Maybe Whoopi Goldberg should stick to parsing the nuances of the word “rape.”
The View-er is now under fire for shrugging off Justin Bieber’s use of the “n-word” in a recently surfaced old video.:
You know, Canadian words — I’m going to say the word so get ready to beat me. N—-r doesn’t mean anything in Canada.
Goldberg knows this because she “did a movie last year, in Canada.”
That’s know-nothing celebrity smugness on the level of (bad) satire.
She played a nun once, too; I look forward to Whoopi’s exegesis on Humane Vitae.
I’m a 50-year-old Canadian. I have never uttered the N-word. I don’t think my mouth can form the letters.
When I was a kid, once in a while some boy would call Niagara Falls “N***** Falls.” He’d be rewarded with groans. It was considered a “low class” thing to say even in my “low class” environs.
The word has always been a slur in Canada, and a particularly virulent one at that.
After all, that’s the context in which Bieber was using it. He wasn’t referring to one of his “posse” in cringe-worthy “wigger” fashion. He was joking about cutting black people up with a chainsaw.
That makes Goldberg’s defense that much more idiotic.
She’s right Canada doesn’t share America’s history of slavery, but only because God made the place too cold for cotton — something I thank God for every day, as I’m forced to listen to you guys whine and fret about race relations 24/7.
Don’t get me wrong: Canada has its own smaller-scale “original sins.”
For the most part, however, they have been exaggerated and exploited by professional victims who are jealous of the mileage American “civil rights” hustlers have gotten out of playing the race card.
(These professional victims are the same people who love to boast about how much better we are than Americans — even though Canadians are the ones who, for example, invented school shootings…)
Alas, Goldberg’s comments will be used to bolster the already-toxic anti-Americanism that is the connective tissue of the moral preen-ers on the Canadian left, some of whom are congratulating themselves on their own wonderfulness in the comments at the National Post.
That our nation’s “moral superiority” is mostly an accident of climate and geography never occurs to them.
A frisky California wife ended up in the ER after she put exploding candy into her genitals during sex.
The unnamed woman, from Newport Beach, reportedly thought inserting the tingling Pop Rocks confectionery into her vagina would increase her pleasure.
But the sweet treat actually had the opposite effect, and she started suffering burning and itching sensations.
You know you’re not supposed to…
…oh, who am I to judge?
ALSO: The video is a TLC dramatization and not the actual ER visit or anything else.
Gainesville, Georgia, about an hour north of Atlanta, has earned the reputation as the “Poultry Capital of the World.” Thousands of chickens make their way through Gainesville on their way to and from the processing plants throughout Northeast Georgia. With so many chickens in transit, there was bound to be an accident involving a chicken truck at some point. On January 27, a truck carrying live chickens overturned on a highway in Gainesville.
When humans die in automobile accidents, we often see makeshift memorials at the crash site. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) has begun placing state-approved memorials at sites for a $100 fee at the request of family members. PETA has stepped in, petitioning GDOT for a memorial to the chickens killed in the January 27 crash.
The drivers of the chicken truck and the other vehicle involved were not seriously injured in the predawn crash on U.S. 129 near Gainesville, but “dozens” of the truck’s cargo were apparently not so fortunate, according to the local PETA member who filed the request for a “giant tombstone” to be erected in memory of the chickens.
“Although a relative of the deceased is usually required to fulfill requests for roadside memorials, I hope you will allow a concerned citizen such as me to suffice in this case,” Sarah Segal of Atlanta wrote in her application to GDOT. “These chickens, who spent their entire short lives … on a factory farm before their agonizing deaths, have no known living relatives.”
A spokeswoman for PETA has stated that the memorial will serve as “food for thought” to Gainesville’s residents and travelers in the area. Of course, with the poultry industry employing thousands of residents in the region, Gainesville is likely to view the monument as an object of ridicule and the publicity stunt that it really is. There’s no word yet on the state’s response to the request.
It’s the economy, stupid.
So says Rachel Burger, who believes that the current economy is to blame for the demise of masculinity, not those darned feminists:
The reality is that the economy–that men themselves created–is far more to blame for the sorry state of American men. The Internet Age, along with global trade and the mass outsourcing of low-skill labor has brought forth in the West a people-based and knowledge-based economy which emphasizes social intelligence. Young women are now outpacing men across the board, from education to employment, and men should take a hint. If men want to pursue their roles as providers and achievers, they’re going to have to woman up.
