owners, office workers, etc.). I have been on a set where a girl has passed out during a sex scene with me (she was abusing oxycontin). Just recently a girl overdosed on GHB (a party drug that is a clear odorless drug that doesn’t mix well with alcohol) on set. I have seen a girl win a prestigious AVN Award, not show up to accept the award, and then fall into the throes of drug use that caused her to lose at least 50 pounds and drop off the face of the earth. Why is drug use so prevalent in our business? Well, let’s figure that out. First of all, remember that the business is populated largely with girls aged 18-21. And the majority of those girls are uneducated (many haven’t graduated high school). Add to that the fact that many come into the business because they have no money and are working at menial jobs like fast food places. So you have young girls who are uneducated with very little money entering the business.

We can now move onto the violence in the industry.  Now, I have never seen a porn film, but I would assume that most of the violence is generated towards women.  

Former pornographic performer Alex Devine shares her violent experience and writes:

“Donkey Punch was the most brutal, depressing, scary scene that I have ever done. I have tried to block it out of my memory due to the severe abuse I received during the filming. The guy, Steve French, has a natural hatred towards women in the sense that he has always been known to be more brutal than EVER needed. I agreed to do the scene thinking it was less beating, except the ‘punch’ in the head. If you noticed, Steve had worn his solid gold ring the entire time, and continued to punch me with it. I actually stopped the scene while it was being filmed because I was in too much pain.”

There is a very heavy emphasis on rougher, more sadistic sex, with slapping, spitting, violent hair-pulling and scenes of extremely abusive hardcore sex acts. In one film, the man forces the woman’s head into a toilet during the final scene, a technique that seems to help him achieve climax.

Just lovely.  

From Australia:

A recent University of Sydney study, in which two professors surveyed more than 800 men, found that excessive porn consumption was reported by almost half the respondents (85 per cent of whom were married or in a relationship), and was harming their professional success and relationships.

The numbers were dramatic: 47  per cent of the male subjects watched between 30 minutes to three hours of porn per day, one in three said it harmed their work efforts, and one in five would rather watch porn than have sex with their partners.

So Lauren, do you still want to believe that you are just being free and enjoying your "kink"?  What you are doing is adding to the misery of people all over the world.  You are complaisant in the act.  She says she doesn't like the whole virgin/whore dichotomy that goes on at Duke University.  Ok, that may very well be a problem.  But is men viewing the violent nature porn that you star in helping with that?  I have this feeling it is actually adding to it, not solving the problem.  

From feminist Naomi Wolf:

Young women tell me that hair-pulling, and even pressure around the neck at orgasm, are normal parts of courtship sex these days. These are 'porn cliches', as one young woman put it. I am not surprised by these shifts because  we all know about the pornification of society.

I believe more voices would be speaking out if the new research on this issue were better understood. What we're not being told - and this is a view which many scientists now confirm, but too few ordinary people understand - is that porn use poses health problems.

Porn actually promotes the notion that women are sex objects.  It doesn't cure it.  Your little money-making venture dear Lauren is robbing more and more young women of real experiences of what sex should really be about.  Two people coming together to enjoy each other.  Instead, we know have a generation of people who don't see mystery in sex.  They don't see as something that is to be enjoyed between two consenting adults in relationship based on mutual love and respect, but nothing more than scratching an itch.  

Lauren was also upset by the one of the papers who interviewed her noticing that she had a very expensive designer handbag as part of her new-found riches from her job.  Yes, she may be making good money.  Yes, she may graduate law school debt free (her career goal after getting a pre-law degree from Duke).  Yes, she is far from the only one who has chosen this path in order to pay the bills during college.  But, don't be surprised years from now that you can't have children due to the STD's you received.  Don't be surprised that many a decent man will not be willing to marry or raise a child with someone with this past.  Don't be surprised if you fall into a deep depression when you a woman tells you how your films shattered her marriage.  Remember Christie Brinkley's very public divorce?  Someone was starring in those porn films her ex-husband was watching.  

You keep doing what you're doing because you don't want to demeaned by being a waitress.  It is really not that big of a deal.  The "bullying" is really the least of the issues your career choice will bring to your life.  

