Archive for the ‘Corrupted Culture’ Category

Matthew McConaughey’s Counter Cultural Speech

Monday, March 3rd, 2014

1-mcconaughey-oscar

Remember moments of Oscar night rebellion? Marlon Brando comes to mind. Someone on Twitter said they were happy that the Oscars were devoid of politics.

Actually, politics did enter the artistic arena–it’s just that for the average God-believing American, it went unnoticed because it is part of their culture.

For the Academy, though, Matthew McConaughey’s speech was profoundly counter cultural and “weird”.

This is where we are in America: Thanking God, humbly and passionately, is viewed as strange, different, and even subversive.

America has been transformed, alright. You’re a rebel if you’re a sincere God believer and willing to say so.



DailyKos, Obamacare, and Caleb Howe

Thursday, August 1st, 2013

twitter2011-2

So the Daily Kos kids are being their typical selves: piling on their ideological opposition during a time of trouble to score political points. Caleb Howe, a military veteran, wonderful writer, and friend has been going through some difficult times that have culminated in him being in critical condition in the hospital.

For a lefty who makes everything political, this was the response:

So of course you want to repeal Obamacare. And what the fuck is your apparent “solution”? A tin cup on your website?

He says this as though a tin cup is a bad thing. Charity is a good thing. It comes from people’s hearts. Caleb and his family know they are loved. Every donation (well, most) is a message of goodwill and kindness.

Unlike medicare, medicaid and now Obamacare, charity is less likely to be abused, overused, or overextended. Who wants to exploit their friend’s love? No one. Well, no decent person.

And no decent person would so enjoy the suffering of another person.

Since this has been made into a political discussion, it’s worthwhile to point out that conservatives believe in helping the truly needy. This is what Medicaid was for–not as a catchall insurance program for everyone.

Also, here’s what the hospital will do for Caleb or anyone in a similar situation: they’ll assess his ability to pay and then bill him a small amount each month until they forgive the debt or it’s paid off. I’ve known people who pay $5 a month. Most hospitals were/are have Christian and charitable missions.

That’s America. It’s not a perfect system, to be sure. And improvements to the health care system were needed, but to claim that Obamacare would make Caleb’s situation better and ignore the harm that’s already being done by the legislation, is just willful political exploitation.

Worse, than the political, though, is the personal. The coarsening of our interaction and dehumanization is the biggest loss. Money comes and goes but community bonds and compassion abide. Well, I’d like to think they do, anyway.

Giving a dollar out of spite so you can say something nasty to man who might die and saying it in a place where his wife, children, and extended family will read it, well. What it says about you trumps any political point you hoped to make.

******

Those raising money for Caleb are almost to $25,000. Please help if you can: Go Fund Me.

On a personal note, Caleb’s girls are dancers and quite good and that’s expensive. Having a dad who can’t work means losing opportunities. These donations will help them pursue their dreams while their dad gets well.

Wishing Caleb and his family wholeness and healing.



Indecent: The Inhumane Response To The Newtown Tragedy

Thursday, December 20th, 2012

When the BBC hosts pilloried me about remaining mute and not opinionating in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, I noted that it seems like we should at least be quiet until families are notified. It’s unseemly to be politicizing a very personal tragedy.

“This isn’t about politics,” one host shrieked,”it’s about GUNS!”

I responded,”Well, the solution to the gun issue the president brought up would be political.”

The host continued by saying that he felt the reason I hadn’t written about the tragedy and that the NRA hadn’t spoken about it was because we were ashamed. I countered with the fact that I was, presently, talking to the BBC about the tragedy and defending Americans rights to keep and bear arms. I was not ashamed to defend that.

But I was ashamed that defending the Constitution had to be done in this way at this time.

It was unsettling. It was too soon. And yet, someone had to push back against the philistines willing to ride on the backs of dead children to pursue their political agenda. And though sickened, I spoke up.

