Clearly Nebulous

Painting the Proper Palin Portrait

I think people of all persuasions will admit that the political path of Sarah Palin is a compelling story. Starting out as the president of her PTA, going on to become a mayor and governor, then plucked from relative obscurity to be placed on a Presidential ticket. (Although she was not unknown to me, and I predicted her being chosen two days before it happened.) 

Too bad that HBO has chosen to take that story and turn it into yet another character assassination of Palin -- this time with all the glitz, glamour, and "glop" of Hollywood.

Oh, just about every mainstream media review has been glowing -- from Entertainment Weekly to the Washington Post -- each declaring that the movie is well-done and captures the essence of the true Sarah Palin. They occasionally give back-handed compliments to the real woman, the Post saying: 

"The movie seems to want you to realize that there’s a human being there, someone who could use a break from the scorn and expectation heaped upon her."

Seriously?! If that were true, then the producers would not have written the script based on a handful of pages from a book written by two men who were not even on the campaign trail, citing sources who refused to go on the record. (One did go on the record later, but is well known as a "disgruntled" member of John McCain's team who sought out someone to blame for his own failings.)

Oh, I'm sure that all the liberals who hate Palin will delight in seeing the fictitious scenes, such as the vice-presidential candidate in a fetal position, buckling to the pressures of the spotlight. And I'm sure that Julianne Moore (and perhaps Ed Harris, finally) will win an Emmy and maybe a Golden Globe, etc. (But I predict she can look forward to obscurity after that, as liberals will be unable to shake their image of her as that hated harpie and conservatives will not forgive her for participating in this schlockfest. Harris will be fine.)

 

The Undefeated panned (of course) by mainstream reviewers, more accurately tells the Sarah Palin story. 

 

Big Hollywood  has been all over this story -- in fact they have nearly two dozen pieces linked on their website that refute the accuracy and integrity of this farce. Take your pick, and you will see that this movie is deliberately unfair, counterfactual, and mean-spirited.

I myself have cancelled my HBO subscription -- I sent the cable channel an e-mail telling them it was because of this movie. I only regret not also mentioning the misogyny of Bill Maher. Perhaps you, too, might want to send HBO a similar message.

If you want to see a truly accurate portrayal of Palin, watch the documentary (you know, one of those films that has actual footage of the real person) that will be airing the following night on the REELZ channel. The Undefeated  was made by a man who started out with a small interest in the governor, but then as he did his research for the film and it came to light how she had been treated during the campaign, he became a true crusader for her.

Most folks need to unlearn what they have learned about Sarah Palin. Picking the proper portrait will give her a fair shake. Everyone deserves that. Too bad HBO prefers to be another big bully.

 

 

Holding Maher et al Accountable for *their* Misogyny

 

Here we go again... I've written about name-calling before, and have said how both sides need to cool it. But apparently only those on the right are held accountable by most of the left and the media.

I'm not going to defend Rush. I rarely listen to his show, and have often said he has to stop making fun of people personally. The one thing that can be said is -- although he misrepresented the woman's testimony to some extent -- he was commenting on behavior that she freely admitted she engaged in -- before a congressional committee.

(So those of you who think she is a private citizen who doesn't deserve to be "attacked" like politicians who "are in the public arena" and are subject to "scrutiny" -- she willingly put herself there. Isn't that why you all went after Paula Jones -- another private citizen who just came forward to present her testimony? Uh huh!)

So Rush apologized and it still isn't enough. Amazing since those who are not accepting the apology have never asked for any penitence from media on the left who have repeatedly attacked women with all kinds of name-calling.

 

 

Kirsten Poweres understands that misogyny from both sides should not be tolerated.

Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers is probably the most well-known amongst the very small minority of liberal women who do not accept this double standard. She wrote a piece calling out the likes of Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and most notably Bill Maher for their misogynistic antics. The detailed list of their bad behavior is sickening.

And of course, their targets were called names simply for being conservative Republicans -- or in Hillary's case, for standing in the way of Obama's beatification coronation election. Said Powers:

 

"If Limbaugh’s outburst is part of the 'war on women,' then what is the routine misogyny of liberal media men?

It’s time for some equal-opportunity accountability. Without it, the fight against media misogyny will continue to be perceived as a proxy war for the Democratic Party, not a fight for fair treatment of women in the public square."

Maher has laughed off the notion that he has to watch what he says -- because he doesn't have to worry about sponsors like Limbaugh. But he does have to answer to HBO.

Someone has already called for Obama's superpac to return Maher's $1 million contribution. But that would only be the President recognizing that he shouldn't accept a donation from someone so vile. I say we hold Maher accountable.

I say if enough people declare they are cancelling their HBO subscriptions over Maher's misogynistic comments (not to mention the channel's misogynistic portrayal of Sarah Palin in Game Change -- but more on that later this week) we can get Maher to stop his tirades. 

 

 

 

 

Prez: Done Apologizing to Afghanis? Write a Letter to Iran

It was the lead story on MSNBC's website today: Pres Obama sent a letter to the president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, apologizing for the inadvertent burning of Qurans at a NATO base in that country.

In the third day of rioting over an act the Afghani faithful consider highly blasphemous, two U.S. soldiers were killed, bringing the total dead to at least seven. 

MSNBC reports that Obama wrote: "The error was inadvertent; I assure you that we will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible."

But the killings of the Americans is anything but inadvertent, as the Taliban has called for the deaths of Westerners in retaliation. No word on exactly how many deaths are called for...

What are the odds that Karzai will apologize for the overreaction of these radicals and hold them responsible? Not bloody likely. Once again it will be about us turning the other cheek while they slaughter our citizens over the slightest offense. *sigh*

 

Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani has refused to renounce his Christian faith and is sentenced to be executed in Iran.

