Culture
Northwestern Univ Professor Defends Explicit Sex Toy Demonstration
This is ‘higher learning”? Our universities can have an explicit sex toy demonstration, but they dare not mention God in the classroom. Mind-boggling.
Northwestern University Professor Defends Explicit Sex Toy Demonstration After Class
Fox News on March 3, 2011 By Joshua Rhett Miller
<Excerpt>
A Northwestern University professor is defending an explicit after-class demonstration involving a woman and a motorized sex toy, saying, “thoughtful discussion of controversial topics” is a cornerstone of education.
Professor John Michael Bailey, who has taught psychology at the Illinois university since 1989, said the Feb. 21 after-class presentation on “networking for kinky people” to his 600-student human sexuality class was entirely optional. Students were also warned prior to the demonstration that the material — which would not be covered on examinations — wasn’t for the faint of heart.
“The demonstration, which included a woman who enjoyed providing a sexually explicit demonstration using a machine, surely counts as kinky, and hence, as relevant,” Bailey said in a statement issued to FoxNews.com late Wednesday. “Furthermore, earlier that day in my lecture I had talked about the attempts to silence sex research, and how this largely reflected sex negativity … I did not wish, and I do not wish, to surrender to sex negativity and fear.”
Bailey allowed a guest lecturer, Ken Melvoin-Berg, to narrate the use of the sex toy — referred to as a “f—saw” on a woman who was not a Northwestern student. Melvoin-Berg, who operates a local sex tour, told MyFoxChicago.com that the woman’s boyfriend assisted in the demonstration, which he described as “appropriate” and educational.
“We weren’t doing it to shock them,” he told MyFoxChicago.com.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )Sympathy Deformed: Misguided Compassion Hurts the Poor
Interesting article.
Sympathy Deformed: Misguided compassion hurts the poor
Theodore Dalrymple
City Journal
Excerpt:
To sympathize with those who are less fortunate is honorable and decent. A man able to commiserate only with himself would surely be neither admirable nor attractive. But every virtue can become deformed by excess, insincerity, or loose thinking into an opposing vice. Sympathy, when excessive, moves toward sentimental condescension and eventually disdain; when insincere, it becomes unctuously hypocritical; and when associated with loose thinking, it is a bad guide to policy and frequently has disastrous results. It is possible, of course, to combine all three errors.
No subject provokes the deformations of sympathy more than poverty. I recalled this recently when asked to speak on a panel about child poverty in Britain in the wake of the economic and financial crisis. I said that the crisis had not affected the problem of child poverty in any fundamental way. Britain remained what it had long been—one of the worst countries in the Western world in which to grow up. This was not the consequence of poverty in any raw economic sense; it resulted from the various kinds of squalor—moral, familial, psychological, social, educational, and cultural—that were particularly prevalent in the country (see “Childhood’s End,” Summer 2008).
My remarks were poorly received by the audience, which consisted of professional alleviators of the effects of social pathology, such as social workers and child psychologists. One fellow panelist was the chief of a charity devoted to the abolition of child poverty (whose largest source of funds, like that of most important charities in Britain’s increasingly corporatist society, was the government). She dismissed my comments as nonsense. For her, poverty was simply the “maldistribution of resources”; we could thus distribute it away. And in her own terms, she was right, for her charity stipulated that one was poor if one had an income of less than 60 percent of the median national income.
This definition, of course, has odd logical consequences: for example, that in a society of billionaires, multimillionaires would be poor. A society in which every single person grew richer could also be one in which poverty became more widespread than before; and one in which everybody grew poorer might be one in which there was less poverty than before. More important, however, is that the redistributionist way of thinking denies agency to the poor. By destroying people’s self-reliance, it encourages dependency and corruption—not only in Britain, but everywhere in the world where it is held.