It’s not the girls’ fault. “After all, it was men who invented the Internet, who created and sold mass-produced computers, who shipped jobs overseas and who even fashioned social media.” Thanks, Mark Zuckerberg.
Burger’s is a thinly veiled response to Camille Paglia’s praise of the “modern economy as a male epic” published last month in Time. Unlike Paglia, Burger comes to the table lacking an understanding of the relationship between economy and gender. With a millennial’s narrow perspective on American history, Burger manages great insight into the post-dot-com world of social intelligence-based tech companies while completely skipping over the debacle of NAFTA with the grossly prejudicial term “low-skill labor.”
In that primordial decade known as the ’90s, America’s manual labor industry was eviscerated by the North American Free Trade Agreement. Seventeen years after the agreement was signed, studies showed a loss of 682,900 American jobs, 60% of which were lost in the manufacturing industry. That doesn’t include the jobs that would be necessary without the imports from NAFTA — a whopping 1.47 million. Those jobs, and the financial boost that would’ve come with them, sure would’ve come in handy in 2008 when, as a result of the recession, the U.S. lost 2.6 million jobs. Mexico, the nation that continues to profit from NAFTA, does not defame nor downplay the benefits of so-called “low-skill labor.”
Meryl Streep has proven once and for all that she should stick to acting and stay away from speechifying.
This week at the awards for the National Board of Review, the organizers tapped Streep to give an award to Emma Thompson for her portrayal of P. L. Travers in the delightful Saving Mr. Banks. Instead of merely lauding Thompson for her masterful performance, Streep chose to aim daggers at the memory of Walt Disney, whom Tom Hanks portrayed in the film. Streep managed to trot out all the old saws of disinformation against Disney:
Disney’s reputation has long been dogged by accusations of anti-Semitism, but Streep focused most of her attention on Disney’s treatment of women, calling the legendary impresario a “gender bigot” and quoting longtime Disney animator Ward Kimball, who said his boss “didn’t trust women or cats.”
Streep also accused Disney of supporting “an anti-Semitic industry lobbying group,” believed to be a reference to the Motion Picture Alliance, and quoted a letter purportedly written by Disney’s company to an aspiring female animator which read, in part “Women do not do any of the creative work in connection with preparing the cartoons for the screen, as that task is performed entirely by young men.”
Of course the antisemitism charge has been repeated over and over by the Left. In Streep’s case, if she is referring to the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, she is sadly mistaken. That organization consisted of conservatives in Hollywood who were committed to stamping out Communist influence and, well, preserving American ideals.
As much of the nation finds itself gripped by frigid weather, we shouldn’t be surprised to hear of people doing dumb things in the cold. Maddie Gilmartin of East Kingston, NH, discovered firsthand what happens when someone sticks his or her tongue to a flagpole in subfreezing temperatures. Needless to say, it’s a stunt she won’t try again.
“It just kind of popped into my head, hey what would happen if I stuck my tongue to a flag pole. At the moment I was like it will come right off,” Maddie said.
“I’m stuck here in the middle of our yard just trying to get help,” Maddie said.
With her dad snow plowing at the end of the drive way here mom inside, Maddie tried pulling herself free.
“I see her standing at the flag pole her arms are waving and I’m not sure what’s going on until I got closer,” said Shawn Gilmartin, Maddie’s father. “She tried to pull her tongue off of it as soon as it happened and that’s what made it bleed. I had my hands cupped I was blowing, breathing on her lips and tongue.”
“I was just like, did I really just do that to myself, like did I really do just do that?” Maddie said.
Maddie was stuck on the flag pole for a full 15 minutes before being freed and then taken to the ER. Fortunately, she is going to be OK.
Gilmartin admitted she had never seen A Christmas Story, so she didn’t know about the infamous “sinister triple dog dare” scene. Cold compresses and ibuprofen will cure her sore tongue.
Her father is glad she wasn’t hurt worse and that she learned her lesson. What advice does she have for anyone who might be inclined to try a similar stunt?
“Just think before you do something,” Maddie said.
No 2013 would be complete without Secretary of State John Kerry using the official department Twitter account to retweet a fist-bumping Christmas party video with Snoop Dogg:
— Department of State (@StateDept) December 27, 2013
Like the official White House account, personal tweets are signed with the initials of the person in charge, in this case JK.
Today’s episode of “Idiots are Educating Our Children” comes from Colorado. The state that has recently been overrun by liberal locusts who ruined California has a school that just suspended a 6-year-old boy for “sexual harassment,” according to KRDO TV.