Jonah Goldberg captures this disgust nicely. Please read his whole post. Here’s a snippet:

I haven’t written much about the Newtown shooting. I did write my first column of the week about it because I felt I had to chime in. But I resented it. Maybe it’s because I’m becoming too sentimental about kids. Maybe it’s because I’m sick to death of death. Maybe it’s some other personal failing on my part, but I nonetheless resent being dragged into the political maw so quickly after a bunch of little kids were picked off by a madman with a gun. I agree with 90% of the things written by my colleagues about guns and gun control and the second amendment over the last week, but I nonetheless find it a bit grotesque that it’s necessary for anyone to be celebrating or defending guns before these little, little, kids have even been buried. It feels indecent to me.

It is indecent.

No, your ends do not justify these means.

I have to wonder: Do the folks indulging in this orgie of political posturing know loss and death? Are they so distanced from sorrow that they cannot empathize with the parents and suffering families? Are they such zealots for their cause that they’re willing to step on a heap of dead children to fight for it? Do they not see what they’re doing?

Maybe it’s just that when you’re a humanist, your instinct is to blame humans. If your worldview is that people are essentially good, that they’ve been nurtured wrong, or society failed, and then evil, evil guns were around, then blaming parents, doctors, teachers, gun manufacturers, “society” is the route one goes. And this time, the usual blamable subjects don’t quite fit that worldview. The boy’s mother, school officials, psychologists, everyone, were trying to do something to help him. The boy couldn’t be helped or wasn’t helped soon enough. Maybe he didn’t want to be helped.

So, it’s the guns and people who have guns who are evil. Someone must be blamed.

It is devastating to look at the deaths of twenty children and see the horror unfold in a lovely community (that did all the right gun control things) and for evil to still happen.

One feels helpless.

Helplessness is the natural human state. Humanists just live under an illusion — more laws, or better people, or the right resources will make all societal ills vanish. No, they won’t.

And so, we see folks fighting like badgers about guns, because it feels like Something Can Be Done. It’s better to be angry and active, then passive and helpless.

It is tougher, as Eugene Kennedy says, when tragedies strike, to accept what is. Andrew Malcolm and I interviewed Professor Kennedy about the Newtown tragedy.

Rather than talking about guns or laws or even mental illness, Professor Kennedy talked about the nature of man, of suffering, and of our walk on the earth. To me, it seems like we should be talking about those things.

Instead, we’re talking about guns. It is, as Jonah says, indecent.



Adam Lanza And The Look Of Mass Murder: Why do mass murderers look the same?

Sunday, December 16th, 2012

What do mass murderers have in common? Their facial expressions. At least, that’s the way it looks to me.

I don’t know what to make of this, but I thought I’d share these pictures and let you judge for yourself. Basically, I was looking at this Lanza kid and that professor who killed her colleagues came to mind. Then, I thought of the guy in Colorado who killed the people at the Batman showing, and I thought: they all look the same.

Clinically, they all look mildly hyperthyroid–you can see the whites of their eyes in some cases. Their faces are drawn. Their hair flat, dull, and looking like they may be nutritionally deprived.

I want to know what medications these people were on. The public has a right to know about them: their family situation, their parents’ psychological profiles, birth order, any psychological diagnoses, their I.Q.’s, surgeries, illnesses, vaccinations, medications, nutrition, genetics… everything.

Public policy will be suggested, but how can we come up with adequate solutions if we can’t pinpoint the problem? And clearly, all of these people have problems–and they aren’t new ones. People knew they were trouble. In many cases, family tried to intervene.

Don’t they look the same? What goes wrong in the wiring that we recognize this form of crazy? No one is surprised by them. Or these cases seem to rarely surprise anyone. Is it because we see and/or sense the crazy emanating off of them? Very often, they cross paths with psychologists, teachers, doctors, and their parents are worried, overwhelmed, in denial, or inept. [Lanza's mom had confrontations with the school system.]

What do we do with this?









It doesn’t matter their names. In fact, I don’t want to dignify these killers with showcasing their names. They all look the same.

They share a bleak, blankness in their eyes. Their mouths are drawn. They seem to be removed, distant. And underneath it all, there seems to be a suppressed fury.

The world is unfair. Nothing matters. So kill the world.

These seem to be the faces of malignant nihilism.

Emptiness.

Evil.

Possessed?