As long as PBO is in a letter-writing mood, why not pen a note to the Irani government about Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani who has been sentenced to die for converting to Christianity? Fox News is all over the story, too, and reported on their morning show how a final verdict came down yesterday.

While CNN reported on Nadarkhani's case in January, there was no mention of this latest development. (That was one story more than MSNBC, ABC and CBS who apparently find no interest in this tale of Christian persecution.)

If you want to remain apprised of this man's fate, you can sign up for alerts from "Tweet for Youcef" on Twitter.

Update: Wow, when I write the White House listens -- statements about this case were issued the day this post was written!

Teachers are asking the Wrong Questions

...of the wrong people.

A former classmate I've mine posted a link to a blog post in which a Kansas teacher was expressing his discontent over what he felt was the overreach and unreasonable expectations of the federal government in regards to school systems and teachers.

I don't mean to invalidate all of his queries. He raises some very good points. It is very difficult to make assessments when it comes to teachers -- one can't know exactly what each and every teacher faces every day with each individual child and their specific needs.

Sincerely -- no offense to the 90% of good teachers who are working so hard and for whom I am extremely grateful, but I think he is asking the wrong questions to the wrong target audience. The main question, which should be asked of the teachers' unions, is: In what other profession do you not have to pay consequences for poor results?

 

This commentary by Bill and Melinda Gates -- champions of effective education -- is a worthy read regarding this topic...

Yes, teachers all are dealing with so much, and can only do so much -- the fact remains: If school districts were able to fire the worst 10% of instructors, we wouldn't be posing these questions -- because our students' performance would be back at globally competitive levels.  That is, good teachers would have easier jobs -- would be able to achieve their goals more easily -- without having to first "fix" the damage/neglect done by the bad teachers.

Now, of course, this is not an easy task, evaluating which teachers need to go. Teaching is a noble profession, but it is not for everyone. We all need to stand up to the unions' refusal to accept any kind of standards in order to remain employed. Don't allow good teachers (who happened to be hired after the bad teachers) to lose their jobs -- let go of the "lemons" first, not the ones with the shortest employment. 

It's a win-win for the students -- and the good teachers that are so essential to their success!

Oh, So *Now* BO's Interested in Fair Campaign Funding

 

Isn't it interesting that the President -- who I'm sure everyone believes is in favor of campaign finance reform (you know, because those poor Democrats have to figure out a way to fight those mean ol' Republicans and their pocket-lining fat cats) -- is now throwing up his hands and saying that he'll just have to (ow, ow, twist his arm) take super pac money in order for things to be "fair"? 

Obama supporters received an email from his re-election staff saying:

"[W]e can't allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm. Therefore, the campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PAC....

It's my hope that by making this decision and doing what we can to neutralize the onslaught of special-interest money, we can ensure that the decisive factor in this election won’t be an unprecedented flood of special-interest spending, and the outcome will be back in the hands of ordinary Americans."

As if.

Obama 2008 wasn't the least bit interested in fairness. In 2007 he vowed to accept public financing and to cooperate with his opponent to make sure that they both ran campaigns within those limits. John McCain took that promise to heart and accepted the public funds -- and then Obama broke his pledge. In that way, Obama was able to raise as much money as he pleased (at least $700 million, some of it under shady circumstances) and outspent McCain by at least 5 to 1.

Most sources are saying that Obama could raise over $1 billion -- with a "b" -- for this campaign. I dare say he'll easily surpass that now with this super pac money and once again employing the sketchy tactics that were used last time without consequence.

And who said there should be two sets of rules? Why hasn't the Great Obama Brain Trust figured out a way to off-set super pac spending? One of the left's biggest targets -- who I'm sure they scoff at in the smarts department -- was able to figure out a way to deal with attack ads by outside groups.

 

Senator Scott Brown put his thinking cap on and came up with a way to deal with outside attack ads -- why hasn't President Obama come up with a solution to super pac money in the presidential election?

Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts knew that super-rich outside sources would be trying to influence his re-election race. So he and his people came up with a brilliant solution which (after some tweaks) was eventually agreed to by his opponent. The deal reached has each campaign agreeing to donate half the cost of any third-party ads to charity if an ad either supports their candidacy or attacks their opponent by name.

Though there have been complaints of "loophpoles," they are really only about on-line websites. The bulk of attack ads are on television, radio, and by mail/email, which are all covered in the agreement.

So why can't the GOBT figure out something similar with regard to super pacs? Because Team Obama is not interested in fairness. Once again it will be no holds barred, take no prisoners, win at all costs. No "change" just "more of same."

 

 

Campaign 2012: Blatant Media Bias Moment #1

Actually it was probably "Moment #2" but I didn't write about the first one when it happened: The out-of-context blast over Romney saying "I like to be able to fire people" -- made even worse, when often misquoted as "I like to fire people."

But how many people know the full statement:

"I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me the good service I need, I want to say, 'You know, I'm going to get someone else to provide this service to me.' "

Don't we all agree with that? But of course, with the msm spin, it became more fodder for the "Romney-is-so-out-of-touch" meme.

Yesterday the Washington Post and other media had front page headlines "Romney : I'm not concerned about the very poor."

AOL featured The Huffington Post's unfair headline -- it was everywhere! 

 

Again, unfairly out of context. In case you didn't see the exchange with Soledad O'Brien, it was: 

Romney: "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich.... I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."

O'Brien: "There are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say, 'That sounds odd.' "

Romney: "We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor.... You can focus on the very poor, that's not my focus.... The middle income Americans, they're the folks that are really struggling right now and they need someone that can help get this economy going for them."