Hunter Yelton’s tale is an old story…boy meets world in first grade, develops a crush on a little girl, kisses her hand, faces the unholy wrath of school bureaucrats who don’t remember what it’s like to be a first-grader at all.
It may sound innocent enough…but at six years old Hunter now has ‘sexual harassment’ on his school record.
“It was during class yeah. We were doing reading group and I leaned over and kissed her on the hand. That’s what happened,” said Hunter Yelton.
Six year old Hunter was at home on Monday instead of at school.
“They sent me to the office, fair and square. I did something wrong and I feel sorry,” he said.
“She was fine with it, they are ‘boyfriend and girlfriend’. The other children saw it and went to the music teacher. That was the day I had the meeting with the principal, where she first said ‘sexual harassment’. This is taking it to an extreme that doesn’t need to be met with a six year old. Now my son is asking questions… what is sex mommy? That should not ever be said, sex. Not in a sentence with a six year old,” said Hunters’ mom, Jennifer Saunders.
Both hunter and his mom, Jennifer, admit he’s had some trouble at school in the past. Hunter has been suspended for rough-housing, and for kissing the same girl on the cheek.
“We’ve been working with him with the classroom disruption. He was grounded for awhile. Big restrictions,” said Saunders.
Report Bonnie Silkman asks Hunter, “Are you trying to be good at school? Hunter replies, “Yes…I have a lot of energy. I mean six year olds. They have a lot of energy.”
The superintendent at School District RE-1, says any school record remains within the district. And Hunters’ actions fit the school policy description of ‘sexual harassment’.
There are only a couple of glaring problems with the superintendent’s take. One, the alleged perp is six. Two, the alleged “victim” welcomes his attention. So, in other words, there was nothing sexual and there was no harassment. Other than that, super, you’re spot on.
Who wants to bet that the super has a handful of degrees and pulls down a massive salary? Let’s do a little research. The superintendent of Cannon City schools is Dr. Robin Gooldy. There’s your handful of degrees, though they didn’t prepare Dr. Gooldy to understand how he may be hurting young Hunter. He’s working in a well-paid racket in which salaries rise beyond inflation while schools claim that they don’t have enough money for anything.
Riddle me this: When schools are run by unthinking morons, is it possible for anyone who attends those schools to receive an education?
thumbnail image courtesy shutterstock / Alexey Losevich
Jews and Christians have this crazy tendency to make themselves lighting rods for criticism and attack when they make their beliefs public. People really take offense to dangerous values like “Don’t murder” and “Don’t steal.” From militant atheists clamping down on anything related to Christmas and Hanukkah to leftists developing Kwanzaa as an alternative to the Judeo-Christian holidays to the seemingly endless lawsuits surrounding displays of the Ten Commandments, the Left never tires of making a reality of Jesus’ warning that the world would hate His followers.
These days, the Satanists have decided to take a different approach – if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. In Oklahoma, where the legislature has erected a Ten Commandments monument, a group of Satanists (based in New York, naturally) have expressed their desire to put up their own monument next to it.
It notified the state’s Capitol Preservation Commission that it wants to donate a monument and plans to submit one of several possible designs this month, said Lucien Greaves, a spokesman for the temple.
“We believe that all monuments should be in good taste and consistent with community standards,” Greaves wrote in letter to state officials. “Our proposed monument, as an homage to the historic/literary Satan, will certainly abide by these guidelines.”
Greaves said one potential design involves a pentagram, a satanic symbol, while another is meant to be an interactive display for children. He said he expects the monument, if approved by Oklahoma officials, would cost about $20,000.
I don’t see why Oklahoma officials wouldn’t approve an interactive display for children on the, um, values of Satanism, would you? Greaves – whose name sounds like a Satanist’s name if anyone’s does – believes that the monument would help spread the word about the Prince of Darkness.
You don’t walk around and see too many satanic temples around, but when you open the door to public spaces for us, that’s when you’re going to see us.
As expected, the Oklahoma ACLU has jumped into the fray. Its director, Brady Henderson, weighed in:
…if the Ten Commandments, with its overtly Christian message, is allowed to stay at the Capitol, the Satanic Temple’s proposed monument cannot be rejected because of its different religious viewpoint.
