Keeping this short and sweet as hubby has a four day and we've got a lot going on this weekend (so I probably won't be back up and running until Tuesday morning, I might post a tidbit here or there if things start to get super dicey). So Happy Friday! Did you see what the UK did? It said that it won't back Obama in a strike against Syria. The British people didn't want to risk their people in a very uncertain situation -- especially after Iraq & Afghanistan. France is still with us but well it's France and they have amazing food but uhhhhh... Yeah. So we're going at it alone with rumors of just enough power that doesn't make O a joke (too late!) after he's moved the red line to suit his needs. I'll be keeping an eye on these throughout the weekend, if only to keep reassuring myself that these people will not be stupid enough to put boots on the ground in Syria. (Yes I have my nagging doubts, I do, but I've made it very clear on where I stand when it comes to Syria)
Oh, one of the labor bigwigs held a press conference and was talking about Obamacare and how it's great in theory but they want unions to be exempt. But of course you do because you finally realized that it's crappy legislation. And they want the full time work week to be redefined as 30-hour weeks. Probably because a lot of employers are cutting their employees down to 30 hours a week if not less time in order not to pay the crazy taxes affiliated with Obamacare. Please just urge your congressional representatives to scrap this junk legislation altogether -- and just remember the President is signing Executive Orders exempting himself, the VP, Congress, I think unions already have or will be exempted, big businesses got an extension. But don't worry, the little people will still be forced into this tax in 2014, why aren't more people outraged by it? My guess is that once it kicks in and they really start to understand the ramifications they'll demand it go away as well.
Ok, I'm hungry like a kid on Michelle's school lunch plan. Enjoy your weekend!!
Friday, August 30, 2013
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Boston Strong since 1773
So, I was playing on Pinterest and was trying to find some fun conservative stuff to pin when I saw this quote from Jeanne Garofalo:
Really? I'm not a die hard Tea Party gal, but I appreciate their grassroots movement. I actually have a lot of friends who are Tea Party members and they do know their history (not the history that is taught today -- especially up in the Ivies I'm sure). I'm a firm believer though that history is bound to repeat itself if lessons are never learned from the mistakes of the past therefore this morning my dear Snarkers, we will be having a history lesson (I do love history, I had an amazing history professor at Kentucky, he was great and his lectures were rarely boring) so get that second cup of coffee and let's go! I promise to keep it brief as I have faith in the old school education system that at some point you learned about this in school.
Boston is solidly in my Top Five Favorite Cities of the United States. Boston Strong isn't a new slogan for Boston, it's been around since day one. And back in 1773, Bostonians were fed up with King George III and his silly taxes on tea (tea, not even coffee... Trust me, there'd be a riot if someone had increased the taxes and told me that I must go through a certain supplier for my coffee) and his tyrannical ways. Bostonians rallied, snuck aboard the tea ships and dumped it into the harbor. I say, yay for them! Seriously, what better way to send a message and essentially flip the bird at King George than to dump out all that money into the waters? Refusing shipments like they did in other cities, yeah ok woohoo but to sneak on board and just dump it into the water? Brilliant in my opinion. King George got the message, enacted the Coercive Acts of 1774 thinking that would punish the colonists in Massachusetts; these including the Quartering Act (forcing colonists to accept British soldiers into their homes), the Administration of Justice Act (gave immunity to British soldiers who committed crimes in Massachusetts), the Port Act (closed the port in Boston until it was cleaned and damages paid), and the Massachusetts Governing Act which restricted town meetings and appointed the town council. Eventually the colonists revolted, fought the Brits for their independence and established our great nation.
Now, how the heck does this worry me for history repeating itself? Obamacare my dear Snarkers, Obamacare. Obamacare has been deemed a tax by the activist Supreme Court. It is a tax that was forced upon the American people without legislators even bothering to read it ("But we must pass the bill so you can find out [what is in it]," said Nancy Pelosi). Now that more Americans are seeing their health care premiums being raised, they won't be able to keep their plan as their employers are cutting their hours in order to not have to pay ridiculous amounts of money for health care insurance for their employees in order to stay in business, they won't be able to see their same provider because that provider is changing their policies in order to not go out of business themselves. Most Americans do not want Obamacare. The President and Congress have been exempt from Obamacare because they want to keep the insurance they already have. But who cares about the people because it's all about them, right? Kind of like, why would King George care about the colonists tea preference unless it makes him money. While Americans haven't staged their own version of the Boston Tea Party (yet), a form of Coercive Acts has already been implemented upon us citizens. Conservatives have been targeted by the IRS in an eyebrow raising number (kind of a form of the Mass Governing Act, with restrictions on what can be discussed at these conservative group meetings). When Republican lawmakers summoned members to the Hill to discuss Benghazi (in which no one was fired despite this epic failure of security and communication), in a way the Administration Justice Act was thrown in here and immunity was given to the powers that be in the Administration. Next we will have government officials in our homes, doing inspections to make sure that we're all in compliance with Obamacare because let's face it, the IRS is not credible enough to do this.