<Big snip worth reading about the author’s experiences of the effect of insta-wealth on residents of the Gilbert Islands and socialism in Tanzania>
Thanks to foreign aid, a large bureaucracy grew up in Tanzania whose power, influence, and relative prosperity depended on its keeping the economy a genuine zero-sum game. A vicious circle had been created: the more impoverished the country, the greater the need for foreign aid; the greater the foreign aid, the more privileged the elite; the more privileged the elite, the greater the adherence to policies that resulted in poverty. Nyerere himself made the connection between privilege and ruinous policies perfectly clear after the International Monetary Fund suggested that Tanzania float its currency, the Tanzanian shilling, rather than maintain it at a ridiculously overvalued rate. “There would be rioting in the streets, and I would lose everything I have,” Nyerere said.
Long years of living under this perverse regime encouraged economically destructive attitudes among the general population. While I was impressed by the sacrifices that Tanzanian parents were willing to make to educate their children (for a child to attain a certain stage of education, for example, a party official had to certify the parents’ political reliability), it alarmed me to discover that the only goal of education was a government job, from which a child could then extort a living from people like his parents—though not actually from his parents, for he would share his good fortune with them. In Tanzania, producing anything, despite the prevailing scarcity of almost everything, became foolish, for it brought no reward.
When I returned to practice among the poor in England, I found my Tanzanian experiences illuminating. The situation was not so extreme in England, of course, where the poor enjoyed luxuries that in Tanzania were available only to the elite. But the arguments for the expansive British welfare state had much in common with those that Nyerere had used to bring about his economic disaster. The poor, helpless victims of economic and social forces, were, like Ophelia in the river, “incapable of their own distress.” Therefore, they needed outside assistance in the form of subsidies and state-directed organizations, paid for with the income of the rich. One could not expect them to make serious decisions for themselves.
LINK: http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_otbie-sympathy.html
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Mexican Flag More Protected than the American Flag
Helloooooooooo????? Does anyone else find this disturbing?
Check These Out…
Teacher Deems Student’s American Flag Drawing Offensive
Hispanic Students Knock US Flag to the Ground
Link: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d5e_1273451967
Local San Diego TV Station Raises Mexican Flag
LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jK7To4G2Jk
TX Student Suspended for Removing Mexican Flag
LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci0FUu3lRco
L.A. Teacher Calls for Mexican Revolt in the U.S.
LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGqPo5ofk0s
Banned: The American Flag on Cinco de Mayo
LINK: http://townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2010/05/09/banned_the_american_flag_on_cinco_de_mayo
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Girl Scouts Taught How To Be “Hot”
No wonder adults weren’t welcome. The Girl Scouts, with the help of Planned Parenthood, KNEW that this would NOT be acceptable so they wanted to hide it.
Girl Scouts taught how to be ‘hot’
Planned Parenthood brochure handed out at ‘no-adults-welcome’ event
March 16, 2010
By Kathleen Farah
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A new campaign by the Girl Scouts, with the help of Planned Parenthood, is offering girls ages 10 to 14 the inside details on how to be “hot.”
This week, the World Association of Girl Scouts and Girl Guides held a no-adults-welcome panel at the United Nations in which Planned Parenthood distributed a brochure entitled “Healthy, Happy and Hot.”
The distribution happened at the annual United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, which featured events for the “Girl Scouts and Girl Guides.” In the United States, the organization is called Girls Scouts of the USA and promotes the traditional promise of “On my honor, I will try to serve God and my country, to help people at all times, and to live by the Girl Scout Law.”
The organization, however, effectively has eliminated “God” from the equation by providing that, “The word ‘God’ can be interpreted in a number of ways, depending on one’s spiritual beliefs. When reciting the Girl Scout Promise, it is acceptable to replace the word ‘God’ with whatever word your spiritual beliefs dictate.”
The brochure targets young people and contains graphic details on sex. It also encourages casual sex in many forms.
“Many people think sex is just about vaginal or anal intercourse… But, there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex. There is no right or wrong way to have sex. Just have fun, explore and be yourself!”
