Clearly Nebulous

Now it Truly is SGK *for the Cure*

Pro-lifers were rejoicing yesterday that the Susan G. Komen Foundation finally decided to stop giving funds to Planned Parenthood, joining other groups that have awakened to the shady business practices of the abortion provider and also made the move to cease giving revenue. Count me in as one of those who just wasn't comfortable supporting the foundation because of their relationship with PP.

It seemed ridiculous that a charity would be giving more than $650,000 last year to a group that makes a multi-million dollar profit. The reasoning was that the donation to PP was used for breast cancer screenings. However, this did not mean performing mammograms -- as one might easily think -- but more often simply being handed a pamphlet and discussing breast cancer risk factors and how to perform a self-exam. PP would then refer clients to a clinic where they could get a mammogram.

Planned Parenthood could easily hand out pamphlets without the funds from Komen. PP should be giving money to SGK, for crying out loud!

 

So I could see where abortion advocates would not be pleased with SGK for eliminating .07% (eye roll!) of PP's budget, but you would not believe some of the comments left on the Foundation's Facebook page yesterday. Claims that they would no longer support Komen -- or patronize any of its big donors -- because it was "caving in to conservatives" and "abandoning women over politics."

Seems to me it's those abortion advocates who are abandoning the cause of the fight against breast cancer, all because of their devotion to their sacred cow of abortion. But hey, if they are truly concerned about PP not having the money to provide those screenings, they can simply take 7 cents of every $100 they are going to give to Obama's re-election campaign to make up the difference.

Or an even more radical idea -- put an end to all abortions at Planned Parenthood, stop the sleazy practice of overlooking child abuse and statutory rape, and make it all about providing necessary services to women.

 

Mind Over Manners? Not in Our House

They keep saying how ugly the upcoming presidential election campaign is going to be.

Why?

Why do so many accept this premise? Believe me, I know first-hand exactly how bad it got in 2008. But don't they see the potential for a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Perhaps they were disheartenend by how short-lived the truce was, which President Obama called for after the shooting in Tucson, AZ. Both sides point fingers at who ended the "new era of civility" before it really started. Seems to me that everyone is guilty of letting it continue.

So how do we counter these senseless acts of unkindness? I believe that, like charity, civility begins at home. Parents need to "teach their children well" that they should mind their manners in the political arena as well.

This is all too real in our house. While there is no love lost for the current man in the White House around here, we have instructed our children that they are to refer to him as President Obama. This has proven to be a challenge to our sixteen-year-old. Her obvious animosity may have taken root when she -- like so may others -- was called a racist simply for stating her support for John McCain in 2008.

Despite our guidelines, I know that she will slip up occasionally. And I also know that she is a part of a generation that feels an unreal sense of anonymity in social media that allows them to be extra rude, thinking it's "funny." But we monitor her accounts, and she has been prompted to delete posts that are disrespectful to anyone.

Now perhaps a college student is too old for such supervision. But I would hope that I will have taught my children better than the young woman who tweeted a rude comment about Sen. Sam Brownback at a Youth in Government program. She tried to portray it as a freedom of speech issue and refused to write the apology her school was demanding.

 

Like too many policians these days, Sen. Brownback conceded to a lack of decorum. 

 

Of course she had a right to say it. And the school should not have required an apology to be sent. But when something gets back to someone -- even if it was only intended for your friends, and it was only a "joke" -- a truly conscientious person would know that some kind of redress was called for. I know I would tell my children it's the right thing to do.

But instead, this young girl stood her ground, supported by her mom who said she raised her kids to be "independent, free thinkers." And then Sen. Brownback backed down from expecting an apology, and instead apologized to her(!). 

 

Ahmir Thompson -- obviously a friend of #44 -- thought it was "tongue in cheek" to play "Lyin' A-- B----" when Michele Bachmann appeared on a latenight show. This is the attitude we must direct our children to reject.

So as long as being a free thinker is more important than being a decent human being -- especially by those who support the man who called for that new era of civility in the first place -- this will be an uphill battle that Sisyphus would not have preferred.

As for me and my house -- we will choose the path of propriety.

"Glee"-Fully Wrong and "Counting" on What's Right

No, I don't watch Glee. I know there are moms who enjoy the show and think that if they watch it with their teens (or even pre-teens) that it often opens up a conversation, blah blah blah. I truly feel you're kidding yourself if you think there's no harm done in allowing your daughters to view this for-mature-audiences-only drama.