Soledad O'Brien is sticking to her beliefs about Romney's disconnect, even after he explained further.

So basically this is how I look at it: If I was at a girls' night out and I told everybody that one of my middle children was going through a troubling time -- that I wasn't worried about my oldest and I wasn't concerned about my youngest -- that my focus was currently on that middle child...

If one of those women turned around and gossiped to others that "Colette says she isn't concerned about her little boy."

Would that be fair?

Sure, charitable moms would hear it as "Colette feels that her little boy is doing ok right now." But what if that gossip framed me as being an out-of-touch mother who has a disconnect with her youngest child? Wouldn't even fair-minded folks potentially think ill of me?

And that's the current bias that the media is showing toward Mitt Romney. Sure, they try to make the argument that the poor are not ok. Romney -- and everyone else -- knows they have their challenges too, and he even declared he would make any necessary repairs to their safety net.

But they have no interest in being fair. Romney may not be the nominee yet, but the mainstream outlets are already circling the wagons to protect the POTUS. One can only hope the electorate will be smart enough to see through these tactics of mischaracterization.

 

 

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?

How to Save a Life... or Two!

It's happened again. or at least, we're hearing about it again. We honestly cannot begin to know how many times this happens and no one finds out.

Another desperate mother has murdered her newborn child... but this time she also murdered his twin. And this was not a young teenager. This was a 25-year-old. It is yet to come out exactly why this particular young woman felt so threatened by motherhood, but we have heard this story before.

Perhaps she feared her parents would throw her out of the house. Maybe they disapproved of the father of the babies. Or perhaps it was the babies' father she feared. It could be she was concerned about losing her job. Or maybe she was overwhelmed by the prospects of caring for a baby (or twins -- we don't know if she knew).

The bottom line is, whatever drove her to do this, she considered her babies to be the problem. She reached the conclusion that killing her children was either the only way or the best way out of her dilemma.

WHY?!

Why do we continue to allow women to think that the baby is the problem? That if the baby is disposed of, the problem will just go away? Why did this young woman have to suffer in silence for months, not knowing what to do?

Ultimately I believe she is responsible for her actions, and should pay the price, giving her state of mind some consideration. But there should be justice for these nascent lives that she ended with her own hands.

Otherwise we will see many more decisions like this one in Canada where a then-19-year-old strangled her newborn son and was eventually given a suspended sentence because the judge wanted to recognize "the onerous demands [of] pregnancy and childbirth." As the author of this article points out, you're essentially allowing "fourth term abortions."

Now I know full well the demands of pregnancy and childbirth. And -- what kind of society are we when we allow infanticide to solve the challenges new mothers face?

It's not enough simply to have safe haven laws, although we certainly should make them known to all young women (and young men) as an option for getting them out of their predicaments. We also have to let women in crisis know that there is help for them.

 

 

If there is someone's wrath they fear, the answer is to get out of that relationship or out of that house. If it is losing their job that troubles them, there are lawyers willing to help them fight. If there are material needs, there are numerous agencies to assist them. And of course, there are countless couples willing to adopt their child, regardless of the circumstances.

But the most immediate thing we can do -- tell our daughters (and sons!), and friends and family members -- that if they ever find themselves in this predicament, you will be there to help them. Let them know that there is no reason to be ashamed and they can always come to you for support. That every baby is a miracle, and there are other solutions to any obstacles.

Do it today. A new life may depend on it. 

Speak Your Voice

That's what Oprah said on her final show. I'm sure she said many other memorable messages, but that was the one that truly resonated. For of late my voice has been muted.

Well, some would disagree (fellow commenters on Dave L's facebook page, I'm looking your way) but it's true. I have not only been remiss in writing this blog, I have slacked off on spreading the word on what I find important.

Sure, I have posted and shared links, tweeted and retweeted, and commented pointedly from time to time. But even as I continue to read the Washington Post every day, and watch cable news, and read articles on-line -- itching to speak my mind... Still I remained relatively silent.

I have to admit it was based on fear.

 

Oprah saying goodbye has compelled me to say something, anything!

Like so many women, I was afraid to speak up too loudly. Afraid that what I had to say didn't matter. That no one was interested in my point of view. That I might offend people I care about. That my writing was mediocre and unoriginal. 

But I know that's not who I am. 

I don't have to impress anyone. I don't have to become rich or famous. I don't have to solve all the worlds problems. But I can speak my voice even if, as Oprah said, it is only for a dozen people.

Now perhaps I shouldn't follow the advice of a woman whose network is choosing to speak to the world -- the last time I checked the listings -- with six back-to-back episodes of The Judds. But we all have our off days. We're not going to change history every day.

 

If this show is anything like the Judds' previous Oprah Show apppearances, it is a train wreck I do not care to watch ever again. For their own sake, I sincerely hope it is otherwise... 

But especially as women, we can be encouraging of one another. I look at this blog as a way of not only encouraging, but challenging women to think a little deeper, to seek to know a little more, to reach out and do a little more -- however small it may be.

We may never know exactly how many of those we reach out to actually take notice, or how many then turn around and tell someone else. We may never know the full impact of our words and actions. 

But speak we must... and so I will.

 

If you would like to join in the conversation, I highly encourage you to do so. Reading the intro and reader's guide at the left should be helpful... 

American Idol: Not for Intellectuals Only

I think it’s just great that the simple folk are discovering that they too can enjoy the highbrow entertainment of this uncelebrated talent exposition.

Actually, it’s usually more like “You watch American Idol? Seriously?”

Seriously.