What values would the monument promote? What would the slogan be: “The Devil Made Me Do It”? What do you think? Is the controversy all a bunch of nothing, or do the Satanists have a beef? Feel free to share your opinions in the comments below. All I know is that some stories are too bizarre not to be made up. This is one of them.
For a couple of years, in my late-middle and early-high school days, I took piano lessons. Every Monday after school, my mom would take me to a historic home on the campus of Oxford College where Mrs. Jean Phillips would invest an hour of time in a talented kid who didn’t practice enough. My parents paid Mrs. Phillips $10 a week to teach me how to play.
Looking back at those days, two thoughts come to mind. First, I wish I had practiced more, because then my parents would have let me take lessons longer. Second, Mrs. Phillips was a little old lady from church who charged a paltry sum to teach kids piano. These days, she might have caught the eye of the feds. You read that right – the federal government is now going after piano teachers for price gouging and suppression of competition.
This is no joke, as Kim Strassel reports in the Wall Street Journal:
Every month, it seems, brings a new story of this presidency leveling the intimidating powers of the federal government against some law-abiding citizen. Now comes a terrifying tale of how the Federal Trade Commission, a governmental Goliath, crushes an average David—because it can.
In March of this year, a small nonprofit in Cincinnati—the Music Teachers National Association—received a letter from the FTC. The agency was investigating whether the association was engaged in, uh, anticompetitive practices.
The association’s sin, according to the feds, rested in its code of ethics. The code lays out ideals for members to follow—a commitment to students, colleagues, society. Tucked into this worthy document was a provision calling on teachers to respect their colleagues’ studios, and not actively recruit students from other teachers.
That’s a common enough provision among professional organizations (doctors, lawyers), yet the FTC avers that the suggestion that Miss Sally not poach students from Miss Lucy was an attempt to raise prices for piano lessons.
Essentially, the FTC is accusing the MTNA of allowing its teachers to be mini-monopolies, cruelly price gouging poor students who supposedly can’t jump ship to an instructor who charges less. It goes without saying that the FTC view of things is far from reality.
The pilot father of a student who caused outrage by dressing up as the World Trade Center for a nightclub fancy dress competition has said he is ‘not happy at all’ about his daughter’s behaviour.
Amber Langford and Annie Collinge, both 19, won the contest and a £150 prize at a Chester nightclub despite lampooning the worst terrorist attack in modern history.
Miss Langford’s father Martin, who was flying in the U.S. at the time of the atrocity, said: ‘I didn’t know anything about it, but I’m not happy at all.
‘She knows I’m a pilot and that’s not cool at all. We will be having a little chat, I think.’
I know they are young and clueless but…come on.
Also, let’s give Halloween back to the little kids.
Football fans love drama. The back and forth of close games, the thrill of a come-from-behind victory, the outsized personalities — all of these make for plenty of excitement in the NFL. However, one team is making headlines for its off-the-field drama far more than for its on-the-field antics these days. The Miami Dolphins have suddenly found themselves embroiled in a controversy involving player hazing, bullying, and harassment, with the added twist of apparent racism.
The soap opera began last week when second -ear offensive tackle Jonathan Martin took a leave of absence from the team, claiming other players bullied him.
Martin left Dolphins headquarters on Monday when finally reaching his limit with the persistent bullying and teasing from some teammates that has plagued him since joining Miami as a 2012 second-round draft choice. As first reported by FOX Sports NFL insider Jay Glazer, the latest taunt – a group of players stood up and left when he tried joining them for lunch – led to Martin getting up himself and walking out the door.
There is no timetable for a return, which could lead Miami to ultimately place him on the reserve/non-football injury list. It also raises questions about his future with the franchise.
This wasn’t an abrupt action by Martin, who is Stanford-educated and the son of two lawyers who attended Harvard University. A source said Martin has tried dealing with a slew of indignities that crossed into personal and family insults, including being bestowed with the nickname of “Big Weirdo.”
Even as the world careens from crisis to crisis—will Iran get (and use) The Bomb? Will the euro finally fail? Will ObamaCare put the nail in the coffin of the U.S. economy and America’s tradition of self-reliance and individual liberty? No one’s crystal ball is sharp enough to say. But even as the world conjures with these and other pending catastrophes, there are still local tempests to conjure with. In the somewhat rarefied world of word-processing software, the corporate giant Apple has precipitated a category five storm in the teapot inhabited by users of its iWork suite of software: Pages, Numbers, and Keynote, the Word, Excel, and Powerpoint of the Apple eco-system.