So for this conservative lady, it isn't about bashing Democrats, it is about taxes and I do know my history. If the Democrats were truly doing a good job and doing good for the people, a budget would have been passed when they held a majority in both houses and controlled the White House (they haven't), they wouldn't turn tragedies into political gain and divide the nation further, they wouldn't pass laws and tell us that we'll find out what's in it after it's been passed and then exempt themselves from it. Maybe it is time to rally and dump some tea in the harbor.
It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don't know their history at all.
Really? I'm not a die hard Tea Party gal, but I appreciate their grassroots movement. I actually have a lot of friends who are Tea Party members and they do know their history (not the history that is taught today -- especially up in the Ivies I'm sure). I'm a firm believer though that history is bound to repeat itself if lessons are never learned from the mistakes of the past therefore this morning my dear Snarkers, we will be having a history lesson (I do love history, I had an amazing history professor at Kentucky, he was great and his lectures were rarely boring) so get that second cup of coffee and let's go! I promise to keep it brief as I have faith in the old school education system that at some point you learned about this in school.
Boston is solidly in my Top Five Favorite Cities of the United States. Boston Strong isn't a new slogan for Boston, it's been around since day one. And back in 1773, Bostonians were fed up with King George III and his silly taxes on tea (tea, not even coffee... Trust me, there'd be a riot if someone had increased the taxes and told me that I must go through a certain supplier for my coffee) and his tyrannical ways. Bostonians rallied, snuck aboard the tea ships and dumped it into the harbor. I say, yay for them! Seriously, what better way to send a message and essentially flip the bird at King George than to dump out all that money into the waters? Refusing shipments like they did in other cities, yeah ok woohoo but to sneak on board and just dump it into the water? Brilliant in my opinion. King George got the message, enacted the Coercive Acts of 1774 thinking that would punish the colonists in Massachusetts; these including the Quartering Act (forcing colonists to accept British soldiers into their homes), the Administration of Justice Act (gave immunity to British soldiers who committed crimes in Massachusetts), the Port Act (closed the port in Boston until it was cleaned and damages paid), and the Massachusetts Governing Act which restricted town meetings and appointed the town council. Eventually the colonists revolted, fought the Brits for their independence and established our great nation.
Now, how the heck does this worry me for history repeating itself? Obamacare my dear Snarkers, Obamacare. Obamacare has been deemed a tax by the activist Supreme Court. It is a tax that was forced upon the American people without legislators even bothering to read it ("But we must pass the bill so you can find out [what is in it]," said Nancy Pelosi). Now that more Americans are seeing their health care premiums being raised, they won't be able to keep their plan as their employers are cutting their hours in order to not have to pay ridiculous amounts of money for health care insurance for their employees in order to stay in business, they won't be able to see their same provider because that provider is changing their policies in order to not go out of business themselves. Most Americans do not want Obamacare. The President and Congress have been exempt from Obamacare because they want to keep the insurance they already have. But who cares about the people because it's all about them, right? Kind of like, why would King George care about the colonists tea preference unless it makes him money. While Americans haven't staged their own version of the Boston Tea Party (yet), a form of Coercive Acts has already been implemented upon us citizens. Conservatives have been targeted by the IRS in an eyebrow raising number (kind of a form of the Mass Governing Act, with restrictions on what can be discussed at these conservative group meetings). When Republican lawmakers summoned members to the Hill to discuss Benghazi (in which no one was fired despite this epic failure of security and communication), in a way the Administration Justice Act was thrown in here and immunity was given to the powers that be in the Administration. Next we will have government officials in our homes, doing inspections to make sure that we're all in compliance with Obamacare because let's face it, the IRS is not credible enough to do this.
So for this conservative lady, it isn't about bashing Democrats, it is about taxes and I do know my history. If the Democrats were truly doing a good job and doing good for the people, a budget would have been passed when they held a majority in both houses and controlled the White House (they haven't), they wouldn't turn tragedies into political gain and divide the nation further, they wouldn't pass laws and tell us that we'll find out what's in it after it's been passed and then exempt themselves from it. Maybe it is time to rally and dump some tea in the harbor.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Another Strike...