A Little Mercy

Thursday, November 29th, 2012

What cowardice it is to be dismayed by the happiness of others and devastated by their good fortune. — Montesquieu

The Spectacle Du Jour a couple weeks ago focused on a four-star General and the women in his life which lead to more questions about other accomplished men and the women who loved and/or used them. I did not find it amusing. My concern, in the abstract, was that personal emails were being rummaged through by our government for what seemed like spurious reasons. Worse, I didn’t like the blackmail implications — not by the women (though, of course that was and is a concern) but by the government. By our president.

My thoughts wandered to Hitler and his use of blackmail to silence his political opponents. Say what you want, but I’m not keen about living in a country where our government rifles through the shopping cart of our lives and then decides to shame us publicly when they find the Twinkie or Big Gulp that offends them.

But that’s a digression.

What really sickens is how Americans reacted to the salacious stories. It is sickening to joke about the destruction of many lives — as if these people weren’t people at all. They became amusements. We on Twitter became members of the Forum jeering at the prisoner sent to face the hungry lions.

It’s been said that comedy is a tragedy that happens to someone else. And maybe with distance, those in the throes of marital woe and relational and professional disaster will see the humor, but I doubt it. And I doubt anyone doing the cat calling would find it funny to have their own personal sins blared in neon. Or on Twitter.

Lance Armstrong, as an example, is being brought low. Whether he did the drugs or not (and everyone was doing them so he wasn’t alone), the real motivation to bring him down seems rooted in envy and a desire to destroy greatness. Ha! Ha! He’s a failure, just like me. Now I feel better about myself.

Tiger Woods had some pathological emptiness that needed to be fed with women other than his wife. It’s sad that he’s lost his edge. The world is worse for his lost potential.

General Petreaus got caught up with a woman and like an errant ship, hit the shore of wreck and ruin. America is not better for this failure.

And we are not better for having made fun of these people. We are worse.

I remember when Oprah was shocked at an audience member who told her, “I liked you better when you were fat.”

Oprah: Why?

Audience lady: Because you were just like me.

Now, General Petreaus, Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong are just like us. Feel better?

Ace alludes to the “feeling better”:

What I can’t understand is the simple hate, the hate for hate’s sake, the hate of The Other for the sake of Self-Affirmation. I especially can’t understand the hate coming from the sort of people who will insist to you, quite seriously, that they have essentially purged all primitive and dark emotion from themselves and now exist on an elevated Oprah/Chopra plane of pidgin Zen harmony and balance.

I see less of this on the right, but I’ve seen enough to make me uncomfortable. Still, it’s worth noting that philosophically, people on the right acknowledge their own base nature even as they succumb to it. The left seems to pretend it doesn’t exist.

Is it really all that wrong to laugh, though? It’s not hate, hate–as Whoopi says.

What’s the big deal about laughing at Petreaus or Armstrong or Woods? People who know all these men have said that they’re kinda pricks anyway. Probably. A single-minded determination to have mastery in one’s field tends to be born of a ruthlessly demanding nature, competitiveness and annoyingly narrow focus. These people are not like you and me in many ways–they refuse to compromise where you and I do and tend to have a messianic complex about their skewed priorities.

So, they deserve the scorn they receive, right?

Joking does have its place. In fact, court jesters performed this function–poking holes in the aristocratic class and giving the commoners permission to laugh at the foibles and hypocrisy of the ruling class.

Yet, why does this current trend at ruthless mockery leave a bitter aftertaste? Maybe it’s because Petreaus and Woods and Armstrong aren’t the ruling class. They didn’t get to their position by patronage or birthright. They worked to achieve their success. They bested their competitors. They worked hard and achieved greatness.

It seems like success itself is being mocked. These are our peers. They are people who started as nothing and made something of themselves. These are just common men who, through hard work, achieved the uncommon.

These are the people we’d like to be. These are people working to achieve what we would like to if only we had the talent and self-discipline to do it.

Gabriel Malor linked to this piece by Jody Foster when she defended teen idol Kristen Stewart after her very public “gotcha” moment:

In my era, through discipline and force of will, you could still manage to reach for a star-powered career and have the authenticity of a private life. Sure, you’d have to lose your spontaneity in the elaborate architecture. You’d have to learn to submerge beneath the foul air and breathe through a straw. But at least you could stand up and say, I will not willfully participate in my own exploitation. Not anymore. If I were a young actor or actress starting my career today in the new era of social media and its sanctioned hunting season, would I survive? Would I drown myself in drugs, sex, and parties? Would I be lost?