Yeah, sure, it’s not the same without Simon, and there are plenty of episodes where almost everybody does bad (this week was pretty close!), and whereas Steven Tyler has brought some fun, he’s a bit pandering (and enough with his pottymouth and ogle-eyes!)

But J-Lo is lovely — Paula without the potential train-wreck factor — and Randy is a solid anchorman who has easily taken on the role of the heavy, albeit without the clever sting of Sir Cowell.

So a quick wrap-up for last week: Choosing a song from the year you were born.

Yep, the oldest person was born after I graduated high school. And the youngest is barely able to drive. Yikes.

Idol has always been kind of vague about how the choices of songs are presented to the contestants. Come on, tell us — can they actually choose any song they want that meets the criteria, as long as you’re able to secure the rights? If so, it is amazing to me how — season after season — contestants make horrible song choices.

It was the last coffin nail for Ashthon the previous week, and there were some dicey choices this week. But I don’t think that’s what did in the comely Karen this time out.

If the voting had been solely based upon the performances of that night, the unconventional Casey would have been OUT! Cool song, terrible screeching. Karen had a lovely rendition of “Love Will Lead You Back” but I think she was fighting an unturnable tide.

It seems that the big demographics for AI voters is tweenage girls and grandmas. Hence, verycute boys with verylittle talent tend to overstay their welcomes. And the girls who make it through not only have to be outstanding (Pia!) but they have to be relatable (Thia!)

Though fans like my husband may have thought Karen’s neo-Barbarella outfit was muy caliente, tweens and g-mas… not so much. And I don’t know — but the whole bilingual, affable nature kind of gave her a Celine Dion vibe that unfortunately can be (inexplicably imo) off-putting.

Well, AI may no longer have a potential Latin Idol this time around, but Karen Rodriguez can have a long-time career in Latin music if she plays her cards right. All the best to her — she is beauteous.

The Latina Barberella? 

As for this week: Where was Berry Gordy? Maybe after being invited to see the meh performance of Ashthon 2 weeks ago, he was afraid to come back. Well he missed out on some Smokey-hot performances.

Even country-boy Scotty showed he had a little bit of soul, as he delicately walked the line between engaging entertainer and lounge lizard with a rendition of “For Once in My Life” that was reminiscent of ’70s-variety-show-era Glen Campbell.

Jacob and Pia — who have to be odds-on favorites — chose lesser- known hits which can be risky… unless of course you are able to knock ‘em out of the park! Jacob however, has the edge in showmanship, effortlessly adding a little sass to his performance. Pia has The Voice, but she needs to connect more if she wants to win it all.

I have to say the voting results surprised me — but not just for the obvious reason. I feared that the bottom three was going to be an all-(non-Asian) girl chorus again. Instead it indeed included two of the weakest performances.

Stefano (or as I call him, Matt LeBlanc and Matthew Broderick’s secret love-child) chose a cheesy song that David Cook memorably reinvented, but Stefano looked like he was holding back the mother of all sneezes as he tried to keep his eyes open. I thought the tweens would melt at his final doe-eyed glower and tear up the phone lines, but not so.

Thia is cute as all heck, but she just hasn’t had strong showings, so her inclusion also made sense. But of course, the stunner — for even being in the bottom three, let alone the lowest tally — was Casey with his comeback rendition of “I Heard it Through the Grapevine.” No screeching this week, just soulful strains.

Chalk it up to performing first and the voters thinking he’s a shoo-in? Who knows, but the judges were spot-on — though they scared the “shhh-tuff” out of Casey by stopping him from singing for a save — when they immediately decided to bring him back next week.

As he staggered about, visibly stunned, Casey had me and my husband convinced that we were about to see AI’s first instance of on-stage regurgitation. Yeah, sure, nothing new for the likes of The Jersey Shore — but thankfully, it was simply sincere shock from a young man who felt he had been pulled back from oblivion.

By saving Casey this week, the AI judges expanded the tour to eleven performers.

Too Busy to Condemn Misogynist Slurs? N.O.W. That's "Ridiculous"!

Well Bill Maher had me on his team for about a day with his condemnation of Islamist fundamentalism. But then he just had to open his big mouth and use another misogynist slur in reference to Sarah Palin on the March 18th broadcast of his show. He couldn't settle for "dumb twit" -- he sunk to the lowest and bought a different vowel instead.

Supporters of Palin immediately jumped to her defense the next day, wondering where those calls for civility had gone. And then we waited for the castigation from N.O.W. ... and we waited, and we waited.

Come on, in this day and age? A quick tweet? A brief, perfunctory statement?  Nope. Four days later a "communications director" (who may want to review her job description) put up a backhanded chastisement on the organization's website blog telling liberals to:

"Cut the crap! Stop degrading women with whom you disagree and/or don't like by using female body terms or other gender-associated slurs. OK? Can you do that, please? ....keep their sex out of it. Sexist insults have an impact on all women."

But of course, there are the words that I omitted with those ellipses:

"If you think someone's an idiot or a danger to the country, feel free to say so"

Classy.

 

Sarah Palin also got no respect with the way the MSM ignored her trip to Israel.

But it didn't stop there. Three more paragraphs admonishing conservatives, with complaints about how we're trying to distract them from the real important work of ensuring that the ability to kill a pre-born child for any reason, at any age of gestation remains the law of the land. That they have defended Sarah Palin, but they'll only do it when they feel like getting around to it.

And then the usual canard of, where were conservatives when Hillary was being bashed? Well, the worst I remember in the mainstream was the infamous "beat the b*tch" incident. Although that occurred before I began blogging, I decried that statement (and others about Hillary's anatomy). But today I tried for several minutes to find any hits about N.O.W. defending Hillary for anything -- ok, I'm not the best Googler, but I came up with nothing. You would think that there would be a ton of references.