Yes, I tuned in last night because a high school couple was deciding whether to have sex for the first time. A topic this mom (and her husband) will be revisiting many times in the coming years, what with 3 daughters currently in high school and 2 more in middle school. One thing I know: We will not be relying on Hollywood to contribute anything substantial to this conversation.

Okay, so Glee is not as bad as say, Gossip Girl (whose first season I did watch, by myself). The writers of Glee went to great pains to make sure that the story line was truly earnest, ensuring that the couple's decision (spoiler alert -- not really) to go ahead and have sex -- that it was given "meaningful" thought and was under the "right" circumstances.

 

Rachel felt that four whole months of not fighting deserved celebrating -- by having sex for the first time.

Pure Hollywood wishful thinking. Who knows how many of those involved with the production of this show actually faced this decision in high school -- and maybe some of them did have sex at that tender age and emerged unscathed. But once again it appears to be retro-rationalization by those who want to justify their own risky, indulgent behavior.

All right, I won't play pop psych here. But come on -- why else would they produce such drivel? Because "teens are facing this every day" and they hope to "guide them to making good decisions"? Because having sex when you are still in high school -- when the circumstances are "right" and you do it in a "responsible" way -- is not a threat to your future? Wrong on all accounts.

I don't care how many forms of birth control you use (apparently both Rachel and Finn had things "covered") and I don't care how in love you think you are at the age of 16, 17, 18... Just because it "feels safe" and will be "unforgettable" because it's with someone you "trust" -- there are so many other issues surrounding being in a sexual relationship that go beyond that "one special night."

One character did give lip service to waiting (acknowledging that her pregnancy was not the only bad consequence) but Rachel relied upon the advice of a couple of friends/frenemies whether or not to enter a situation fraught with so many pitfalls. Where was the conversation with a parent? (The only parental involvement I saw in the show was the old story of parent-diasapproving-of-child-performing-in-a-play with other-parent-giving-their-resounding-approval.)

Amongst all the physical and emotional aspects to be discussed, where was the most important discussion about what will happen when she gets pregnant. Yes, when. I'm teaching my daughters that it's really the only way to be truly responsible, by approaching it as an eventuality not merely a possibility (which is easily ignored). All three "choices" are life-altering. Why would anyone in high school want to complicate their lives that way?

 

Sky-diving is about as risky as things get for the Duggar girls. They know premarital sex has far more uncertainties.

Instead, the show I watched with my daughters was (the apparently soon-to-be-retitled) 19 Kids and Counting. Though I may not totally agree with the extremely conservative path to marriage of that family -- e.g. I will allow my daughters to date, and kiss boys before they are married -- I would rather have my girls exposed to the admirable guidelines they follow. That potential boyfriends need to speak to the parents first. That suitors should have the same values they do. That a physical relationship is not the most important thing between a man and a woman, and is best put off until they are married.

I would rather have my daughters watch real young women who are being taught to fix their own cars and handle their own finances and save grown-up things for when you are actually a grown-up -- than any LA-LA Land fantasy.

 

 

The Littlest Casualties in the War on Drugs

A strong strance against the use of recreational drugs hasn't always made me popular. But having a father who was a Chicago police officer -- knowing that a drug user or dealer could easily mow him down -- I felt there was no way I could ever partake in good conscience.

So when I hear liberals, libertarians, or some conservatives talk about legalization, I really get my Irish up. All one has to do is hear read the stories -- not about the drug runners fighting it out with each other nor about the amounts of money being spent on the drug war -- but about the truly innocent casualties to realize what a mistake that would be.

                                                                 

I'm talking about the children of those who are trapped in the grips of drug addiction -- that is, addiction to legal prescription drugs. One can only imagine how widespread stories like this heartbreaking tale would be if we were to legalize cocaine, heroin, etc -- even marijuana.

"It is unclear how long the girls [ages 4, 3 and 18 months] had been shut in the room, but Robinson said it was probably at least several hours, adding that the children were hungry and filthy and the room was covered in feces.

[The parents] had been in the throes of drug abuse, using legally prescribed painkillers. When a neighbor came to help... [they] were passed out in their bedroom.

As darkness fell that night, the younger sisters became scared. The oldest girl used mattresses and a pile of clothes and toys to scale the wall... She got a few cupcakes from the kitchen, tossing them to her sisters before escaping the house.

The girl arrived at her neighbor’s door barefoot and carrying a flashlight.

...The neighbor went [and] freed the children and cleaned them in a bathroom. Then she took them to her house for dinner before calling police."

The parents have apparently been in jail since the incident in March and have undergone rehab and want the children back. They will probably not only get the children but also serve no more jail time, only probation. Lucky for them their 4-year-old was obviously quite intelligent and had a will to live -- otherwise the story may have had a very different, tragic ending.