It then makes some specific suggestions to “talk dirty.”
“Improve your sex life by getting to know your own body. Play with yourself! Masturbation is a great way to find out more about your body and what you find sexually stimulating. Mix things up by using different kinds of touch from very soft to hard. Talk about or act out your fantasies. Talk dirty to them,” it suggests.
The international organization boasts it reaches 10 million girls in 145 countries. And not only does it provide suggestions for promiscuous sex, it also defines as acceptable sex while high or drunk.
“Some people have sex when they have been drinking alcohol or using drugs. This is your choice. Being drunk or high can affect the decisions you might make about sex or safer sex,” the brochure states.
So what to do?
“Plan ahead by bringing condoms and lube or putting them close to where you usually have sex.”
The brochure also tells students that laws requiring HIV-positive people to disclose their status to a partner “violate the rights of people living with HIV” and calls for advocacy to “change laws that violate your rights.”
The brochure explains to the young girls, “There are many reasons that people do not share their HIV status. … They may worry that people will find out something else they have kept secret, like they are using injecting drugs, having sex outside of a marriage or having sex with people of the same gender.”
The Girl Scouts also have worked in partnership with the YMCA on moderating a young women’s caucus that included an “Intergenerational Conversation” side event on “universal access” and “reproductive health.” One recent Girl Scout project “aims at securing the right of women, men and adolescents aged between ten and twenty-five, to better reproductive and sexual health.”
The CSW finished with a “Joint Statement” from agencies ranging from the Population Fund and Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization to the Children’s Fund that called for support for programs “that empower … adolescent girls, particularly those aged 10 to 14 years.”
The New York Times reported that the U.N. Population Fund had co-sponsored a controversial curriculum with UNESCO that taught children as young as five to be sexually active and trained adolescents to advocate for abortion.
Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women of America, told the Friday Fax, “Governments and NGOs should be aware of Planned Parenthood’s insidious plan to work with U.N. agencies and girls’ organizations in order to profit from encouraging kids to be sexually active.”
LINK: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=128389
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Mall to Christians: God Talk Banned!
Christians, is this enough to wake you up?? This happens to be a mall near me so it hits home even more.
“Under the mall’s rules, shoppers are not allowed to engage in conversations about potentially controversial topics like religion or politics, unless they already know the person they are talking to. Another mall rule bans the wearing of any clothing with religious or political messages.”
Mall to Christians: God talk banned!
Rules challenged as violating ‘principles of free expression’
Posted: January 30, 2010
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Arguments have moved to the appellate court level in a California case in which a man who talked to two willing strangers in a shopping mall was arrested because the subject of the conversation was God.
The case developed several years ago when a youth pastor was arrested at the Galleria Mall in Roseville, Calif., for having a conversation about religion with two other people.
Matthew Snatchko, who works with youth at his church, was interrupted in the middle of the conversation by a security guard. A second guard joined the confrontation and told Snatchko he was being placed under citizen’s arrest for “trespassing.”
The pastor said he agreed to leave but instead, the guards grabbed him, roughly shoved him against a storefront window and handcuffed him tightly enough to draw blood. Snatchko later was taken to the police station where he was booked on charges of battery and trespassing.
A short time later the charges were dropped, but the Pacific Justice Institute decided to pursue a case against the mall over the impact of the policy on free speech.
After a Placer County Superior Court judge in 2008 affirmed the mall’s regulations, an appeal was launched to the 3rd Appellate District in Sacramento, and the briefs have just now been completed for that court’s review.
“It’s surprising that mall owners think they can arrest patrons for engaging in casual conservations,” said PJI Staff Attorney Matthew McReynolds. “While a ‘don’t talk to strangers’ rule may be good for kids, enforcing it against adults is absurd, and we think it violates California’s free speech guarantees.”
The case is being pursued under the state’s constitutional provision for free speech, which extends protections to private locations, because the First Amendment to the Constitution deals directly with government restrictions.