Well, there are a ton of references for how faux-feminists defended Bill Clinton. And then of course there is the deafening silence from N.O.W. on how conservatives are the ones who have brought about progress in the plight of women in Afghanistan and Iraq. They also fail to acknowledge the prominence of women in the Bush administration over the current one.

But we all know that N.O.W.'s irrelevance grows as its only true goal -- laying the lives of millions of pre-born women (and men) on the altar of abortion -- becomes less and less popular.

But Palin herself said on March 24th that she doesn't need N.O.W. to defend her:

“Let’s keep pivoting around media bias, and not get distracted with the vulgar personal shots. Call out lies and set the record straight, but always keep the ball moving. No one ever won a game only playing defense.”

I would add: Take the ball and take your shot. Don't wait for the self-appointed refs to decide whether or not you "deserve" to be in the game. 

 

No MSM Baby Joseph Stories because it Shows All-Too-Real "Death Panel"?

I have not seen this story at all myself on any network other then FOXNews, and they are correct in calling it an "exclusive" today -- while I was able to find a few older stories (not any from the WashPost or MSNBC) no one but FOX is reporting the victory in this end-of-life case.

Could it be because this story shows exactly the types of decisions that are reached by government-controlled panels under national health care systems? Whereas, of course there should be a review of cases by professionals, when the conclusion reached denies a family the right to carry out their own wishes in how their child will be cared for in their final days, how can such a group be called anything but a "death panel"?

Baby Joseph has a rare disorder that Canadian doctors say will end his life very soon. They wanted to remove his respirator, leading to what would appear to be an immediate death. The family asked that instead, the doctors perform a prodedure that would allow Baby Joseph to be taken home to live out his last days.

 

Father Frank Pavone fought hard to allow Baby Joseph's dad to bring him to a facility that will listen to his family's wishes.

 

But the single story I found on ABC News (from 10 days ago) amazingly recounted that the Consent and Capacity Board, an independent body created by the government of Ontario, refused to allow this. In other words, a board knows better than parents how a child should die.

Supporters of the Canadian system would argue that the child's death is inevitable, so there is no sense in prolonging his life. This, of course, is the conclusion reached by doctors whose job it is to think about bottom lines.

Thankfully, as FOX reported today, through the efforts of Priests for Life and other anti-euthanasia groups (including Terri Schiavo's brother, Bobby) Baby Joseph was flown to SSM Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center in St. Louis, Missouri on a specially equipped air ambulance. The Center provides medical care for no cost to children in need.

It will be interesting indeed to find out what the doctors at this Center determine about Baby Joseph's condition.

It's no wonder the MSM has shied away from this story. Not only does it show what is essentially a "death panel" decision, but it shows the compassion of pro-life group's that are willing to care for a dying child to allow him to live out his natural life. And he will be cared for by those who are truly interested in his well-being -- not balancing a budget. This tale clearly reveals scenarios that would be all-too-real here in the U.S. unless we stop Obamacare.

Wisconsin Unions: Childish Charlatans not Freedom Fighters

The Wisconsin unions -- and many non-resident union reps of all kinds -- have made quite a spectacle in Madison these the past weeks. Mainstream media have been quite empathetic, not reporting the hard facts about exactly what the Republicans in Wisconsin were asking from the unions.

Instead, Chris Matthews and his kind allowed union mouthpieces to spout absurdities such as "this vote was like Pearl Harbor" and suggesting the GOP members had done something unethical, if not illegal.

But then again, these are the same people who refused to see how ridiculous it was that Megan Sampson, who was named an Outstanding First Year Teacher in Wisconsin, got a layoff notice a week later because her union's collective-bargaining contract chose senior members regardless of how ineffective they may be.

This protestor actually (though inadvertantly, I'm sure) got it right. Sure, go ahead and voice your dissent, but when it's apparent the local citizens are not behind you, it's time for concessions.

Michael Walsh in The New York Post:

Let’s call this what it is: a campaign to nullify the 2010 election, by a sore-loser party that doesn’t like the results.

The Democrats are trying to cast themselves as the heroes — noble prisoners of conscience engaged in an act of civil disobedience by denying Walker a quorum so the vote can be held...

This fight is now about whether we are to have an orderly democracy or legislative and executive anarchy, whether elections can be delegitimized and even overturned by the daily plebiscites of the polls, by the flouting of sacred oaths of office and by the trampling on the laws of the state.

The truant senators were basically hoping that the constant protests and liberal media would sway constituents into telling the Republicans to change their minds. But when that was not happening, they acted as if they were holding on to some higher principle and still refused to come home. They behaved like a bunch of petulant teenagers, holding the legislative process hostage -- so the GOP members did what they had to do.

Let's take a look at what was done:

** The Republican state senators found no reaon to continue to wait for the return of the missing Democrats and went ahead and voted on part of the legislation as they have been telling the Dems for weeks they would. No surprises, no "nuclear option" -- the Dems had every chance to debate this and win over the votes. They refused.

** The legislation they passed still leaves Wisconsin union members more rights than federal workers and the public union members of about half of the other statesin America. 

** The WI GOP made a serious move to deal with a deficit of over $6B, which the state reached (no) thanks to a Democratic governor who repaid his teachers union campaign supporters with a collective-bargaining agreement that costs the state's taxpayers -- you won't believe this -- $101,091 per year for each teacher!

The governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, faced a similar situation a few years back. He made tough decisions that made him very unpopular at the time. Now Indiana is one of the few states in the black, and Daniels is a hero.

