#1
Wussifation 101. This has been part of public school system since "The New Math". We don't need smart folks in white coats to tell us that.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
11/10/2009 3:06 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Probably because there are entirely too many boys. We (western civilization) used to kill off a half a generation or so of males in combat until the 1950's or so.
I don't believe the human race has ever had such a huge number of males as it does now.
#3
I wonder how long this has been known. I wonder how much attention it is getting. I wonder how long it will take to do something about it. I wonder how inadequate it will be. I wonder if they will be testing Chinese foreign products for compliance.
#4
Two-year-old children are being exposed to dangerous levels of hormone-disrupting chemicals in domestic products such as rubber clogs and sun creams,
Why in the blazes are boys wearing clogs? Damn it, when I was two I was already into hard leather Hopalong Cassidy boots or soft leather Davy Crocket moccasins. I blame PETA.
#5
When my Grandson was 5 and in pre-school they had a Visitors Day. He wanted me to visit so I did. The first thing I noticed was that all the toys were feminine oriented. Nothin considered boys' toys like trucks, balls, building blocks, no boys' reading material at all. I asked the director why and she said, "We are teaching the boys to be more caring". I told her they were teaching them to be girls and was asked to leave.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
11/10/2009 10:17 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Agred to all the above comments, from (ideologically-motivated) wussification to hormonal pollution. Beyond the "funny" side, this is actually dead serious.
I was never so proud as the day when the Middle School principal called me to say my son brought in empty 30-06 brass. (He loves his M1, what can I say?)
#9
Meanwhile, there's estrogen in our friggin water supply and the FDA is moving as quickly as they can to ban every substance that comes along if it so much as could be androgenic.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
11/10/2009 12:38 Comments ||
Top||
#10
My name is Bill and I'm a headcase
They practice making up on my face
Yeah, I feel lucky if I get trousers to wear
Spend ages taking hairpins from my hair
I'm a boy, I'm a boy
But my ma won't admit it
I'm a boy, I'm a boy
But if I say I am I get it
Put your frock on Jean Marie
Plait your hair Felicity
Paint your nails, little Sally Joy
Put this wig on, little boy
I wanna play cricket on the green
Ride my bike across the street
Cut myself and see my blood
I wanna come home all covered in mud
---- schools no longer as willing to let kids be kids, and especially not boys be boys, then wonder why they have too much energy to pay attention in class. I tend to think of it as foot binding for the childrens' psyche.
#12
My name is Bill and I'm a headcase
They practice making up on my face
Yeah, I feel lucky if I get trousers to wear
Spend ages taking hairpins from my hair
I'm a boy, I'm a boy
But my ma won't admit it
I'm a boy, I'm a boy
But if I say I am I get it
Put your frock on Jean Marie
Plait your hair Felicity
Paint your nails, little Sally Joy
Put this wig on, little boy
I wanna play cricket on the green
Ride my bike across the street
Cut myself and see my blood
I wanna come home all covered in mud
---- schools no longer as willing to let kids be kids, and especially not boys be boys, then wonder why they have too much energy to pay attention in class. I tend to think of it as foot binding for the childrens' psyche.
Posted by: abu do you love ||
11/10/2009 16:46 Comments ||
Top||
#18
No. I keep thinking I should though. And now I presume I missed a reference to it.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
11/10/2009 22:01 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb is a must see, Mike. George C. Scott, Peter Sellers in multiple roles, Slim Pickens, Keenan Wynn, Sterling Hayden. It's a manly movie. Even if they are all a little nuts. As an irrational, right-wing zealot, you'll fit right in. "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room."
As President Obama belatedly appears at Fort Hood today, will he dare to speak the word "terror?"
He won't use the word "Islamist." If he mentions Islam at all, it'll be to sing its praises yet again.
We've already learned that Islamist terrorist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan attended the Northern Virginia mosque of Imam Anwar al-Aulaqi, a fiery al Qaeda supporter who later fled the United States. We know that Hasan's peers, subordinates and patients repeatedly raised red flags that his superiors suppressed. We know he was a player on Islamist-extremist Web sites. The FBI's uncovering one extremist link after another.
But to call this an act of terrorism, the White House would need an autographed photo of Osama bin Laden helping Hasan buy weapons in downtown Killeen, Texas. Even that might not suffice.
Islamist terrorists don't all have al Qaeda union cards in their wallets. Terrorism's increasingly the domain of entrepreneurs and independent contractors. Under Muslim jurisprudence, jihad's an individual responsibility. Hasan was a self-appointed jihadi.
Yet we're told he was just having a bad day.