Last week, in the course of a big Apple event in San Francisco, The Corporation announced, to considerable fanfare, new versions of iWork. There were smiles everywhere as a couple of Corporate officials took to the stage and demonstrated that, at long last, users would be able to collaborate on the same document simultaneously over the internet, on their Macs and/or their iPads and iPhones, even on PCs. This is a feature that Google has offered for some time, but Apple’s implementation was supposed to be more elegant (if less robust technically). The software had been rewritten from the ground up, they announced, adding many new features. It was a particularly welcome announcement for those who use the software because the last major update to the iWork software was in 2009, eons ago in the chronology of software. Patience was about to be rewarded. A new Apple triumph was about to be born. The new software, which Apple was offering for free, would make serious inroads into the hegemony of Microsoft’s Office suite, which is a de facto world-wide standard.
The celebratory mood lasted for about 15 minutes. Then a few people downloaded and started using the software. Uh oh. In its effort to make iWork compatible with the version that runs on the iPad and iPhone, Apple decided to neuter the desktop version of its software. “Big deal,” you say. “Use Microsoft Office.” More and more people will do just that, I suspect. But in the meantime, there is high drama at the Apple support site and App store, where the hostile comments about the software vastly outnumber the positive comments. One independent reviewer summed up the verdict: “Pages 5: An unmitigated disaster.”
I’ve been using Pages myself for a couple of years. I’ve never liked Microsoft Office, and I’ve always harbored a particular dislike for Word, which I find bloated and unwieldy. Before using Pages, I wrote using a DOS- and then Windows-based programmer’s editor. It was a bare bones approach, but I liked the simplicity of the software and the control it offered over text manipulation. Together with a DOS-based PostScript layout tool, I was good to go.
Ann Coulter is brilliant because she possesses the unique ability to eviscerate hypocrites with thorough research and quick wit. Her brilliance is further proven by the fact that the most her detractors (notably the ones commenting on my review of her latest book) can ever do is criticize her appearance — after all, why not make grossly sexist remarks about someone you just don’t like when they happen to be a woman? Needless to say, it was quite a challenge to cull my top 5 favorite columns from Never Trust a Liberal Over 3, Especially a Republican. Somehow I managed to rise to the challenge — albeit with a few notable runner-ups for good measure.
5. America Nears El Tipping Pointo (December 5, 2012)
Runner-ups: Romney Doing the Job Republican Establishment Just Won’t Do and If the GOP Is This Stupid, It Deserves to Die
In this keen look at voter statistics, Ann reveals that Romney won the majority of the vote among 18-29 year olds … who are white. “Even the Lena Dunham demographic — white women under thirty — favored Romney,” she quips. At this point, liberals would be reeling with accusations of racism and Romney’s obvious membership in the KKK. However, those bold enough to read on will not only receive a valuable comparison of voter stats from Reagan to Romney, they’ll also learn something their public education failed to teach them: the practical fiscal and electoral impact of Ted Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act.
One of the many articles that highlight the patronizing racism of liberals, “El Tipping Pointo” details the difference between honest and manipulative immigration over the course of the last 40 years. Drawing a sharp comparison between America as “the land of opportunity” and the land of “the soulless rich who want cheap labor,” Ann illustrates exactly how liberal pundits and elite Republicans take advantage of “phony ‘family reunification’ rules” to bloat the welfare system and liberal voting rolls while presenting a stereotypical image of hardworking Hispanics (versus the “recent Hispanic immigrants who …are the poorest of the world’s poor”) to gain public support for policies that bankrupt America and keep real change from ever happening in D.C.
Over the weekend, the FBI took its Amber Alert missing child website offline, blaming the shutdown. At the same time, First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” web site stayed up and running.
Amber Alert is back online today, after the closure of the site generated negative publicity.
So it seems that Lord Obama can pick and choose what is and isn’t getting shut down. And it seems that he is in fact picking and choosing what gets shut down, in real time. He chose to close memorials and parks, including Mount Rushmore, and Obama chose to kick a pair of senior citizens out of their home. Obama’s decisions appear to be arbitrary and capricious, based not on actual fiscal conditions, but on what he can close to visibly demonstrate his political points on the shutdown. In some cases, the government is spending more to enforce the shutdown than it would spend simply to leave sites open. In closing hundreds of privately-run parks, Obama’s decisions are actively costing the Treasury millions of dollars per week.
When the lawsuits over closing a home and privately-run businesses get underway, and they will, the fact of these arbitrary and capricious displays of power should be included.