I’ve said it before and I will say it again: if I were a young actor today I would quit before I started. If I had to grow up in this media culture, I don’t think I could survive it emotionally. I would only hope that someone who loved me, really loved me, would put their arm around me and lead me away to safety.

Kristen Stewart, a young actress, heartrendingly in my opinion, shared her grief and sorrow through People Magazine at having harmed her relationship with her boyfriend. She prostrated herself publicly, asking forgiveness.

The world jeered.

Social media and blogging and all this technology has democratized communications. It has changed the world for the better, in many ways.

It has also given megaphones to what used to be localized mob behavior.

Today, it’s Mayim Bialik’s divorce. I was tangentially aware of Bialik. She is very funny on the hit TV show Big Bang Theory. Less known to me, but a big deal to moms, is that she uses “attachment parenting”. In this form of parenting, a mom wears, sleeps with and generally is around her babies a lot. Women hated her. Well, some did.

Any woman who felt guilt for bottle-feeding when she could have nursed or in some other way felt guilt when she heard or looked at Ms. Bialik now feels triumphant. See?! Her ideas suck so bad they resulted in a divorce!

Oprah’s fat! Tiger has a 15 handicap! Lance Armstrong can’t compete in Ironmans now! General Petreaus won’t lead America’s security efforts!

The gods have been brought low. And rather than mourning the loss, Americans celebrate the fall and delight in the sorrow.

No mercy.



Netroots Nation Dispatch: Darcy Burner Celebrates Abortion At Elizabeth Warren’s War On Women Panel

Friday, June 8th, 2012

The War on Women panel featuring Elizabeth Warren revealed much about the leftist perspective on abortion. In an act of public bullying, one of the three speakers, Darcy Burner of Washington (the others being Elizabeth Warren and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii), asked women who had had an abortion to stand up in front of other attendees.

It was difficult to estimate the number of women as they were sprinkled through out the audience. They stood alone while Burner admonished the attendees to hold their applause.

Then Burner asked the others seated in the audience to stand and give these women a standing ovation. The audience complied enthusiastically.

I sat during this spectacle.

Burner said,”If you are a woman in this room, and statistically this is true of about 1/3 of the women in this room, if you’re a woman in this room who has had an abortion and is willing to come out about it, please stand up.”

She continued, “Now, if you are willing to stand with every woman who is willing to come out about having had an abortion, please stand up.”

Nearly everyone stood.

Burner said,”This is how we change the stories in people’s past. We need to make it okay for women to come out about the choices they make.”

The left will say that they’re not pro-abortion, they’re pro-choice or they’re pro-women. It was clear, though, that abortion itself was elevated as something good and something to be celebrated.

The speaker and the audience was honoring women who had an abortion as though the action was an objectively good thing.

You can listen for yourself here:

C0FF98C1-38F8-4B34-A41C-108B4E11D4B0_1
8523B873-0F01-42D7-9E56-8CC618E2980F_0

Burner had some other interesting advice, too. She spoke of the six elements of Power versus the less effective, in her mind, use of Force by the Republicans. I don’t know if her speech was an allusion to the book Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior-Author’s Official Revised Edition 2012.

Anyway, her advice, shortened for brevity’s sake (her whole speech is on the audio) is as follows. As much as possible, these are direct quotes from Bower’s speech:

Economic Power

In the war on women there’s an obvious application of economic power. Bower mention that women make 80% of consumer buying decisions. She talked about all the products made by the evil Koch brothers and how it is difficult to keep track of their products.

“It’s a difficult thing to remember all the things you’re not supposed to buy,” she said.

So Burner suggested an iPhone application that would scan the product to see “how good it is for you to buy.”

Political Power

Get women to vote.

Cultural Power – stories we tell about ourselves

Burner spoke of changing the culture through TV and how it’s paid huge cultural dividends. She used as an example the perception of gay people now.

“Because of television, now everybody has a gay best friend whether they do or not.”