Our politically correct Army plays along. Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey won't utter the word "terrorism." The Forces Command Public Affairs Office guidance for officers never mentions "Islam" or "terror," leaving you unsure whether there was a traffic accident down at Fort Hood, or maybe an outbreak of swine flu.
Meanwhile, the media try to turn Hasan into a victim. A sickening (and amateurish) Washington Post article portrayed him as a poor, impoverished minority living in a $320-a-month rathole apartment and driving a down-market car -- as if the squalor made him a terrorist.
Squalor he chose to live in, by the way: As a major drawing added professional pay for his medical credentials, plus his benefits, Hasan made a six-figure income. And he was single, without college loans or medical bills. Has anybody asked where the money went? I'll bet a chunk of it disappeared in cash donations to hard-core Islamist causes. Will a single journalist track the missing bucks? Rest at link
Posted by: ed ||
11/10/2009 17:53 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
As a major drawing added professional pay for his medical credentials, plus his benefits, Hasan made a six-figure income. And he was single, without college loans or medical bills. Has anybody asked where the money went? That question occurred to me immediately after I read the first articles about Hasan. The other question was, if he was so competent, why was he transferred away from Walter Reed?
OF ALL the Big Lies told by the pooh-bahs of talk radio - that our biracial president hates white people, that global warming is a hoax, that a public health care plan to compete with private insurers equals socialism - the most desperate and deluded is this: that the so-called Fairness Doctrine would squash free speech.
The Fairness Doctrine would not stop talk radio hosts from spewing the invective that has made them so fabulously wealthy. All it would do is subject their invective to a real-time reality check.
If you don't believe me, consult the historical evidence. The Federal Communications Commission adopted the Fairness Doctrine in 1949. Because the airwaves were both public and limited, the FCC wanted to ensure that licensees devoted "a reasonable amount of broadcast time to the discussion of controversial issues,'' and that they did so "fairly, in order to afford reasonable opportunity for opposing viewpoints.'' That's the whole shebang.
Pretty terrifying stuff, huh?
Predictably, the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 spurred a talk radio revolution. Why? Because talk radio's business model is predicated on silencing all opposing viewpoints. If Rush Limbaugh and his ilk were forced to engage in a reasonable debate, rather than ad hominems, they would forfeit the moral surety - and the seductive rage - that is the central appeal of all demagogues.
Would talk radio's bullies freak out? Absolutely. They know the Fairness Doctrine would spell the end to their ongoing cultural flim-flam. Besides, there's nothing so intoxicating to a fraudulent moralist as the perfume of fraudulent martyrdom.
The real shock is that journalists haven't supported the Fairness Doctrine. Then again, consider the state of "mainstream media'' outlets. Increasingly, they dine on the same fears and ginned-up wrath as talk radio. Rather than wondering, "Does this story serve the public good?'' they ask, "Will it get ratings?''
This is how fake controversies (death panels, the birther movement, etc.) have pushed aside real issues, such as how to fix health care, or address climate change. It's quite a racket. Talk radio hosts foment ignorant rage, then their "mainstream'' brethren cover this ignorant rage as news.
In so doing, the Fourth Estate has allowed the public discourse to devolve into an echo chamber of grievance. The result is a body politic incapable of recognizing the true nature of its predicaments, let alone potential remedies.
And herein lies a tragic irony. This is the very reason the FCC installed the Fairness Doctrine - not to silence extremists who broadcast inflammatory lies, but to force them to share their microphones with those who beg to differ, in reasoned tones, who recognize that the crises of any age warrant mature debate, not childish forms of denial.
Barack Obama arrived in Washington determined to lift our civic discourse above the din of the echo chamber. But he appears determined to ignore the very tool created to serve this end. Forget about bickering with Fox News, Mr. President. If you want "fair and balanced'' voices on the public airwaves, convince Congress, or the FCC, to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
If Obama and his congressional counterparts don't have the guts for that fight, Americans of all political persuasions will continue to seek out "news'' and opinions that merely reinforce their biases, rather than forcing them to question those biases. America will continue to limp along as a nation of enraged dittoheads, rather than free-thinking citizens who may differ in our politics, but share an honest desire to solve our common plights.
Which brings me to a final mystery: If today's conservative talkers are so sure they're right about everything (and they certainly sound sure), and if they believe so ardently in the First Amendment, why don't a few of them screw up the courage to invite me onto their programs to discuss the risks and rewards of the Fairness Doctrine? No shouting or cutting off microphones. Just good, old-fashioned freedom of speech.
Actually, consider that a dare.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/10/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Nice sleight of hand! Yeah, what could possibly be wrong with a government commission deciding on what is 'fair' and who gets to speak.