Tired of Being Called Racist? Well, Here is What is in Store for You

The Arizona Bill Doesn’t Say What You or the Media Thinks It Says

Not that it should be a surprise, but the media is calling Arizona's 1062 Bill "Anti-Gay", discrimination, a return back to Jim Crow and other such nonsense.  The bill isn't any such thing.  The legislation that passed does one thing and one thing only.  It expands who gets covered under religious liberty claims under the law in terms of lawsuits.

Today the law in Arizona the law only covers you if somehow the government is involved in the preceding.  This expands it so if a private business or a church gets sued they can claim they are exercising their religious free will.

Section 41-1493 of the Arizona Revised Statutes regulates who can claim religious freedom or exercise thereof as a defense in a lawsuit.

Senate bill 1062 revises that law by expanding the definition of who is a person to "any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity", and allows for religious-freedom lawsuits "regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.

Nowhere in this legislation does it say that you can hang a sign in your storefront refusing service.  It simply allows a business owner or a church to claim that they are exercising their right to their religious beliefs and a judge can't throw that out as a non-defense.  It will be allowed to be heard by a jury and they get to decide if that defense has merit or not.

People behave as if somehow the rights of one person automatically trumps the rights of another.  They don't.  Rights are given to all people.  There is no doubt that gay marriage is a topic that is virtually impossible to bridge the deep divides.  But lets say for instance a person who is divorced by no desire of their own.  Their spouse packed up and left after deciding they didn't want to be married anymore.  Most states today have no fault divorces so it is very likely that can just file and be divorced in relatively short order.  The spouse that was left is a practicing Catholic.  Over time they rebuild their lives and meet someone new.  They decide they want to get married again.  By Catholic doctrine they cannot be married in the church.  Should they be able to sue under the grounds they are being discriminated against because they are divorced?  Shouldn't the Catholic Church be able to walk into a courtroom and say this goes against their teaching and doctrines without being labeled bigot?

I, for the life of me, can't figure out why a couple would want to force a business to work with them when they don't want to.  Especially for something as important as a wedding.  This is a day that to a Christian is a sacrosanct covenant with God.  You are not just making that vow to each other, but you are making that vow to God himself.  You can disagree with that premise all you like.  It doesn't make it less relevant or real to a person who takes that seriously.

We have already seen a business taken to court for not wanting to participate in something they view as sinful.  A lawsuit is being filed in England right now to force the Church of England to perform Gay Marriages even the law has put in protections to guard that from happening.  We all know all too clearly what happens when a person speaks up about their religious beliefs that gay marriage is sinful.  They get called a bigot.  It never occurs to the person doing that name calling that they may be the ones who are bigots.  That they are the ones forcing another to go against deeply held beliefs and trying to force them to accept their choice to get married to someone of the same-sex.  No it is just the other way around.  It is just the Christian who is the bigot.  It is never anyone else.

I am not saying that the whole "agree to disagree" is something that is simple.  But it isn't as complicated as some make it sound when it comes to a baker, a photographer, a florist, or any other vendor that someone may use to celebrate their wedding day.  It is going to be a rare case indeed that another vendor that is more than happy to work with the couple isn't available and the only option is the one that feels this strongly about it.  Why would want to give your money to someone who is being forced to work with you?  Have you ever thought about what they could put in that cake?  I say that jokingly of course, but it could happen.

A business in a free market society should be allowed to decide for themselves who they work with and who they don't.  The consumers can then make their choices and decide if they want to give their money to a business who adheres to certain practices.  I certainly would never go to restaurant that hung a sign saying they wouldn't do business with a group of people for reasons such as skin color, religious background, or heritage.  I will take my money elsewhere.  That is the power that I possess.  Nor is that even a relevant issue when it comes to this piece of legislation.

A jury will get decide.  This law doesn't guarantee they will win, only that they will be heard.  One would think that gay activists would be happy to put this into a court of law.  They have done so many, many times over the past decade to force their will onto others.  Why are they upset about this?  This piece of legislation just took a page out of their playbook.