This is where Burner talked about coming out about abortion would change the culture to positively value it. She found it offensive that there was still a fight for abortion rights and cultural acceptance.

Moral Power

Perhaps one of the most shocking parts of Burner’s presentation, second only to the abortion talk, was her prescription to gain moral power.

She consistently recommended using people who were innocent to get public opinion on their side. She included the use of children as a means to change public perception. Her examples included an old lady at an Occupy rebellion with a bloodied face and a young teen on the ground.

1. Innocents — the protest has to use innocent children (explicit advocacy for using children)
2. Voluntary
3. Use of official force
4. Widely communicated
5. Shocks conscience

Burner said that it was about “high time we pass the equal rights amendment.” She suggesting using older women as the face of the campaign. The “American public considers older women to be innocent.” So, older women should be used for the equal rights movement.

Here she talked about proactive steps to combat the War on Women.

What to do in the next year, to go on offense in the War Against Women:
1. Boycott everything that “feeds the Koch brothers machine.”
2. Get women to vote.
3. Court/police power: proactive suits against discrimination; shareholder lawsuits
4. Cultural power: coming out project about women who’ve had abortion
5. Moral power ERA protests
6. Build networks. “One of the biggest holes in the women’s movement. We need a network of networks.”

Darcy Burner’s presentation gives insight to how the left sees women and their place in the world. It is abortion focused and rooted in the past.



About The Time Magazine Attachment Parenting Cover

Thursday, May 10th, 2012

Time Magazine wants you to pay attention to their provocative picture. Why? What are they trying to say?

When looking at imagery, it sometimes takes a bit to get what the photographer/editor is trying to say. Here are some thoughts in no particular order.

1. Context: The image of a three year old boy sucking on his mom’s breast is being put on the cover of the Time magazine for Mother’s Day weekend.

2. Implication: Mothers are crazy.

3. Implication: Breastfeeding is crazy.

4. Implication: Attachment parenting is oedipal. (Look it up.)

5. Implication: Breastfeeding is sexual. The mother’s smug expression indicates that she’s enjoying the interaction just a little too much.

6. Time is desperate for attention and will get it. [Is getting it, obviously.] Also, I suspect the editor/writer watches Game of Thrones.

Bottom line, Time is pushing forward the idea that mothering is often, if not always, overdone. That too much emphasis is put on mothering. Attachment parenting is weird, sexual, and even abusive.

Mothering, in short, is being demonized as too powerful, crazy, and scary and that it’s abusive to children–nigh unto sex abuse.

The cover is a play on the Madonna imagery of Mary with the Christ child. It takes that image of selfless love and motherly devotion and turns it inside out into something selfish, narcissistic, and sexual.

As a mom who breastfed all her kids and beyond time when many are comfortable with — 18 months, 2 years, and 2 1/2 years consecutively — this cover is patently offensive.

Women who actually care about mothering are seen as crazy, wrongly-focused and weird. So, the solution is to conflate all moms with the admittedly extreme moms who go overboard.

But who is going to draw that line?

As Mika of Morning Joe noted, the Time article isn’t even about breast feeding — it’s about Dr. Bill Sears.

The picture is a picture of desperation. It is attention whoring but it’s at the expense of children, mothers, healthy breastfeeding, and the bond between mom and child.



Bill Maher’s Selective Outrage Over Outrage

Thursday, March 22nd, 2012

Bill Maher, liberal, pretend libertarian and over all, failed comic, decides, finally, that the outrage over, well, everything, has finally all become too much. From his editorial in today’s New York Times:

When did we get it in our heads that we have the right to never hear anything we don’t like? In the last year, we’ve been shocked and appalled by the unbelievable insensitivity of Nike shoes, the Fighting Sioux, Hank Williams Jr., Cee Lo Green, Ashton Kutcher, Tracy Morgan, Don Imus, Kirk Cameron, Gilbert Gottfried, the Super Bowl halftime show and the ESPN guys who used the wrong cliché for Jeremy Lin after everyone else used all the others. Who can keep up?