#2
This sounds very much like the old arguments in favor of racial segregation. That it is just more "natural" that people live and work and go to school apart based on their skin color. That the force of law was needed to insure that there wouldn't be "race mixing". That 'they' "are just happier with their own kind."
Defenders of segregation could rationalize the most obvious oppression and disparity. So apparently can defenders of censorship.
Instead of the "Fairness" Doctrine, why not take what the chairman of the FCC has said to heart, that what the media needs is more "diversity"? However, since the media are in huge white dominated corporations, this should mean using the antitrust laws to break up the great monoliths.
Just because those great monoliths are almost entirely leftist shouldn't matter at all.
#3
About the 'author' (from article comments section}:
Mr. Almond quit his position as a professor at Boston College because Boston College invited Bush's African-American Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, to speak at Boston College.
Doesn't this tell us everything we need to know about Mr. Almond?
Posted by: Tom- Pa ||
11/10/2009 8:21 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Sounds like he's all for the 'fairness doctrine' only if it applies to conserative talk radio.
Kind of a "Fairness for me, but not for thee' kind of thing.
And why should conservative talk radio have a nobody like Mr Almond on?
#6
Where where the people who were concerned about fairness when the liberals and left had a lock on broadcast media in the 60s, 70s and 80s? Why do we now need a Fairness Doctrine for diversity when we didn't need one then? What is different? The success of talk radio and Fox are the only real differences. It's all about power.
Don't for a miniute think that Blogs such as Rantburg, Michelle Malkin, Ace of Spades, etc... are not going to be included in a 'fairness doctrine'. Both the Democrats and Traditional (MSM) media are in terror of the free Internet. And for good reason.
#11
To be honest cable news (except Fox) really needs the fairness doctrine. They won't provide serious alternate viewpoints and they will continue to slide into irrelevancy without it.
What also cracks me up is the conceit that suddenly with lefties on Rush's show from time to time (they are invited now but most are smart enough to avoid a direct challenge) that they'll somehow gain ground. There is a reason Fox News only gets the second tier lefties, those with nothing to lose, because the lefty arguements are generally based on emotional please and stawmen and that rarely survives against logic and facts.
Libertarians often warn about the slippery slope of government intervention:
Let the government run the schools, and it may end up teaching your children values that offend you. Let the government have new powers to fight terrorism, and it may use those extraordinary powers in the pursuit of ordinary crimes. Let the federal government give the states money for highways, and it may eventually use its money to impose its own rules on the states.
In the Obama era, the slippery slope has gone vertical. Instead of "eventually," the feared extensions of government power come immediately.
When President Obama decided to convert George W. Bush's bailout of General Motors Corp. and Chrysler L.L.C. into effective government ownership, critics warned that this could lead to political intrusion into the management of automobile companies, with decisions being made for political instead of economic reasons. The companies would get less efficient. The government might try to preserve jobs or engage in political grandstanding rather than build sound companies that serve consumers - eventually.
But there was no "eventually" about it. Before he had even secured government control, Obama fired the chief executive officer of General Motors. He decided what the ownership structure of the companies should be. He insisted that the companies build "clean cars" rather than cars that consumers want to buy. And as soon as a deal was concluded, members of Congress started trying to block the closing of inefficient dealerships and to require the companies to buy their palladium in Montana, use unionized trucking companies, remove mercury from scrapped cars, and so on. Politics reared its ugly head in the first moments of government control.
Now we have the federal government's unprecedented intrusions into executive-pay decisions at seven bailed-out banks and automobile companies. The Obama administration's "pay czar," unlike most of the so-called White House czars, has an appalling amount of real power. He "has sole discretion to set compensation for the top 25 employees of each of those companies," and his decisions "won't be subject to appeal," according to recent articles in the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, respectively. I was appalled when he used that autocratic power to make such sweeping cuts in executive pay.
True, these executives were running their companies with taxpayers' money. Live by the bailout, die by the bailout. If you don't want to make a government salary, don't take government money. It's a bad idea for government to attach strings to its funding, to use its money to impose an agenda, but the reality is that it does. Maybe it's a good lesson for other executives: Don't take government money.
But what about the slippery slope? Well, it went totally vertical. On the very day that the government czar announced that he would cut the pay of companies that received taxpayer bailouts, the Federal Reserve announced that it would start regulating compensation at the thousands of banks that it regulates, as well as American subsidiaries of non-U.S. financial companies. Some state regulators said they planned to issue similar requirements for state-regulated banks not covered by the Fed plan.
All of this is being done without any legitimate power under the Constitution, and much of it without even the authorization of Congress. Congress refused to bail out the auto companies, so Bush did it on his own authority. Congress never authorized the Federal Reserve to regulate the pay of bank employees.