My guess is that the citizens of Wisconsin will do the same for Scott Walker, and one by one other states will follow suit -- and the days of the charlatans will be behind us. 

 

The New Egyptian "Democracy": Women and Christians Need Not Apply?!

Buried on page 14 of the Washington Post today was a story that is a bad omen for women in post-revolutionary Egypt. A march of about 300 women in Tahrir Square on International Women's Day ended when men began attacking the women, shouting at them and sexually groping them. (Apprently Egypt is second only to South Africa in the sexual molestation of women.) 

The article stated: "Gone was the spirit of equality and cooperation between the sexes that marked most of the historic mass gatherings in the square." Although a chain of men had surrounded the women to protect them, they were overpowered by those who feel that women should not have a place at the table as Egypt forges a new constitution.

But at least this story made the pages of WashPo -- there was no mention of another clash between Muslims and Christians, who make up only about 10% of the Egyptian population, that killed one Christian man. (We'll see if a story on their website today about a clash that killed 13 Christians will be fit to print tomorrow.)

UPDATE: That story did make the front page and the article extensively reported on the struggles of women and Christians in the new era in Egypt. They listened to me!

 

On March 9, there was turmoil that left 13 Christians dead. It started from a feud involving a modern Romeo and Juliet -- animosity between the families of a Muslim and Christian who have fallen in love escalated and a Christian church was torched leading to further clashes.

 

While all media were saturated with front-page stories about the protests that led to the ousting of the old regime, tales of the growing pains of the nascent "democracy" (that conservative outlets forewarned would more than likely occur in the predominantly Muslim nation) are not worthy of prominence.

Is the mainstream media afraid it would be anti-Muslim to mention the oppression? Sure, go ahead and ignore the plight of Christians as usual -- why should that change? But to relegate stories about the blatant sexual harassment and domination of women to the back pages?

We have the opportunity to lead the rest of the world in setting high expectations for the new government. Let's not fail the women of Egypt -- and all the emerging newly-led nations.

The Inconvenient Truths of Planned Parenthood Funding

The Susan B. Anthony List has Planned Parenthood spinning it wheels -- figuratively and literally.

The SBAList set out across the country in a great big bus to spread the word that now is the most opportune time to finally rescind all public funding from PP. Knowing that they are losing ground in this current fight over funds, PP started out with a $200k tv ad blitz -- but when that still wasn't moving the needle, they decided to join the bus tour to counter-protest.

While the SBAList message is simple and clear: 

The banner on the top half says "No More Tax $$ for Planned Parenthood"

Methinks the Planned Parenthood bus doth protest too much:

There are a few inconvenient truths missing from this list of facts.

It screams, "Look at all the good we do!" but it is misleading. First the "cancer screenings" have not been explained (please if you have info on this, I will be happy to include it) but I'm guessing are not much more than passing out the pamphlets that the Susan G. Komen foundation pays for and gives to PP (okay and maybe they talk to you about your risk and then give you a referral). While apparently they do perform manual breast exams, they do not provide mammograms although they choose wiley words to make you think they do.

And of course there are some missing inconvenient truths: PP itself reports that the org performs over 324,000 abortions per year. Are we supposed to ignore that fact because of all the "good" they are doing? Oh, and don't buy the line that taxpayer money does not fund abortions. That is simply an accounting trick.

Another missing fact: From 2002 to 2007, PP took in $388 million more than they spent on programs and services. Why do they need federal funding if they already are in the black?

And of course PP fails to mention their track record of undercutting parental rights and shielding sexual predators, as Lila Rose and LiveAction.org  have so bravely exposed.

Supporters of PP are going around acting as if the org will have to shut its doors and patients will have nowhere to go if this funding is denied. Hard to imagine, but even if that were true, there are  1,200 Federally Qualified Health Centers that provide the same care PP does -- but also provide mammograms and other health care services for the entire family. FQHCs provide much more comprehensive care and no one would be deprived of what they may need.

But of course, PP isn't going anywhere, anytime soon. Not as long as they continue to tell their workers to push their abortion numbers higher -- another sad fact missing from the group's laundry list.

Let's make this happen. Go to www.sba-list.org to see how you can help stop taxpayer money from going to this abhorrent organization.

 

HuffPo Thinks Palin Family Threats are a Joke

While BBC News had a fairly even-handed story about Sarah Palin (although they mistakenly used the word "cross hairs" when it should have been "surveyor marks" -- a distinction liberals reject, but only if it pertains to Palin and not Democrats who used actual cross hair targets on maps -- but I digress...) the Huffington Post chose to report on just one part of that story, with a mocking headline.

If this were a liberal family, say the Kennedys, the headline would have been "Kennedy family stalked by gun-toting lunatic."  But the part of the story where the Heaths explain why they keep their firearms so handy was left out:

"Palin's father Chuck said a man recently had sent the family photocopies of a receipt for a gun he had bought, together with a photocopy of a one-way ticket to Alaska.

The family had laughed it off, but the man subsequently turned up in the state and was arrested by the FBI, Chuck said.

'We sleep with the guns,' Palin's father admitted. "

And from that disturbing passage, the HuffPo pulls out the liberal-snicker-inducing "we sleep with guns." Classy.

 

While the Palins and the Heaths seem to take threats in stride, and they know that being in the public eye makes you a target, does that mean the media should ignore a very real danger and make a mockery of how the family chooses to protect themselves?

Where is the uproar? Is not every public figure who has received a very real threat -- not just anonymous letters and phone calls, the vast majority of which are just spurious tomfoolery -- worthy of our concern? Would the media have made jokes and ignored the very real peril if Loughner had sent the threatening letter the authorities found in his safe and was then stopped near the Tucson Safeway with his gun?