This week, President Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, described Mitt Romney’s constant advertising barrage in Illinois as a “Mittzkrieg,” and instantly the Republican Jewish Coalition was outraged and called out Mr. Axelrod’s “Holocaust and Nazi imagery” as “disturbing.” Because the message of “Mittzkrieg” was clear: Kill all the Jews. Then the coalition demanded not only that Mr. Axelrod apologize immediately but also that Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz “publicly rebuke” him. For a pun! For punning against humanity!

The right side of America is mad at President Obama because he hugged the late Derrick Bell, a law professor who believed we live in a racist country, 22 years ago; the left side of America is mad at Rush Limbaugh for seemingly proving him right.

If it weren’t for throwing conniption fits, we wouldn’t get any exercise at all.

Please stop apologizing, Maher implores.

Here’s how the right’s outrage machine got started Mr. Maher–just for your edification. (I will admit, I worried about this tactic for fear it would stop being ironic and become the New Right’s political correctness.)

See, for years, decades even, the Left’s number one weapon in its arsenal has been outrage over nothing. Let me make a list:

Silent Spring (Environmentalism outrage)
The new Ice Age (Environmentalism outrage)
Sensitivity training (racism, sexism, minority outrage)
Poisoned apples (Environmentalism outrage)
DDT (Environmentalism outrage)
Any kind of cultural joke…ever. (See isms above)

Words, and worse, ideas, started to be censured. Like the prohibitionist knitting circle of yore, leftists have cluck clucked their way into power by being the church ladies aggrieved at every blond joke, straying eye, proper use of word (niggardly!!!), scientific disagreement, and on and on.

In response, the right of center side decided to throw the selective outrage back at them.

There’s a lot of pent up fury. How would you feel about being hectored over every meaningless and stupid aside (MACACA!!!!).

So, conservatives through New Media, are holding the left to their own race-baiting, sexist, offensive-language standards.

Big surprise! The left turns out to be more racist, sexist, degrading, closed-minded, and ugly than the right–something that minorities who have defected from the left know all too well.

And now, when Bill Maher is finally taking some heat for being the sexist jackass that he is, he’s crying foul.

In the years before New Media, everyone just wink-winked and chortled at how edgy and clever and brave Maher was while castigating conservatives who said far less offensive things.

Restricting speech on one side was such a great tool. Everyone hated conservatives and laughed at liberals. And then they realized they were the butt of the joke.

Now, liberals are hated too.

You’re welcome.

Liberals have themselves to thank for this fine politically correct mess.

See, I’m a free speech absolutist. Do I think it’s despicable to make fun of Sarah Palin’s kid and calling him a “retard”? Yes. Do I want to be able to use the word “retard”? Yes.

As in, Bill Maher is a retard.

To have any credibility whatsoever, he should have been decrying the politically correct war on words from the left years ago, but of course, that didn’t serve his political ends.

My concern on the right is that we’re becoming as bad as the left–that is, we’re actually starting to believe the outrage we’re pouring at the left.

My concern is that rather than being outraged at the leftists phony outrage and throwing it back at them, we’re becoming as politically correct and insufferable as them.

As long as Sandra Flukes exist and screech about inequality over nothing, the right has every reason to thrown their hypocrisy back at them.

The minute, though, we buy into political correctness and start being just like the lefty church ladies we loathe, the whole battle has been lost.

Humor, art, science, technology can only thrive where new, outrageous and edgy words and ideas thrive.

Conformity of language is conformity of culture. Stasis.

Free speech. Cherish it.

It would be nice if Bill Maher could have found his outrage at outrage when the leftist outrage machine has survived on outrage fuel. But then, Bill Maher’s not a great mind or comedian. The irony is lost on him.

Updated:

Bruce of The Conservatory notes what Maher really wants:

In essence, Maher wants to be able to say anything he wants and not have to apologize for it.

I agree.

Please, do so. And don’t apologize. That is fine with me.

But … and you knew there had to be one … that doesn’t mean what you say is consequence free. You still get to pay the price for what you say.

That’s really what Maher wants to see go by the boards, make no mistake about it. He really wants no-penalty “free speech”.

Sorry, no such thing. Never has been, never will be.

Updated again:

Great piece from Dorian Davis: Get a sense of humor.