McReynolds said had the case been argued in federal court, it would have had to focus on the discriminatory nature of the mall’s restrictions.
“Singling out religious speech for punishment violates our most basic principles of free expression,” said PJI President Brad Dacus. “If anyone can be arrested for wearing a Christian T-shirt or mentioning God in a shopping mall, we have lost not only our freedom, but our sanity as a society.”
PJI affiliate attorney Timothy Smith of the Sacramento firm McKinley & Smith served pro bono as Snatchko’s lead counsel in the trial court and continues to serve as part of the appellate team.
McReynolds told WND the case focuses on the “draconian” limits set by the mall that were used to arrest the youth pastor. While those charges were dropped, the result of that case wasn’t a court-adjudicated precedent that could be used to protect others.
He said while reasonable regulations certainly are allowed, such as volume limits, targeting speech for banishment because of its subject is not.
“What they cannot do and did in this case [is target] political and religious speech,” he said. “They originally chose to arrest the youth pastor for striking up a casual conversation. Since then, they’ve dug in their heels and are standing firm in their belief they can do whatever they want.”
Oral arguments haven’t been scheduled by the court in the case, and there’s no time frame available yet for when a decision might be reached, McReynolds said.
But PJI’s brief to the court explained the issue.
“The underlying interest of defendants clearly relates to content. While the act of speaking is not generally prohibited, the act of speaking a particular message without a permit is,” the brief said. “Defendants argue that if they do not disagree with the message of the speech, and if the applications are accepted on a first come, first selected basis, the regulation is content neutral.
“Even if the defendants determined that the recipients of the speech might be uncomfortable due to the speech, such a basis for restricting plaintiffs speech is not content neutral.”
The mall’s regulations, besides disallowing commercial speech and speech about religion or politics, also include an exception for those subjects if a speaker knew the other person previously.
“Under the exemption, the plaintiff would have been allowed to have the same conversation in the same exact place if only he had previously met the people with whom he was speaking,” the brief challenged.
“The notion that an individual is not allowed to speak with a stranger about a non-commercial topic without first having their speech examined is preposterous, and is truly silencing in every sense of the word,” the brief said.
The mall’s rules require “a submission of the subject matter of the spoken or written speech,” the brief continued. “Defendants’ licensing process as a whole has a great deal to do with speakers’ message. Not only does the application process require an examination of the subject matter, but plaintiff was actually referred to the licensing application process only after the security guard listened to the content of plaintiff’s speech.”
Officials with Westfield Group, the corporation that owns the mall, did not respond to a WND message requesting comment.
The company’s website says it entered the U.S. market in 1977 by purchasing a single shopping center and today has 55 centers across the U.S. in key markets such as northern California, Chicago, southern Florida, Los Angeles, New Jersey, New York, San Diego and Washington.
“The Westfield Group is the world’s largest listed retail property group by equity market capitalization. The Group has interests in and operates a global portfolio of 119 high-quality regional shopping centers in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, valued at more than $62 billion. Westfield works with over 23,600 retailers across more than 10 million square meters of retail space,” it boasts.
Pacific Justice said Snatchko originally was confronted during a casual conversation with two other shoppers about faith when a store employee listened to the conversation and alerted mall security guards.
Besides the ban on conversations with strangers about religion or politics, the mall also bans any clothing with religious or political messages.
LINK: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123535
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Is America Still Making Men?
EXCELLENT ARTICLE!!!! Couldn’t agree more!
Is America Still Making Men?
By Dennis Prager
Frontpage Magazine
Every society has to answer a few basic questions in order to succeed and even in order to survive. One of them is, “How do we make good men?”
The reason for the importance of this question is simple: Males untutored about how to control their natures will likely do much harm. Conversely, males who are taught to how to control themselves and to channel their drives in positive directions make the world a much better place. The good man is a glory of civilization; the bad man ruins it.