Nope, Sarah Palin and her family are just a big joke to them. The liberal media will keep making fun of her, hoping to wipe out what they seem to think is a bigger threat -- Palin herself. Childish.

 

O Little Charities of 2010: Military Edition

There are so many good charities out there who help the military, and there are so many ways to honor our brave men and women.

My family and I will once again make a donation to Operation Homefront, a relief fund for Illinois military families. We also bought a couple wreaths from Wreaths Across America  which will place them on the burial sites of fallen military. 

 

Wreaths Across America wants to remember all the fallen military at Christmastime...

 

The Wounded Warrior Project does great work across our nation helping veterans who may be struggling upon their return home. They also provide support for wounded troops who are still hospitalized at the air-evacuation hub at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany.

It's not too late to purchase the “CD For the Troops IV,”  a compilation put together by John Ondrasik, the voice of Five for Fighting, which benefits various military charities. There's also "My Country: Smash Hits," a country music compilation album that benefits the Fisher House Foundation, which is like the Ronald McDonald House for families of hospitalized servicemen and women.

If money is tight this year, you can always send a free seasonal ecard to a member of our military by going to the website  "Let's Say Thanks."

As we celebrate the season, let's not forget those who celebrate far away from their family and friends, and to support them and their loved ones as best we can.

We Know You're Not that Dumb, Jon Stewart...

...so you're not as clever as you think. And neither are the Dems in Congress.

Jon Stewart took the opportunity the other day to slam the GOP for voting against the Zadroga Act which is intended to help out those suffering from ailments related to their service at Ground Zero on 9/11 and the days after. He declared that the Republican Party could no longer use 9/11 as a political argument. Boy did he get this one backward.

Does he really think most folks are going to buy what he's selling, and that they're going to fall for the political ads that the DNC is already salivating over, based on this vote? Is he just in denial about the impact that the Tea Party had on the last election? Or does he really think everyone will once again forget about how the Dems put fancy bows -- in this case ones with the faces of the suffering 9/11 responders emblazoned on them -- on legislation with super-sized price tags in order to try and sneak them past the taxpayers?

There were very good reasons why most of the GOP voted against this bill, as reported in the NY Daily News. It was rightly labeled a "slush fund" that would be pounced upon by anyone clever enough to pass themselves off as someone who had suffered from the events of 9/11. It also included medical payments to NY hospitals at a rate higher than Medicare -- essentially another totally unnecessary earmark.

 

The latest tactic by Pelosi & Co. got John McCain all riled up -- now they're trying to cram a deliberately last-minute 1900+ page appropriations bill laden with pork -- which Prez Obama promised would not happen.

 

The White House proposed a less expensive program that the Republicans were more willing to support. But Pelosi and Co. took their bill to the floor anyway. I guess they felt it was a win-win:  If it passed, they were successful in creating new ways for them to control lots more of our money -- and if not, they could use the vote in political ads down the road.

"[Insert GOP Congressman's name here] voted against funding to help 9/11 responders and victims' families"  in that scary voice-over with the distorted black-and-white photos floating on-screen.

What Jon Stewart is getting wrong -- and the Tea Party is getting right -- is that Americans are not going to stand for these games anymore. We've caught on to all the parliamentary tricks. We want to help people who need it, and we are willing to pay our taxes to do so. But it has to be done in a straight-forward way, keeping unnecessary costs down.

No more congressional theatrics -- and that means the Democrats should not use 9/11 for political maneuvers, not the GOP.

The Bravest Woman in America... or the Craziest?

When the citizens of Washington, D.C.,  shot themselves in the foot,  doomed their children to another decade of hopelessness in education,  ousted their current mayor, it also meant that Michelle Rhee was going to be looking for a new job.

And the feisty reformer could have had her pick of jobs. Mayors and governors across the country were falling over themselves, trying to nab the woman who had stood up to unions to create a better system. There easily could have been a bidding war to land this trailblazer to head their education departments.

Or Rhee could feasibly have chosen to take a position in the private sector, easily earning millions. So which high-paying, prestigious job did this affluential activist choose? None of the above.

Michelle Reee has listened to the children and is now ready to speak for them nationwide. She admits this ambition "is not for the faint-hearted."

Rhee instead has decided to start her own advocacy group to overhaul school systems nationwide. As she explained in her cover story for Newsweek:

"There is no big organized interest group that defends and promotes the interests of children... School boards who are beholden to special interests have created a bureaucracy that is focused on the adults instead of the students... The rationale for the decisions mostly rests on which grown-ups will be affected, instead of what will benefit or harm children... What that means is that the reform community has to exert influence as well. That’s why I’ve decided to start StudentsFirst, a national movement to transform public education in our country. "

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Rhee said the organization will donate to candidates who agree with her policies. Her group will also give funds to local school districts to further her vision -- for example, boosting teacher pay while agreeing to make it easier to fire under-performing teachers. The article includes this quote:

“We are trying to shift the balance of power in the education landscape away from the powerful groups who want to keep the status quo,” Ms. Rhee said, referring to organizations such as the teacher’s unions. “We are going to be the group that is advocating on behalf of kids.”

Well, Oprah is on board, and I have a feeling that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg will not be far behind.       If all of us who agree that there has to be a seminal change in our education systems across the nation -- if we also hop on the train, we can only go up from here.

Learn more about the organization or make a donation on their website.

 

O Little Charities of 2010: Sisters of Life

Well, if you recall, even Mother Teresa had her detractors -- ridiculous as this criticism was (from an atheist, albeit my "favorite" atheist) it showed that some people can really get it twisted and find fault even with the most saintly.