And in other news, the Nobel Peace Prize still lacks all credibility. According to the Washington Times:
Russian President Vladimir Putin was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by an advocacy group that credits him with bringing about a peaceful resolution to the Syrian-U.S. dispute over chemical weapons.
The Russian advocacy group International Academy of Spiritual Unity and Cooperation of Peoples of the World nominated Mr. Putin, characterizing his forged agreement with Syrian President Bashar Assad — to turn over admitted chemical weapons cache to international authorities — a world-class and prize-worthy piece of diplomacy, United Press International reported.
The group also took a dig at the United States.
While announcing the nomination during a press conference in Moscow, group officials said Mr. Putin deserved the Peace Prize much more than President Obama, who won the recognition in 2009.
Um… that group name sounds a lot like a survival from USSR Communist times. They were big on unity and the cooperation of peoples — on paper — while they positioned the boot just right to crush the unwary’s windpipe. But to give the devil his due, you cannot deny that Putin deserves the Nobel Peace Prize more than Obama did.
Putin might be a tyrant, a dictator, and responsible for the oppression of innocents in his own land and abroad, but he does do more than look good and say he’s not Bush. Which is all Obama did to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
We live in very funny times, for anyone with an appreciation of black humor.
We see warnings of the apocalypse everywhere. Maybe it’s an old man wearing a sandwich board that reads, “THE END IS NEAR.” Or perhaps we hear the yearly news report about some asteroid that just might come too close to earth for comfort. Or possibly we’ve received another message from Harold Camping warning us of Christ’s return. Either way, somebody somewhere wagers a guess as to when the world will end just about every day.
Well, now we need no longer fear, because scientists have now determined the date for the end of the world – and it’s a long way off.
The end of the world is no longer just some far-off notion; the event now has a date. New research shows how much time it will take for the Earth to basically dry up and no longer be able to support human life.
And as long as whatever is on your bucket list won’t take longer than 1.75 billion years, there’s not really anything for this generation or the next couple million generations to worry about.
That’s about how long researchers at the University of East Anglia predict will take the Earth to end up outside of the habitable zone. “These zones are defined by water. In the habitable zone, a planet is just the right distance from its star to have liquid water. Closer to the sun, in the ‘hot zone,’ the Earth’s oceans would evaporate.”
Yes, you read that right. It’s from the University of East Anglia, and those folks got it right about the whole global warming thing, didn’t they? Not only do they have a timeline figured out, they know how it’s going to happen.
The Earth won’t move, but it’s actually the sun we have to keep an eye on (not literally). As it gets older, the star is continuously growing hotter, brighter and bigger at about a 10th of an astronomical unit every billion years.
But if it helps you feel any better, all won’t be lost like that. It will actually be a very slow process as the Earth dries up and completely runs out of water reserves.
But according to the researchers, there’s still the chance our planet won’t make it that far — you know, with all the other likely doomsday scenarios, like a meteor strike, nuclear war, crazed robots, superinfections, aliens, black holes and, of course, zombies.
I can’t help but wonder what the preppers will do with this information. As for me, I’ll just stick with Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:36 that “about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” It’s better not to know than to worry for the next billion years or so.
Picture it: You’re on a business trip and that girl from marketing with the low cut blouse is handing you a hotel key and offering a no-strings attached night of heaven and your wife will never find out. Before you make a move, consider the following very good reasons to say no.
3. You could break your penis.
No seriously, you could. There was an actual study done on this. People were actually paid to study the fractured penis and it turns out, it happens mostly to cheaters as reported by Dr. Andrew Kramer.
The heightened risk appears to be due to the unconventional situations, and consequently, locations, surrounding sexual acts, the researchers said. Men in the study who had suffered penis fractures commonly were having sex in unusual settings, including in restrooms or at work, when the injury occurred. The majority were having extramarital affairs.
In such atypical situations, sex may be rushed and involve unusual or awkward sexual positions, Kramer said.
Ouch. Is there a cast for this injury? That’s gotta be an awkward recovery.
20 Tips for Talking with Your Anti-American Acquaintances When They Say Dumb Things on 9/11 (Part 2)
Click here for Part 1 of this online dialogue I had about the causes of the September 11 jihad terror attack with a pack of secularist, postmodern progressives.