Throughout American history, American society asked, “How do we make men?” (It was understood that “man” meant a good man.) Anyone who thought about the subject knew that boys who are not transformed into men remain boys. And when too many boys do not grow up into men, women suffer and society suffers.
What is a man (as opposed to a boy)? The traditional understanding was that a man is he who takes responsibility for others — for his family, his community and his country — and, of course, for himself. A man stood for ideals and values higher than himself. He conducted himself with dignity. And he was strong.
For much of American history, making boys into men was understood to be of supreme importance, and society was usually successful. When I was a boy in the 1950s, without anyone expressly defining it, I knew what a man was supposed to be. And I knew that society, not to mention my parents, expected me to be one. It went without explicitly saying so that I would have to make a living, support myself as soon as possible and support a family thereafter.
When I acted immaturely, I was told to be or act like a man. I wonder how many boys are told to “be a man” today; and if they were, would they have a clue as to what that meant? It would appear that for millions of American boys, this has not been the reality for decades. Many families and society as a whole seem to have forgotten boys need to be made into men.
There are numerous reasons:
1. The distinction between men and boys has been largely obliterated. The older males that many American boys encounter are essentially older boys, not men. They speak, dress, and act similarly (think of men who “high-five” young boys instead of shaking their hands). And they are almost all called by their first names. Even when a boy (or girl) addresses an adult male as “Mr.,” many men will correct the young boy or girl — “Call me” and then give the young person his first name. This is often true even with regard to teachers, physicians and members of the clergy. When a young person calls an adult by his first name, the status of the two individuals has been essentially equated. Boys need men to respect. It’s not impossible to do so when they call men by their first names, but it makes it much harder.
2. Boys today have fewer adult men in their lives than ever before. Many boys are not raised by any father. More are not raised by a father who lives in the home full time. Nearly every teacher and principal American boys have in elementary and high school is a female. The boy’s clergy person and physician may well be women. And few male figures in contemporary film radiate manhood as defined above.
3. The ideals of masculinity and femininity have been largely rendered extinct. Feminism, arguably the most influential American movement of the 20th century, declared war on the concepts of femininity and masculinity. And for much of the population, it was victorious. Indeed, thanks to the feminist teaching that male and female human beings are essentially the same (note, incidentally, that no one argues that male and female animals are the same, only human beings are), untold numbers of boys have been raised as if they were like girls. They were denied masculine toys such as play guns and toy soldiers, and their male forms of play — e.g., roughhousing — were banned.
4. America has become a rights-centered rather than a responsibility-centered society. Aside from helping to produce a pandemic of narcissism, the rights-centered mindset is the opposite of the obligation/responsibility-centered mindset that makes a boy into a man. It is not good for either sex to be rights-preoccupied; but it is particularly devastating to developing men, as men are supposed to be obligation-directed. The baby boomer generation helped destroy manhood in most of the ways described here. One additional example was its widespread slogan, “Make love, not war.” One cannot come up with a more unmanly piece of advice: “Don’t fight for your country, screw girls.” If the greatest generation had adopted that motto, Hitler and Tojo would have won. A few years ago, the city of Chicago named a street after Hugh Hefner, a man who has played games much of the day and night, lived in pajamas and devoted his life to sex — quite a model of manhood for American boys.
5. There are few places where men can bond with other men. One major way men become men is by associating with other good men. The only places left where this normally takes place are sports teams and the military. The same holds true for boys. And much of society is now working on breaking the most significant all-boys institution, the Boy Scouts.
6. Males no longer have distinctive roles. Men do best when they are relied upon, when needed; and they feel most needed when they do something distinct from women. This exists today in sports and the military. It is symbolic — significantly so — that there are no more “men at work” signs on highways. Now “people” are at work. “Men” have disappeared.
7. Many churches and synagogues have been feminized. This has occurred in at least three important ways: Clergy are increasingly female (and touchy-feely males) — for the first time in Christian and Jewish history; God is often depicted as androgynous and no longer either demanding or judging (He just loves all the time); and religion has been changed from morally and theologically demanding to a therapeutic model. So religion, too, has become yet another place where boys encounter few men, and few masculine models (even in God, as noted, is no longer masculine).