The Atlantic’s Anti-Christian Bigotry: Tim Tebow Reveals The Press’ Hate

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012

Imagine reading this in The Atlantic:

The Twitterverse is already taking notice of the “holy” pairing of last month’s sensation New York Knicks point guard Mohammed El Arabi with this afternoon’s sensation: New York Jets quarterback Abd Al-Ala Awwal. (We’re still getting used to typing that last one.) New York City’s professional sports won’t be lacking in the Qu’ran thumping department. As you may have already heard, the New York Jets have traded a fourth round pick to the Denver Broncos for Abd Al-Ala Awwal’s services. For now, the trade sort of puts a stop to the schadenfreude surrounding Abd Al-Ala Awwal and the Peyton Manning acquisition. So what now? Well jokes, of course. For some–the pairing of the very-Muslim, pro-life, Allah-loving Tebow and New York City might be bit odd. (However, we’re guessing there’s some cheering going on around the New York Post and Daily News sports desks). We won’t know how this will work out for the Jets until the fall. But with Allah, Mohammed El Arabi, and Abd Al-Ala Awwal on New York City’s side, who’s going to take the blame for next season’s losses?

Or better yet, this:

The Twitterverse is already taking notice of the “unholy” pairing of last month’s sensation New York Knicks point guard George Carlin with this afternoon’s sensation: New York Jets quarterback Christopher Hitchens. (We’re still getting used to typing that last one.) New York City’s professional sports won’t be lacking in the The God Delusion-thumping department. As you may have already heard, the New York Jets have traded a fourth round pick to the Denver Broncos for Hitchens’ services. For now, the trade sort of puts a stop to the schadenfreude surrounding Hitchens and the Peyton Manning acquisition. So what now? Well jokes, of course. For some–the pairing of the very-Atheist, abortion loving, God-hating Hitchens and New York City might be bit odd. (However, we’re guessing there’s some cheering going on around the New York Times and Wall Street Journal sports desks). We won’t know how this will work out for the Jets until the fall. But with biology, George Carlin, and Chris Hitchens on New York City’s side, who’s going to take the blame for next season’s losses?

And then read this:

The Twitterverse is already taking notice of the “holy” pairing of last month’s sensation New York Knicks point guard Jeremy Lin with this afternoon’s sensation: New York Jets quarterback Tim Tebow. (We’re still getting used to typing that last one.) New York City’s professional sports won’t be lacking in the bible-thumping department. As you may have already heard, the New York Jets have traded a fourth round pick to the Denver Broncos for Tebow’s services. For now, the trade sort of puts a stop to the schadenfreude surrounding Tebow and the Peyton Manning acquisition. So what now? Well jokes, of course. For some–the pairing of the very-Christian, pro-life, God-loving Tebow and New York City might be bit odd. (However, we’re guessing there’s some cheering going on around the New York Post and Daily News sports desks). We won’t know how this will work out for the Jets until the fall. But with God, Jeremy Lin, and Tim Tebow on New York City’s side, who’s going to take the blame for next season’s losses?

The aforementioned was actually written.

God-hating. Christian-despising. American-loathing.

Our modern media is very out of touch with America.



The Culture War IS The Fiscal War: Feminism And The Big Slutty Lie

Monday, March 5th, 2012

People like to separate fiscal conservatives from social conservatives. It’s impossible to do.

The nut of Sandra Fluke’s argument is this: pay for my contraception. If it doesn’t work, pay for my abortion. If I decide to have the kid, but not work and do something like “community organizing” or “reproductive rights activism”, pay for my lifestyle choice. [More on Sandra Fluke here.]

And herein lies the problem with a purely libertine argument: Someone has to pay for all this freedom.

True personal liberty comes with a lot of personal responsibility.

The way it stands now, though, feminists are pushing for the state to take care of everything.

At the least, a man should pony up a condom to have sex, but no. A woman is too afraid to have this discussion, evidently, and refuses to force the man to buy and wear a condom. Were she mature enough to have this conversation, her sex life would be “free” so long as the condom wasn’t defective or broke.

