Bogus War on Women

Once again, women are deemed victims of the evil Supreme Court, which just denied women "health care" in the form of "free" birth control. Once again, liberals are propagating this ridiculous lie, and women are falling for it, bemoaning that their access to their life-saving IUDs have been slashed.

Hogwash.

The WSJ sums up the series of lies very succinctly:

All this crocodile outrage is wonderfully fact-free. The High Court majority granted that women's health is a compelling state interest but that the White House's means were illegal under RFRA. The opinion is largely irrelevant in practice to contraceptive "access," which will remain cheap and abundant. The Institute of Medicine reports that contraceptive benefits are "standard practice for most private insurance" and that 89% of plans cover all 20 FDA-approved methods. Hobby Lobby only disapproves of four methods, and few companies would claim the religious convictions to bar even those.

Democrats also fail to mention that the health plans of about 190 million people were already absolved from the mandate before Monday's ruling, either because they work for exempt businesses with 50 workers or fewer or as a result of the Obama Administration's "accommodation" for religious nonprofits. That arrangement is a creature of bureaucratic discretion, not statute, and thus could be expanded to companies like Hobby Lobby without Congress if Mr. Obama honestly thinks the female body is at risk.

Oh, and I don't want my president telling me what my bosses should cover. I choose who to work for, and I make that bargain with them as to what they can cover. Right?

Here's White House press secretary Josh Earnest : "President Obama believes that women should make personal health-care decisions for themselves rather than their bosses deciding for them. . . . The constitutional lawyer in the Oval Office disagrees with that conclusion." This appeal to diploma is weird, because Hobby Lobby turned on the straightforward application of a federal statute. The First Amendment's free-exercise clause wasn't reached.

 Don't even get me started on Hillary's histrionics:

"a disturbing trend that you see in a lot of societies that are very unstable, anti-democratic and frankly prone to extremism," which is "women and girls being deprived of their rights," including "control over their bodies," she said this week.

Does she really believe that "depriving" women of four forms of abortificients is going to turn us into Afghanistan or something far worse? Are we not North Korea?

Get a grip, America. The world didn't end. You can still have promiscuous sex, and someone will still pay for it. (Ultimately, you, the tax payer and insuree,but hey, that's another argument.)

Shutdown Stymied

Well, our long pseudo national nightmare of a government shutdown is nearly over, just as I predicted, around the elusive date of October 17. Furloughed workers will get their two week vacation paid, just as they desired. The barricades will at long last be removed by the memorials, and Vince Gray will go back to being despised as a corrupt mayor. But what have we gained?

The big joke going around now is that "Just heard the Washington Redskins are relenting & changing their name -- dropping "Washington" b/c it just got too embarrassing." So there's that. Both parties should be ashamed, really. Though some are attempting to absolve "real" Washington of our sins, because it's not our fault that our elected leaders do these things. Yeah, right. Maybe we have taxation without representation, but we work for these individuals. VA and MD voters helped put them into office. We've donated to their campaigns and we've supported their pork to help pad our bank accounts.

And we're going to suffer when the so-called fiscal cliff grows so steep that we can't throw more inflated dollar bills at it. We're all to blame, ultimately, because we created this. And with the possible exception of Paul Ryan, I'm not sure we have any adults who would share that responsibility with us.

Nothing Right About This II

In a Post Style Section article about daddy-daughter dances at a Richmond jail, there are some disturbing comments about such an old fashioned party. No, it's no disturbing that the fathers are in prison. It's that "daddy" dances exist at all.

The event in Richmond is just one example of the alternative father-daughter dances springing up around the country amid growing concerns that traditional father-daughter dances are exclusionary. Their detractors say they are outdated, discriminatory and sexist and that they no longer reflect what American families look like. For starters, according to 2011 census data, more than half of all children in this country are raised by unmarried mothers.

“The whole idea feels very 1950s,” said Peggy Drexel, author of “Our Fathers, Ourselves: Daughters, Fathers and the Changing American Family.” “I mean, do you invite your sperm-donor dad? Today’s America has the daughters of donors, lesbians, two gay dads. . . .”

In October, school officials in Cranston, R.I., banned the dances — along with mother-son baseball games — after the American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint citing discrimination against single mothers, as well as gender stereotyping. “It’s ‘Ozzie and Harriet’ stuff — it shouldn’t be happening in this century,” said Steven Brown of the Rhode Island ACLU. “Not every girl wants to grow up to be Cinderella; some might actually more enjoy playing baseball. But these types of stereotyped events promote an opposite impression.”