8. Instead of the traditional American model of masculinity, which was a rare combination of masculine toughness and stoicism with doing good (e.g., Superman), boys are now taught to be preoccupied with their feelings and with (unearned) self-esteem. They are not even allowed to lose; all boys playing a sport are given trophies, not just winners.
9. Increasingly, marriage is regarded as optional. The most obvious expression of men assuming responsibility — marrying a woman and taking care of her and their children — is no longer a male ideal. Vast numbers of men quite openly admit to having problems with the C-word (commitment) and responsibility of being a family’s sole breadwinner.
When boys do not become men, women assume their roles. But they are not happy doing so. There are any number of reasons American women suffer from depression more than ever before and more than men. It is difficult to believe that one of those reasons is not the very emasculation of men that the movement working in their name helped to bring about. And so, a vicious cycle has commenced — men stop being men; women become man-like; men retreat even further from their manly role; and women get sadder.
LINK: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/19/is-america-still-making-men/
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )PBS Bans Religous Programming
Goodbye religious freedom and freedom of speech. Hello to Obama’s Dictatorship and his running every aspect of our lives!
PBS Wages War On Pro-Lifers
by Brent Bozell
The Public Broadcasting Service recently announced it will not allow new religious programming on their taxpayer-subsidized airwaves. The handful of stations that have shown a Catholic Mass or Mormon devotions will be allowed to continue, but the other 300-plus stations have been instructed to avoid any kind of evangelism.
Welcome to Barack Obama’s new world order.
News reports explained that the PBS station services committee insisted on applying a 1985 rule that all PBS shows must be “noncommercial, nonpartisan and nonsectarian.”
To everyone who’s watched a pledge drive or contemplated a toy store stuffed with “Sesame Street” toys, the idea that PBS is following any “noncommercial” policy is absurd.
To everyone who’s watched two minutes of “Bill Moyers Journal,” with its panels unanimously screaming for Bush’s impeachment, or more recently, for a single-payer socialist health-care system, the idea of PBS being devoted to a “nonpartisan” stance is several miles removed from ridiculous.
But the atheists and secularists who want all traces of sectarian “proselytizing” for Jesus banned from PBS do have something to say about PBS public-affairs programming. “Nova” creates a special to shred the authenticity of the Bible, and PBS doesn’t think to assemble a committee to evaluate it. PBS stations air tax-subsidized documentaries celebrating lesbian-feminist choirs, “transgender” riots and a liberal teenager fighting against abstinence education, and nobody inside “public” broadcasting wonders whether they’re guilty of doing the very “proselytizing” they condemn.
As part of its wave of secular fundamentalism, PBS celebrates even late-term abortionists with a fanaticism that would curl the hair of any pro-lifer. On June 12, the PBS show “Now” (formerly with Bill Moyers) devoted most of its half-hour to smearing the pro-life movement as a vicious band of terrorists. They hailed two men who abort babies into the ninth month, Dr. Warren Hern of Colorado and Dr. Leroy Carhart of Nebraska. Reporter Maria Hinojosa briefly noted at one point that pro-life groups issued press releases denouncing Dr. Tiller’s murder. But those words were lies, claimed the abortionists.
Carhart attacked. “They may claim innocence, and they may technically, under the law, be innocent, but their heart was certainly with Scott Roeder on the day that he shot Dr. Tiller.”
Hern echoed: “The anti-abortion organizations, you know, making these statements of distress and disapproval. No, no, no, no, no. This is what they wanted to happen. And it happened.”
Oppose abortion, even very late in pregnancy, and PBS is clear. You are a terrorist.
Let’s go back to Hern. “This is a terrorist movement. And they instill fear in people,” he said. “This is not an abortion debate. There’s no debate. This is a civil war. The anti-abortion people are using bombs and bullets. And they’ve been doing this for 30 years.”