Then, of course, whether the woman is on the pill or using condoms, there’s always contraception failure. The woman will have to live with the STD or baby consequences. And again, she’ll want the taxpayer to pay for that, too. Antibiotics and prenatal care aren’t free, after all. Worst, she wants people of conscience to pay for her abortion. They, in turn, feel forced to pay a hitman to kill an innocent person.

A truly “free” woman would pay for her choices, but the fact is, that these choices can all be very expensive.

In the past, when sex was more the provenance of two monogamous and committed people, the man and woman would negotiate these things. And if a “mistake” did happen, the man would “do the right thing” and marry the woman.

Old fashioned? Maybe. Cost effective for the taxpayer? Absolutely. Good for the fabric of society and for that child? No question.

Barack Obama and his merry band of slutty misfits want to have all the fun and none of the responsibility of the consequences should things not go just the way they’re supposed to in the sexual arena (and when do they ever?).

So, in the last year of a horribly failed presidency, President Obama wants the focus to be on “contraceptive rights” when there are no such thing. It’s a great way to distract from the statist policies he’s employing: He wants to diminish the role of faith in the public space, and in the place of men/husbands/fathers, he wants an all-powerful state to pay for, mold, and control the next generation. Or kill them.

If this fight feels primal and visceral, it is because it is. The cultural war that the left has started has had dire public policy consequences. The welfare state has failed.

We have a nation of fatherless children living in poverty because their mothers bought the feminist lie that having sex like a hound-dog man, outside of marriage is “empowering”.

Single mothers are faced with the bitterness of powerlessness.

Defend that, liberals. Explain how living in poverty, alone, with multiple children, no education, an STD and no father is better than a two-parent family, feminists.

Answer: It isn’t.

There will be no apologizing from me. The feminist movement as symbolized by the useful idiot Sandra Fluke has lied to and cursed a generation of women. Meanwhile, putting future generations of responsible tax paying men and women on the hook. [Update: Dana Loesch on faux rage.]

The culture war is a fiscal war. And America’s children are the losers both ways.

Ace has more.

Teri Cristoph of Smart Girl Politics to Women: You’re Being Used. Teri says:

Knowing that women voters are leaving Obama, the left has deliberately waged a war designed to scare them into thinking their birth control will be taken from them. EMILY’s List calls these disenchanted women voters “defectors” and they’ll stop at nothing to get them back.

The use of the word “defector” by the left is supremely insulting. A defector is someone who switches allegiances, usually in a manner deemed to be traitorous. Got that? If you are a woman who voted for Obama in ’08 but don’t like what he’s done as president and don’t plan to vote for him again, you are considered a traitor by the left. Newsflash: Women are not born with a genetic allegiance to the Democrat party and its liberal causes. Plenty of us prefer to think for ourselves.

Democrats are running scared knowing that a significant number of women are wise to the fact that the economy has tanked, true unemployment is around 25 percent, and our president is wholly unequipped to deal with any of it. They also know that women voice their discontent at the ballot box. So they are waging this war against women. They use people like Sandra Fluke to distract from the real issues at stake this election season. They use women as pawns in their political game.

Yes, there is a war against women in 2012 and it’s certainly no fluke.

UPDATE & ASIDE:

What Rush Limbaugh should have done in the face of the attack by Mean Girls (emphasis on girls–women don’t act irresponsibly and then want to be personally bailed out):

There are many conservatives who unfortunately allow the left to take their morality and use it to stifle their dissent. Limbaugh should have gone on the attack. He should have said “no apology” and exposed her for the partisan hack that she is. Do I care if Fluke fucks 50 guys? No, but I do care if she uses her position to gang up with other mean girls (and guys) to ram a political mandate down the throats of companies who do not believe in what she is peddling.

Standing up to mean girls is hard. I am in the process of writing a book on men’s attitudes towards marriage and society and it is damn hard to get individual men to be interviewed. If I ask questions on the internet or in an anonymous setting, I am flooded with comments from men. I recently had over 3200 men answer a poll about paternity fraud, but try to get just a few men to talk in person? That’s tough. And most are very concerned that their name will not be published. I don’t blame them. The mean girls are out in society in full force.

If Rush Limbaugh can’t stand up to the mean girls, who can?

Via Instapundit

More on Fatherhood from LaShawn Barber.