20 Tips for Talking with Your Anti-American Acquaintances When They Say Dumb Things on 9/11 (Part 1)
A friend sent me a link this morning, with the subject line:
A white Guy in a Keffiyeh places a thinly disguised personal ad in a feminist blog
I’m in a rare generous mood, so I feel compelled to share Matt Graber’s stirring manifesto — is that word “sexist”? — at The Feminist Wire:
Please don’t call me “man” or “dude” any longer. I will not join you in friendship or partnership on a male-supremacist, patriarchal project. I will not condone the view that women are born to provide you with sexual gratification, and to do care work for you.
I will not be your wingman. I will not support your objectification of women’s bodies. Women are not accessories to you, regardless of how much money you have. In social settings such as parties, bars, or clubs, I will not accompany you when you violate the personal space of others. When they refuse to allow you to enter into their personal space, I will not ease or comfort you.
Brace yourselves: There’s more.
But then the comments from the blog’s primary readers — women — take it to the next level of epic.
They aren’t impressed by Matt “Don’t Call Me Dude!” Graber’s epic beta male white-knighting.
This is really cheap, unevolved feminism looking for cookies.
Poor Matt. He must be very confused by this reaction.
He just wants to
violate a little personal space be loved and understood and appreciated.
Now, I know we’re all sick of the #NotTheOnion hashtag, but this op-ed really seems to be… real.
Unless a sarcastic guy (or even a very clever woman) wrote this pitch-perfect parody of campus-speak circa 1994, then arranged for the ideal “Che!” headshot to go with it, and got it all accepted as legit by the gatekeepers at The Feminist Wire.
In which case, I salute you, Sir/Madam.
For the rest of us: Palette cleanser, stat!
On the Right we decry the public educational system on a regular basis. While many times the leftward bias in the schools deserves our scrutiny, sometimes words like “indoctrination” seem hyperbolic. At the same time, we can find school administrators who wield tons of power and use it in ways that are, well, downright weird.
Witness Dana Carter, the new principal at Calimesa Elementary School in Yucaipa, CA. Principal Carter began the school year with a policy calling for students to kneel in place at given times until he appeared and dismissed them.
School district officials in San Bernardino County say they will discontinue a policy that required elementary school students to kneel down before being dismissed to class.
Principal Dana Carter at Calimesa Elementary School had reportedly instituted the policy, which called for students at various times of the school day to kneel down on one knee and wait for the principal or another administrator to dismiss them, as a safety measure.
Sure, the school’s official version of events sounds harmless enough — it’s a “safety measure.” But the parents got wind of the policy and read something different altogether into it.
At least one mother told KCAL9′s Tom Wait she was upset after hearing that her 7-year-old daughter was allegedly forced to kneel before Carter.
“She says that she has to drop down on one knee with her hands at her side, wait for the principal to come out, lift his arms and tell them to go to class,” said the mom.
“I feel that the principal wants to be like a king, and we don’t have kings in America,” she added.
Parents distributed flyers protesting the policy. The flyers contained such lines as:
All students must stop and “KNEEL DOWN” before the bell rings, and for them to be excused by either himself or an administrative staff member. [sic]
IS IT OK FOR YOUR SON AND/OR DAUGHTER TO KNEEL DOWN TO THEM?
Campbell bowed to public pressure and ended the policy, and he has vowed to meet with parents to develop alternative safety measures.
To me, this story isn’t so much a political issue as it is a matter of a dumb choice on the part of school officials. The measure smacks of an attempt to build a cult of personality around the principal. What would be next? New uniforms, complete with brown shirts? Children dutifully singing songs in his honor? Thank God the school district had the good sense to end the policy before it became too entrenched.
What do you think? Would you allow your child’s school to enact such a policy?
You remember the old game “Telephone,” where you pass a message through several people, and the message usually gets distorted? Well, it turns out that’s what has happened with this story. The take-a-knee policy is more innocuous than it seems. Ace of Spades summarizes it best:
Basically the school’s idea is this: Kids get all hyper, running around at recess, then they continue that hyper behavior when it’s time to come back in from lunch, running and tripping and shouting like demons, as kids will. So, the school has them take a knee at the end of lunch, as a coach might do, to get that hyper energy to dissipate out from them, and I guess to change their minds over from the Run Like Angry Vikings setting to the Get Ready to Sit Still and Listen to a Teacher Talking setting.
Whatever the merits of this policy are, it certainly isn’t a case of a principal demanding kids kneel before Zod.
So there you have it. Sometimes we can run with an idea without finding out the whole story. I’m guilty of it here, and I offer up my apologies for not doing due diligence.