One indication that times are changing: The Girl Scouts of America have given some of the events new names, such as “SAM” — significant adult male — dances or “Someone Special and Me” dances. There are also new events replacing the dances, such as the “Daddy-Daughter Boot Camp” for Girl Scouts on Fort Belvoir.

Yeah, some kids don't have a dad. Sometimes their fathers died in Iraq or passed away elsewhere. But sheesh, because this is so out fashioned--the concept of two married, heterosexual parents--we should ban this? Is everything about not offending some PC-version of America? I applaud the opportunity for young girls to spend times with their fathers in this piece, and I'm sorry it had to occur like this. But the entire convoluted piece should not be some commentary about the role of fatherhood. Ultimately, it should press that what children need are two parents, a mom and a dad, in one home.

Liberals are Hypocrites

But does that really surprise you? Blacks are "black" and women are "women" only if they espouse certain viewpoints. Stereotypically liberal ones. Otherwise, well, that is not real diversity.

MSNBC host and commentator Melissa Harris Perry surprisingly defended the lack of diversity in President Obama's second term cabinet in an appearance on the network this morning. Harris Perry says just because someone is of one gender and not the other or has a certain skin color doesn't mean they are representative of that specific group. Harris Perry cites Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as an example, who she says doesn't represent "the vast majority" of African-Americans.

MSNBC host and commentator Melissa Harris Perry says we should "be careful" when it comes to calling out the hypocrisy of President Obama for having a not so diverse cabinet. Perry says we don't want to "assume that any given physical body carries with it a set of political ideas."

Harris Perry names Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as an example. Harris Perry says just because he is black it "does not mean Justice Thomas is representing necessarily the positions, the issues, even the Constitutional interpretation that is shared by the vast majority of civil rights organizations, by the vast majority of African-Americans."

So when we're considering "diversity" in the workplace, does that really mean diversity of ideas? Or diversity=liberal views? Someone please explain it to me. So before every "minority" applicant is accepted to grad school or offered a job as a firefighter, should we first ask them what their particular set of political ideas is? Because surely we cannot just assume.

On Race

This was an excellent column in response to the comments about RGIII not being black enough, or he's a Republican, or engaged to a white woman.

Because the woman he wants to marry is white and because he might be a republican, ESPN's Rob Parker determined the superstar Washington quarterback is "not really down with the cause. He's not one of us. He's kind of black, but he's not really, like, the guy you want to hang out with because he's off to something else."...

Let me get this straight, a brother who handles his business on and off the field, who earned a college degree, has national advertising campaigns and has way too many grown men walking around with his name on the backs of their jerseys can be deemed not black enough....

Parker, who made his comments Thursday on First Take, comes across as a hater. Griffin III is exactly who my ancestors would want a young black man to be: successful, talented, respectful and rich. Who wouldn't want to hang out with him?

To counter the stereotype, let's not pretend that color does not matter or pretend we do not see it.

In this country, black people have been seen as a monolithic group. If one person behaved badly it reflected on all of us. Conversely if one person made it or moved on up, he or she was the exception. Newsflash -- Griffin III is not the exception. Not all black male athletes have been arrested or fail to take care of their children. That is often the image we get from newspapers, TV shows, radio, the internet. Another one that irks me is that of white coaches saving all these young men. Lazy story tellers have long gravitated to that storyline.

Joe Biden Offends

There has to be a blog somewhere that tracks every stupid thing that comes out of Joe Biden's mouth. In the last few days, he's insulted Paul Ryan's deceased father. He also states that Romney & Ryan want "to put y'all back in chains."

He truly is the gift that keeps on giving.

"Joe Biden gaffes" come up with 321,000 Google hits.

There's "The Never-Ending List of VP Joe Biden's Verbal Gaffes" courtesy of the Daily Beast. He's already referred to "President Romney."  He insulted his boss as an African American.

"Joe Biden is an idiot" brings up 1.3 million results. There's a delightful Youtube video.  He's made bad policy moves and insulted the Irish Prime Minister (he has trouble remembering if parents are alive or dead).

Even Time magazine has gotten into the act. That says something.

Sure, he has foot in mouth disease, and sometimes he just mangles words. Every politician or candidate will occasionally screw up--Romney even introduced Ryan as the president (we wish!)

But sometimes, Biden borders on the offensive. He had his father for 60 years; Ryan did for only 15. Why bring that up? Why make bad slavery analogies in the last Confederate capitol and forget if you were in NC or VA?