God help those poor girls, and God help many more just like them if even more "prescription drugs" flood our streets.

 

This is what you get when you google "cops find children alone in apartment drugs."

 http://tinyurl.com/433ybwp 

China through the Eyes of a Mom of 6 Girls (and 1 Boy)

Most unexpectedly, I took a trip to China this past spring (thanks to a last-minute invite my husband received to join a press junket sponsored by a Chinese organization promoting good business relations with the U.S.) I have always had mixed feelings about the nation of China -- finding its modern political policies deplorable, but recognizing what an amazing cultural history it has. I knew an excursion there would be a challenge, but my personal feelings added to my apprehension.

You see, in January of this year I had discovered the organization All Girls Allowed. As a pro-life feminist I had long known about China's one-child policy, but this new group is revealing just how harmful this abhorrent program is.

Duly reported by Kathryn Jean Lopez of the National Review, AGA was founded by one of the student leaders of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, Chai Ling. Having been forced to abort twice, Ling is bearing witness to the coercive actions of the Chinese government and the devastating impact it is having in the lives of Chinese women and their families. She and others recently testified before Congress, in hopes that the U.S. administration would decry this wide-spread trampling of human rights.

So I prepared for my trip wanting to bring along this shirt I purchased from AGA to show my solidarity. My husband had already said (only half-jokingly) that there was a 50/50 chance one of us would get kicked out of the country if we expressed our views, so I decided against it.

 

This shirt says how at least 40 million young women are currently "missing" in China, since that is how many more young men reside there, even though there should be an approximately even ratio of males to females. However, the Chinese government itself says that the one-child policy has limited their population by hundreds of millions.

 

But I did bring along a picture of all of my children, as did my husband. We both showed the photo to as many people we could -- not to rub their noses in it, but to add to the debate in a small way. We felt our responses to their reactions could spread the notion of just how wrong this policy is.

Very often my husband was congratulated on finally getting a boy. He would say that each of his girls is a treasured gift as well. A couple of women I talked to expressed their desires to have a large family, but then very matter-of-factly stated their government's policy. They seemed so impassionately resigned that I have to admit I was stymied, not knowing what to say...

As I searched in vain for days for any pregnant women, and saw many little boys and fewer girls -- as I observed the majority of parents with only one child in tow, often escorted by grandparents, recalling the "Little Emperor Syndrome" and how it is spreading beyond the borders of China -- I grieved for all the little girls who were deemed "undesirable"  and "unworthy" and therefore "disposable."

 



I met this exuberant young woman in Tiananmen Square. She seemed so excited to meet me... but the honor was all mine. 

 

As I saw the beautiful smiling faces of so many young Chinese women, I wondered if they knew how "lucky" they were. If they feel like a treasured gift, like each of my daughters -- or merely a burden to their families. If they will remain under a regime that someday might rip their own daughters from them. Or if they will rise up to declare and reclaim their dignity and their value to their countrymen. 

I returned from my trip with so many amazing memories. And a tenacious resolve to help those smiling faces increase in number, not diminish. 

 

Make a donation to All Girls Allowed here. 

 

Hail to these Homecoming Queens!

One downside to going to an all-girls high school was that we didn't really have the true experience of homecoming: The pep rally, the football game, the dance, the homecoming court, etc.

I never really thought much of having missed out, but now that my own daughters are attending a public high school -- and one boyfriend is a contender for Homecoming King -- I can see that it is really something to experience. 

And this year there have been two Homecoming Queens crowned that are worth crowing about. First is a young woman who gets that you don't have to compromise your talents or your femininity. She's just as comfortable wearing a football helmet and a tiara. I'd like to see her as a future Miss America -- and as a member of the USA World Cup Soccer Champions!

 

 Not only was Brianna Amat crowned queen, but she kicked the game-winning field goal!

The other young woman was always known around the school for being a real sweetheart, and a true blue fan of her high school football team. She and her parents were simply thrilled that she made the top four. Watch as Mariah Slick -- who just so happens to have Downs syndrome -- is announced Homecoming Queen with her dad by her side:

 

And by golly, why couldn't Mariah be Miss America someday?

I was pleased as punch to show these stories to my daughters as evidence that it ain't only about fancy hair, piles of make-up, and a slinky dress. It's about the character of who you are that leads to the kind of success you can be proud of.

 

 

 

Friday Movie (Non)review: "What's Your Number?"

There has to be a very compelling reason to get myself over to the mall, pay way too much money, sit in a freezer-cold room in an uncomfortable chair and watch a movie straight through without being able to hit pause. And that vibrating phone in my pocket during the show had better be because one of the kid's hair is on fire.