The New York Times assures us that facial scanning is improving by leaps and bounds:
WASHINGTON — The federal government is making progress on developing a surveillance system that would pair computers with video cameras to scan crowds and automatically identify people by their faces, according to newly disclosed documents and interviews with researchers working on the project.
The Department of Homeland Security tested a crowd-scanning project called the Biometric Optical Surveillance System — or BOSS — last fall after two years of government-financed development. Although the system is not ready for use, researchers say they are making significant advances. That alarms privacy advocates, who say that now is the time for the government to establish oversight rules and limits on how it will someday be used.
There have been stabs for over a decade at building a system that would help match faces in a crowd with names on a watch list — whether in searching for terrorism suspects at high-profile events like a presidential inaugural parade, looking for criminal fugitives in places like Times Square or identifying card cheats in crowded casinos.
My thought on reading this was first that no technology is ever infallible, and that being the twin brother of someone seen leaving a bomb — say — particularly if you were both adopted out at birth and don’t know of each other would be an uncomfortable situation.
Add to this that the technology is not even at that level and being the second-cousin of a crime suspect, with certain common family features would be enough to get you police attention. You can see how this would violate your fourth amendment rights, right? Not to mention your rights to life and liberty, to say nothing of the pursuit of happiness.
To be fair, the New York Times reports that people in charge of this technology development are also aware that it needs to be a lot more developed before it’s used, even if its creators think “difficulties will just fall away.”
On the other hand, my second thought was that yes, this technology could be very useful for fighting terrorism and other such public safety hazards. But when has technology in the hands of government been used only for the logical or most beneficial process?
Like social security numbers becoming de-facto IDs, this will change into attempts at preventing crimes — perhaps laudable in themselves, but leading to a future where Big Brother is ALWAYS watching you. And let’s not forget the information that can be leaked just before elections, by the same entity whose IRS leaked confidential forms of political opponents of the current administration.
To be fair the New York Times recognizes that too:
“This technology is always billed as antiterrorism, but then it drifts into other applications,” Ms. McCall said. “We need a real conversation about whether and how we want this technology to be used, and now is the time for that debate.”
In particular, she said, there should be limits on whose faces are loaded into them when they are ready for deployment. Ms. McCall said it would be acceptable to use it for terrorism watch lists, but she feared any effort to systematically track everyone’s public movements by using a comprehensive database of driver’s license photographs.
Now whether they’ll remember this is a danger while progressives are in power is something else.
During the cold war, anti-nuke activists often said giving a nation nuclear weapons was like handing a loaded gun to an idiot. The same can be said of facial recognition systems and the government. And I hope we keep the gun away. As useful as it could be in certain, specialized cases, it would be unmitigated disaster in most others.
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.com © Kletr
With everything going on in the news these days — I mean, didn’t Jennifer Aniston recently get a haircut or something? — this seems like a goofy thing to get annoyed about, but I have to confess it got to me. I saw this originally on Big Hollywood: Tom Cruise’s ex-wife Katie Holmes was walking with her 7-year-old daughter Suri and they were surrounded by paparazzi. And Suri both rightly and kind of cutely was telling these photog thugs to get out of her way and one of them — a grown man — started calling the child names! Another more human photographer tries to remonstrate with this lowlife — but the guy insists he’s in the right! Watch the video — I’m not making this up. The pap doubles down, explaining that no, the 7-year-old actually deserves to be catcalled and by golly he’s just the he-man to do the job! So help me, I’ll retire to Bedlam.
Hey, no one can accuse this blog of being soft on celebrities, but I’ve never subscribed to this idea that just because someone desires to win renown he therefore sacrifices every ounce of his privacy. I know we can’t really restrict the actions of photographers without compromising our First Amendment rights, but is it too much to ask we be allowed to tie them up in canvas sacks and toss them into the Hudson River? Or maybe with Eric Holder re-examining Stand Your Ground laws (for some reason), we might look into extending the meaning of self-defense to include confrontations between the rich and famous and these annoying lens-termites. We could even make special categories for those particularly afflicted. For instance, whereas someone like Tom Hanks — not usually hunted by swarms of paps — could only open fire on one when actually being hounded, someone like Angelina Jolie would be allowed to break into a photographer’s home, creep into his bedroom and smother him in his sleep without facing any legal consequences.
All right, I said it was silly. But really, how far do you have to sink before you start screaming insults at children? Yuck-o.