So it was a shame that another righteous charity came under attack from a dogmatic pro-abortion writer. Penning an article for a site that claims to present a "reality check" for "reproductive health," the author once again shows the true colors of those who claim to be for "choice." As usual, it is obvious that this crowd only supports one choice.

The Sisters' big crime? Offering alternative options for those who do not want to abort their pre-born children and offering non-judgmental support for those who suffer the aftermath of already having done so.

I mean, seriously, what is to be found objectionable in the belief that each and every one of us is "a unique, beautiful unrepeatable person" that is valued "not for what we can do but for who we are"?

 

The Sisters of Life are walking the walk in helping to offer real choices to pregnant women.

And what is so outrageous about this approach to an unplanned pregnancy? 

"...An unanticipated pregnancy can seem like your life is over.  Especially if it seems like no one but that little voice deep in your heart hopes there is any possibility for making this work.  Well, what if that little voice is right?  What if this pregnancy isn’t the worst thing possible?  What if everything will again be all right, and even better than all right?...

You have a lot of dreams yet to accomplish.  The powerlessness you feel now is not who you know yourself to be.  There are so many unanswered questions, so many seeming impossibilities.  But the passion that has already given shape to your hopes and ambitions in life is what reveals the strength you are capable of as a woman, even in the most confusing of circumstances.

YOU CAN DO THIS, AND YOU ARE NOT ALONE.

The Sisters are eager to listen to you, your hopes and your struggles.  We can help find real possibilities during a difficult time.  We want to walk with you and see you thrive.  Take that first step. Call us."

Well, we know what the pro-abortion mob dislikes -- that the pro-life feminist approach to the challenges of unplanned pregnancies is gaining traction. Women across this country are questioning what truly is "empowering" -- and it isn't having an abortion.

And the Sisters of Life are actually there for the majority of women who want to bring their child into the world. If you want to make a donation to this worthy cause this holiday season, click here to learn more...

 

Vegetarians Love Sarah Palin...

 

... or, at least, this one does.

After reading The Time Machine at age 16, I stopped eating red meat and poultry. (Not The Jungle as more than a few people surmised...) The way I saw it, I wasn't going to wait until the 8028th century to decide whether or not I was an Eloi or a Morlock. But I have never been militant about it, just encouraging others to consume less meat for the health benefits.

I grew up with a Dad who went hunting a couple times a year, and relatives with a long tradition of hunting regularly. I was never thrilled about their stories, but I didn't give them a hard time. I found the argument about controlling animal populations hard to swallow -- but I matured and realized that the argument is valid. (Better for Bambi to starve/get hit by a car and die in vain, rotting on the ground -- or feed a family?) 

I am now married to a man who usually chooses meat for dinner, but doesn't mind veggie chili over con carne. We have raised our children the same as he, although one chose to go vegetarian on her own. Another has sworn off pork products (which I almost never serve anyway) since she saw the movies Charlotte's Web and  Babe. (Hmmm... maybe we should watch Chicken Run again...)

So when Sarah Palin talked about the hypocrisy of those who may have found her hunting adventure in last night's "Alaska" episode -- the ones who still eat meat and wear leather -- I heartily agreed with her. But I also believe that there are those among us who don't eat meat that do not have a big problem with her recreation of choice.

 

Sarah wears her "Girls with Guns" hat out on the tundra -- hunting looks boring to me, but to each her own...

 

For as much as I personally dislike the notion of killing another living thing for my consumption, I still recognize that they are animals, lesser beings that are not on the same level as humans. And whereas, of course, I "refudiate" any blood sport -- if the hunters put the food on their dinner table, then that is making good use of a natural resource.

Sure it makes more sense if there are few options due to one's geographical location, or if one has a limited income and supplements the Wal-Mart groceries with some of Mother Nature's bounty. But if a family that could go vegetarian -- who have the means and opportunity to -- decide not to, that is their choice. We are talking about animals here. (Don't get me started on the notion of how ridiculous it that many of those vegetarians who object to the killing of an animal have no problem with the killing of a pre-born human.)

Just as I personally chose not to be a surgeon (because I would suffer the loss of a patient too hard) or a soldier (because it would be difficult to pull the trigger), I personally choose not to hunt. But I would do all three if I felt I had to, and I'm not going to find fault with those who have the gumption to do so.

 

Buyer Beware -- Thyself

It appears there are signs that Americans are ready to spend again. The Washington Post ran a story that pointed out that home sales are up, the big three carmakers have seen a spike in sales, and Black Friday and Cyber Monday were much better than expected.

And as much as I want to root for the American economy, I hesitate to believe that everyone should get out there and spend, spend, spend!

Anyone who knows me will tell you I encourage thriftiness. Not at the sake of generosity, mind you. But I was raised not to live beyond my means. I'm not always perfect, and one can say that the size of my family has made it a necessity, but I always try to be mindful when making purchases.

Tis the season to shop 'til you drop -- or not.

I'm afraid that too many people out there have not learned lessons from the past. Although crippled with debt, so many Americans will come across a windfall of some kind, and instead of paying off some bills, they instead feel it is a ticket to another shopping spree. 

Others will watch their spending for a while, but then tire of the austerity and feel they deserve to splurge. Well, sure, a little treat is nice now and again -- but not so much that you end up right back where you started.

I saw this great quote in another article called "The Happiness Business":

"The consumer society is constantly tempting us to spend money we don't have, to buy things we don't need, for the sake of a happiness that won't last."-- Jonathan Sacks, Britain's chief rabbi.

We need to be patient. We need to delay gratification. We need to grow up and be responsible. 

Ugh! Do I have to? No, you don't. But save the whining and the tears when you can't pay the piper.