This is not a slippery slope. This is falling off a cliff. As one news story pointed out: "The restrictions were the latest in more than a year's worth of government intervention in matters once considered inviolable aspects of the country's free-market economy and represent a signal moment in the history of the American economic experiment."
Sometimes it's hard to make a case for slippery slopes, because you're trying to oppose an immediate benefit by warning of a future cost. Not this time.
If you put a frog in lukewarm water, and then gradually turn up the temperature to boiling, the frog won't sense the danger, and will eventually be cooked to death, or so the metaphor goes. Throw a frog into boiling water, and it will jump out immediately, rather than be scalded.
People tend to react the same way to new demands by the government. If new powers and restrictions are introduced gradually, they'll get used to each one so that the next one seems no big deal.
In this case, we're being tossed into boiling water. It's time for Americans of left, right, and center to say that this is not the economic system we want. If you still have warm feelings toward Obama and his good intentions, ask yourself this: Will you feel comfortable one day when the appointees of President Romney or President Palin are exercising unconstitutional, unauthorized, unreviewable authority to restructure the economy the way they see fit?
Posted by: Fred ||
11/10/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I've consistently advocated bankrupcty for bankrupt companies.
#2
Now you know why Americans own so many guns. There are indeed a lot of guns out there. Some of them have your father and your son, and your husband on the other end of them..and many of those men are wearing US military uniforms. Lets queeeer those guys and spit on them. See what happens.
Bruce and Dwayne and Barack Hussein dont have any guns. Oh he does have a gun? Yeah?
Tell him to show it to you and see what it gets him.
Today we are facing a new farce from the Muslim Brotherhood after it announced its new position which -- as usual -- justifies everything that serves the Iranian project in our region. The General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mahdi Akef, issued what he described as a "call" to Saudi Arabia to stop fighting against the Huthis. Akef said that Saudi Arabia has a right to defend its territory "but" the role of Saudi Arabia, and that of its King "is much greater than this."
We do not know what can be considered a greater role than protecting Saudi Arabia and its sovereignty, maintaining [national] security and protecting [Saudi] citizens?
Therefore we believe that the Muslim Brotherhood's position towards the Huthi aggression on Saudi soil is nothing more than a continuation of the movement's positions that aim to weaken and destabilize Arab countries for the sake of extremist groups that Iran funds and supports with information and weaponry as part of their attempt to destabilize the security of our nations.
It would have been better if the General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood had supported Saudi Arabia and its position without adding a "but" because what Riyadh is doing -- particularly along the Saudi-Yemeni border -- is vitally important. Riyadh is protecting its security from arms and drug smugglers, Al Qaeda elements, as well as the Huthis. This is something that calls for supporting Saudi Arabia, rather than criticism or second-guessing.
However are we surprised by the Muslim Brotherhood's position?
Of course not, for the adoption of positions calling for sedition is not something new, and we saw this during Saddam Hussein's occupation of Kuwait, as well as when Hamas marched on the Egyptian border. We have seen the Muslim Brotherhood take up this position when Hezbollah attempted to tamper with Egyptian security. The Muslim Brotherhood also adopted this same biased position following the armed coup in Lebanon carried out by the Iranian affiliated Hezbollah movement which also saw Hezbollah targeting Sunni areas of Beirut. The Muslim Brotherhood also contributed to the Sunni -- Shiite reconciliation drama following this Hezbollah coup, the goal of this was to whitewash the Hezbollah movement, and distance it from the criticism that it received after it exposed its sectarian features to Lebanon.
Where were the Muslim Brotherhood and their General Guide when the Huthis were starting this military and media conflict, tampering with Saudi security, targeting Saudi border guards, and infiltrating the Saudi interior?
We did not hear any denouncements from the Muslim Brotherhood against what the Huthis were and are continuing to do along the Saudi -- Yemeni border. In fact the only thing that we can recall is that Muslim Brotherhood leaders appeared in the Iranian media praising Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on his wisdom and his call for Muslim unity, whilst at the same time the Supreme Leader and [Iranian president] Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were threatening Saudi Arabia over this year's Hajj season.
The Muslim Brotherhood's "call" to Saudi Arabia is new evidence of the threat that this organization represents, and the threat of their projects, which does not include protecting our countries from Iranian tampering. The Muslim Brotherhood's position is also evidence of the extent of the alliance between them and the Iranian regime, and their role is now to confuse public opinion by issuing misleading statements. This is not surprising for somebody who said "to hell" with Egypt, therefore the Muslim Brotherhood are- deservedly -- the brothers of Iran.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/10/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
If you cant trust the Moslem Brotherhood, then who CAN you trust?
Like if you are standing around waiting to hear the latest skinny on Policy you should follow who better to turn to than the Moslem Brotherhood.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