“Now” host David Brancaccio began the program with a topic sentence: was Tiller’s murder terrorism, and did it succeed? Hinojosa asked Hern: “Do you say they’ve won? They’ve been successful?” Hern whacked that softball question silly: “Of course, they won. But this is the consequence of this kind of violence and terrorism. Terrorism works … The message from the anti-abortion movement is, ‘Do what we tell you to do, or we will kill you.’ And they do.”
On MSNBC, Hern uncorked this slur: “The main difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.” For this, he is hailed on our taxpayer-funded airwaves as a feminist hero, a very brave provider of services for desperate women.
Where was the airtime for the pro-lifers? Hinojosa granted a few seconds to Randall Terry — in the familiar soundbite declaring the pro-life movement didn’t cause Tiller’s death, but Tiller was a mass murderer. PBS also aired a series of Bill O’Reilly segments where he referred to “Tiller the Baby Killer.” Hinojosa again set up Hern, this time to denounce O’Reilly as an accessory to murder: “It’s offensive, it’s vulgar, it’s grotesque, it’s fascist speech that’s designed to get Dr. Tiller killed, and it worked.”
Despite the noxious theme that describing abortion as the death of a baby enables terrorism, no one — not Terry, not O’Reilly, not a single professional in the pro-life movement — was granted the courtesy of an interview by PBS.
This story has a very disturbing ending. Ken Bode, hired by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as an ombudsman or viewers’ advocate, lauded the show as “strong and convincing on this point: radical, anti-abortion opponents, including Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, are guilty of promoting domestic terrorism.” Bode even said “Now” has established itself for reporting “within the boundaries of fairness and balance mandated by PBS standards.”
That only underlines that there are no standards for balance at PBS on the issues religious Americans care about. There’s only a standard of malice.
LINK: http://townhall.com/Columnists/BrentBozell/2009/06/24/pbs_wages_war_on_pro-lifers
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Supervisor Asks Woman to Take Down American Flag
This is infuriating!!! If you are offended by the American flag then get the heck out of the country!!!!!! There is NO place for you here!!!
Supervisor Asks Woman To Take Down American Flag
Is it okay to show your patriotism at the office?
For one Arlington woman, the answer was “no” after she hung an American flag in her office just before the Memorial Day weekend.
Debbie McLucas is one of four hospital supervisors at Kindred Hospital in Mansfield. Last week, she hung a three-by-five foot American flag in the office she shares with the other supervisors.
When McLucas came to work Friday, her boss told her another supervisor had found her flag offensive. “I was just totally speechless. I was like, ‘You’re kidding me,'” McLucas said.
McLucas’ husband and sons are former military men. Her daughter is currently serving in Iraq as a combat medic.
Stifling a cry, McLucas said, “I just wonder if all those young men and women over there are really doing this for nothing.”
McLucas said the supervisor who complained has been in the United States for 14 years and is formerly from Africa. McLucas said the supervisor took down Debbie’s flag herself.
“The flag and the pole had been placed on the floor,” McLucas said. But McLucas also said hospital higher ups had told her some patients’ families and visitors had also complained.
“I was told it wouldn’t matter if it was only one person,” she said. “It would have to come down.”
McLucas said hospital bosses told her as far as patriotism was concerned, the flag flying outside the hospital building would have to suffice.
Kindred Hospital Corporate Headquarters are located in Kentucky. They have yet to make a final decision on the matter. They have not returned our phone calls for comment.
The Kindred Hospital Corporation was chosen as Fortune’s most admired for 2009. McLucas hopes they’ll back her patriotism.
“I find it very frightening because if I can’t display my flag, what other freedoms will I lose before all is said and done,” McLucas asked.
LINK: http://cbs11tv.com/local/patriotism.at.office.2.1020415.html
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )« Previous Entries
Don't Get Me Started... 