Rarely are there must-see-in-the-theater movies -- the new Batman series has me waiting until next year... nothing else right now screams at me, "Get thee to a cinema, pronto!"

So writing movie reviews of movies I haven't seen seems ridiculous. But it's my little way of protesting the garbage that is coming from La-la Land. Reading the bad reviews of those who have actually seen the film is enough to reinforce what I said a couple weeks ago: What is wrong with Hollywood? Why is it so hard for them to make movies women want to see?

 

How good can a movie be when it is based on telling your "number"? Why repeat that to anyone else?

 

Latest fiasco: What's Your Number?  From the three reviews I read,  it seems this movie is obviously trying to cash in on the success of Bridesmaids. Tinseltown thinks we want to see a movie about a non-existent Marie Claire article (apparently it's actually based on a book called 20 Times a Lady) compelling a woman to go back and revisit possible romance with all her exes.

Ok, the premise ain't that bad -- but they have taken what seems like an interesting odyssey (according to Amazon reviews of the book -- although they could all be penned by friends of the author...) and turned it into even more crude sex jokes and clumsy slapstick. (The reviewers stopped counting the number of times they heard the word "vagina.") But we can't even point the finger at the usual suspects -- men writing what they think is a funny chick movie.

 

Skip Number and rent the comic genius of Bridesmaids instead.

 

This was written by three women, including the book's author. I would love to ask them: Is this the movie you intended, or did you simply write what you thought would get the green light? If this is not the movie you intended, why did you cave to the studio execs' re-write requests?

Yeah, I haven't seen this movie myself, nor Bridesmaids for that matter. But I would choose a rental of the latter over paying way too much for a bad movie that once again misses the mark of what women want in a cinematic experience.

Pottymouth's Apology to Palin Falls Short

So Bristol Palin had a run-in with a kinda drunk guy at a bar in Hollywood. He started calling her mom names, and Bristol stood up to him. She asked him to say specifically why her mom deserved such a verbal attack. Of course he had no response and continued with the insults, eventually throwing some Bristol's way.

In the aftermath, Palin-haters called it staged and gave Bristol a lashing for bringing up the man's sexual orientation. But Bristol explained on her Facebook page, that she only brought it up because of the rampant misconceptions by those in the gay community regarding her mother. She said the main reason she chose to confront him was to make him see that

"You can disagree with her politics without vilifying her or lying about us. Isn’t it time for this crazy hatred to stop?"

Bristol had guts, standing up to this guy who is pretty buff, and she kept her cool as she did it.

Well, apparently the guy has sobered up and is feeling some remorse... sort of. In a statement, he apologized to Bristol, but fell short of apologizing for what he said about her mom. (He also said that this was not staged.) 

" ...I have come to the conclusion that no matter what my feelings are towards Sarah Palin, I should not have expressed them towards her daughter, Bristol Palin... I expressed my feelings in an improper manner in the heat of the moment, and allowed my emotions to get the better of me."

I'm sorry, but that falls a little short.

Sure the guy is entitled to his feelings -- and at least he acknowledged that he expressed them in an improper manner. But no direct apology for the names he called Sarah? Don't make him question and face exactly what those feelings are based on? Does having a differing political opinion entitle you to think someone is "a whore" and "the Devil"?

I try to challenge people all the time, even when they use less crude language. Hillary did not deserve to be called "a b*tch," Obama does not deserve to be called "a communist," and Sarah Palin (and Michele Bachmann) do not deserve to be called "dumb."

But amazingly, over and over, I hear mature adults defending these types of comments with "Well, they act like that" and that they are "entitled to their opinion." Really?

If you heard your child calling their principal, their teacher, heck even their sibling such names and they presented those same arguments to you -- would you say "Yep, you're right."

Vilifying someone is never right, and in the political realm, all it does is confound an already highly contentious atmosphere. By all means, express your opinions about issues, policies, and any politician's positions on them. But leave out the name-calling -- if it ain't right for the school yard, it ain't right anywhere else.

Liberal Dictionary Entry #1: Hypocrisy = Palin?!

As I go about my daily reading of media that lean left or lean right, through the lens of someone who herself does both (depending on the issue) -- and being a bit pedantic (I was a proofreader in another lifetime) I occasionally come across a glaring misuse of a simple term.

Today I have to take issue with the Left's use of the words "hypocrite" and "hypocrisy." I'll skip the overdone citing of the Webster entry, and just point out that the definition applies to saying one thing while doing another.