Joe Biden is an idiot. And thankfully, he's not the candidate I would support.

Kirk Cameron

Good for him. Yes, he should be able to express his opinions without being castigated by those on the left who disagree.

I should be able to express moral views on social issues,” he said, “especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years — without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.

 Hypocrisy, much? 

End the Occupation

Please, let today be the last day of the monstrosity that is Occupy DC.  While I am so (not) surprised to see that 15,000+ have signed a petition to sustain the occupation, I do hope there is an "End the Occupation" petition somewhere. Really, there is no point to this idiocy other than the amusement of those of us amongst the 99% who have to go to jobs every day to support ourselves. I hope that when I pass McPherson Square today, the movement is done and gone. But somehow, I doubt that. I do hope that my consolation will be seeing some of the occupiers taken away in handcuffs.

Harsh, yes. Particularly since it was my tax dollars that paid for that park to be resurfaced several months ago. Now it is utterly destroyed. They should have to pay for it.

Occupy What?

I've been walking past Camp Occupy DC every day this week on the way to work. These people truly are pointless. They have miserable signs written on cardboard, they appear completely ignorant when it comes to economic and fiscal policy, and espouse largely incoherent philosophies that ultimately come down to the "Me, Me, Me" sentiment of Gen Y.  It is astonishing that they blame the nameless, faceless "Wall Street" as the villain when government policies which they have voted for created the "everyone needs a house and it's your fault if I can't pay for it" culture. There is no individual responsibility in this movement. It is completely about blaming and absolving themselves of all fault.

True, many people are unemployed through no fault of their own.  Friends we know are pacing the pavement, informational interviewing, and working to find an opportunity.  They aren't camped out for weeks on end in parks, eating free food and trashing their environment.  They aren't expecting a hand-out or blaming anyone.

The unfavorable tea party comparisons are particularly egregious.  Every tea party rally in DC has consisted of courteous, polite everyday Americans who have left the parks as clean as when they arrived.  They were grassroots before "Occupy Whatever" even existed.  Too bad their lessons won't be adopted by the campers in McPherson Square. Two weeks or so and counting there. Ugh.

Occupy a Prison Cell

All of the DC Occupy protesters have set up tents only a couple of blocks from our office. They were parading down K street yesterday, all 100 or so of them.

My favorite from a recent poll of some of these idiots:

Rank yourself on the following Scale of Liberalism:.
Not liberal at all: 6
Liberal but fairly mainstream (i.e., Barack Obama): 3
Strongly liberal (i.e., Paul Krugman): 12
Fed up with Democrats, believe country needs overhaul (i.e., Ralph Nader): 41
Convinced the U.S. government is no better than, say, Al Qaeda (i.e., Noam Chomsky): 34

Yes, this is EXACTLY like the tea party!!!!

College Ask

Some obnoxious, immature SMC student called me last night, ostensibly to ask for a donation. She was giggling when she asked me how long it had been since I was back on campus (13 years almost) and then stammered when I pointed out there was little reason to go back when I was hundreds of miles away. I hung up after I told her that she wasn't conducting this impromptu questionnaire very well. I don't even think she apologized or asked if I had a few minutes of time.


The school's liberal drift will prevent me any time in the near future from donating money. Honoring lesbian radical feminist theologians and the likes of Howard Zinn don't cut it.  And hosting CodePink is ridiculous. Apparently the passive pink ribbon "non-violent" protesters, the likes of which are the same ones that would probably attack a Republican in Madison for daring to suggest curbs be imposed on union hegemony are not peaceful.  Codepink, which "is a women-initiated grassroots peace and social justice movement working to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, stop new wars, and redirect our resources into healthcare, education, green jobs and other life-affirming activities," is completely unaccountable, and they don't have the faintest idea what peace is. Most of their members are hateful, narrow-minded bigots who accuse anyone who opposes their pro-extremist policies as being racist.  Apparently, after this country was attacked on 9/11, they decided that we should roll over and play accountable to our sins against mankind.  They are the ones who equate the actions of Ghaddafi with Governor Scott Walker.

I can rant on and on about the idiocy of the left. All I know is that I won't subsidize their narrow minded thinking on a campus I attended back in the mid-1990s. I'd rather start a scholarship fund for students to go to CPAC or to bring in a leading Catholic scholar like a Hadley Arkes or Robert George. Not Howard Zinn.