To those in the liberal camp however, it applies to anyone's past behavior, too. Correction: Any conservative's past behavior. (For we all know that fellow liberals' pasts are not subject to scrutiny.) Both Bristol and Sarah Palin are currently being labeled by the Left as hypocrites for advocating abstinence.

 

Liberals failed to see the impact of this ad, and all the positive publicity that Bristol brought to the great work by the Candie's Foundation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpHlztPeHf8

 

In Bristol's case, her campaign with The Candie's Foundation  was attacked mostly saying that she was a hypocrite for telling girls not to have sex when she did. Liberals -- I imagine wanting to protect their sexual agenda -- failed to realize that the perfect spokeswoman is someone who has been there and regretted it and is telling a cautionary tale.

No, they think the story is how much Bristol was paid. (And where are the stories about how much liberal celebrities get paid for liberal causes? Nowhere). 

 

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin -- apparently because she supported abstinence education (which as Ramesh Ponnuru reported is often misrepresented) means that her personal sex life is on the table. So much for all the cries that such topics are none of our business (see Clinton/Lewinsky scandal).

Some writers have had back-handed defenses of Palin -- Nick Gillespie, in his WashPost review of the McGinnis book,  said he "fails to [see] the significance of Palin’s premarital sexual history (one wonders if and when male politicians will be subjected to the same examination)."

Of course he opens that review reminding everyone that "a whopping 66 percent of adults hold an unfavorable view" of Palin, and it seems his only purpose for taking McGinnis to task is for not hitting Palin for the real reasons one should, which Gillespie then goes on to list in detail.

 

Apparently enjoying the wild outdoors means we get to know what happens behind closed doors.

 

Another WashPost writer seems to take the same tack -- telling everyone to stop all the Palin bashing, as she also reminds us of her unelectability, ridicules her hairdo (I thought that was off-limits -- oh wait, that was for Hillary), and lists all the other bad things people say about her.

But it is this female writer who comes to this conclusion (yes, those capitalized words are annoyingly used):

If there is one thing that is true about Sarah Palin, it is that Her Private Life Is Not Off Limits. I’m sorry. Once you have a reality TV series, once you invite the cameras in, the blinking red eye never turns away.

So you sign up for a show that displays the state you live in and its astounding beauty, and you have a crew film your family as they enjoy the wonders of Mother Nature -- and that entitles the world to know your sexual history?!

The true hypocrisy is in the double standards that the Left practices every day regarding what they expect from their conservative opponents vs. their liberal compadres.

The Hollywood He-Man Woman Haters Club

Why can't Hollywood get women right? More often than not, female characters in the movies and television shows that come out of Lala-Land are an insult to the better sex.

Just look at the theater marquee today and you'll see a perfect reflection of how the movies forsake women. For every  gem like The Help, you have a dozen movies that do women wrong.

 

Why can Hollywood only come out with great stories like The Help once or twice a year?

Run far, far away from I Don't Know How She Does It that apparently takes a beloved book and once again ruins it by glamming up the lead character and then using cliches to tackle the mommy wars. The Salon review's response to the title is "Why would anyone care?" Enough!

You may get a strong lead character like Helen Mirren in The Debt, or strong supporting roles like Kate Winslet in Contagion -- but for the most part, the dearth of even likeable ladies in films predominantly aimed at the male demographic is astonishing.

The good news in television, according to Hank Steuver's preview of the fall season in the WashPost, is that women are writing, producing and starring more than ever before. But the excellent article -- titled "Bunnies, babies and broads: What is TV trying to tell us about women?" -- has the author writing in his notes again and again as he watches premiere episodes of new programming WHAT THE [EXPLETIVE] HAPPENED TO WOMEN?

From the Charlie's Angels reboot that is nothing like the new movies (despite the presence of producer Drew Barrymore) and is just a jiggle show on high octane, to The Playboy Club which once again glamorizes the sexist environment behind those doors, to the seemingly benign Whitney which tries hard to make obnoxiousness in a woman seem desirable.

 

Another good thing about Up All Night is a stay-at-home dad who is manly, supportive, and realistic.

 

There are a few new shows that are getting it right. Up All Night is fresh and fun -- and Maya Rudolph's send-up of an Oprah-esque character is spot-on (without going over-the-top as she hilariously did on SNL). And Pan Am shows promise with what Stuever calls a "watered-down proto-feminist ideal" (although he doesn't know if it will "fly.")

But overall, one has to wonder why Hollywood gets it wrong over and over again. Even knowing how messed up they all are, they have millions to play with. Can't they find writers who can create characters that truly reflect the substance and depth of real women?