It's pretty well known amongst my family that I expect B (and any future children) to be SEC kids. We're already pretty sure that B will be a footballer and I've already stated that he can bypass my beloved Kentucky if offered a scholarship at Alabama, or Ole Miss. But I have made it pretty clear that I don't want B going to an ACC or Big 10 school (I know that this can change overtime, but for the moment, no ACC and definitely no OSU, or Louisville... I know, I know I have some issues but it's because I've been spoiled by the wonderfulness that is the SEC). Well, hubby's family are pretty big Virginia Tech fans and what have you (they're ok in football given the conference that they're in, not exactly a powerhouse for college football) so they're always saying how cool it would be for B (and the other grandkids and great grandkids in the family) to go to Tech. Aside from it's athletic conference, and it's horrible color scheme (who looks good in orange and burgundy? No one, that's who. But everyone looks stunningly amazing in blue and white) it does have a decent academic program. But I'm bias and I'm B's momma therefore I'm going to push SEC schools or threaten to withhold money to help him pay for college (extreme, yes but clearly you're not devoted to a cause like this; hubby once asked if I'd sooner wear convict orange over burgundy and orange, I wouldn't much like it but I'd sooner be the mother of a Vol than a mother of a hookie (what the heck is a hookie?)). Ok I swear I'm getting to the point and here it is: at 430am I saw this from The Young Cons on my newsfeed.
I'm all for free speech, I think the ability to speak freely is a good thing and keeps a society healthy. I also believe that you don't have to support military action but you sure as hell better support our troops and acknowledge the good and sacrifices that they make for the right to jackholes to write this (it's the full article) what in my opinion is absolute crap. I know that I'm completely bias in the situation, the wife of a soldier, the daughter and granddaughter on both sides of a retired soldiers, the niece and cousin of soldier, the sister of a Marine and I am damn proud to be so. So when you essentially write a piece that rivals that piece of trash the Huffington Post published not that long ago stating that we're an entitled lot who don't deserve any of it without fully understanding what we go through day in and day out, well you can kiss my patriotic, bleed red, white and blue til the day that I die, will always support our troops ass. When someone dares to write:
Such troop worship is trite and tiresome, but that’s not its primary danger.
A nation that continuously publicizes appeals to “support our troops” is
explicitly asking its citizens not to think. It is the ideal slogan for
suppressing the practice of democracy, presented to us
in the guise of democratic preservation.
Perhaps the nation on a larger scale realizes that only 1% of the entire population is willing and able to serve in our armed forces. One. Per cent. It's amazing that 1% has become synonymous with some economic causes/pushes within the last two years but to our family the only 1% that matters is that who risk their lives to try to bring peace and democracy to other nations where they don't have the right to spew their liberal ideas or conservative ideas or their crazy ideas. It's this 1% who sacrifices high paying jobs in some cases, who sacrifices time with their families, who get blamed for wars they don't start or cannot finish, who are on duty twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred sixty five days a year. It is this 1% who tirelessly will hunt down those trying to bring misery upon our nation and our people. Yes, some people do abuse their troop status, or the benefits of claiming they support the troops. That is bound to happen even in non-military situations and populations. But to say that supporting our troops suppresses democracy makes me laugh -- especially given the current political clime. I would venture to guess that a vast majority of troops and military families would say that they do not feel supported by this administration. They're basically just used as props (anyone remember when Michelle gave out that Oscar with service members standing behind her just after Benghazi happened and no one wanted to give answers? How the President had a Marine hold his umbrella in a drizzle? How many past presidents have ventured overseas to have holiday meals with the troops and have actually served them and sat and talked with them versus this current administration?). Right now, I think that the troops are one of our last lines to uphold the democracy of this country. But, I'm just a stay at home mom, Army wife, and proud SEC fan so what do I know?
Oh, and if you didn't click on the links, the reason behind my Tech tirade: this jerk is a professor at Virginia Tech. While I expect most professors to be more concerned about fawning over this administration, teaching a full semester of being able to enjoy orgasms, promoting anything but what this country was founded on, I draw the line at putting money into a school that has a professor who throws it out there (in a very military heavy state mind you) that we should no longer support the troops. He has to freedom to spout whatever he wants, just as I do, but if B went to Tech (which he won't) and had English with this professor, I'd probably be raising hell and threatening to not pay for that class. And maybe rally up a bunch of service members I know to occupy his class and tell their stories and maybe have this guy understand why people support our troops. It's probably a safe bet that he's never actually come into contact with a vet for more than a few minutes.
May God bless all our men and women serving down range; may He keep them safe, bringing comfort to their families that are anxiously waiting at home for them; may He guide those in leadership with a sure hand and bring everyone home safely.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Capture The Flag
It's bbbbaaaaaccccckkkkk! Over the weekend with all the March on Washington rallies and such, someone captured it. The Obama flag is back! It's popped up here and there over the last several years but amid all the racial tension, the scandals, the push towards tyranny (ok, socialism, but with a lot of these people that are in places of power, it's only a matter of time before it becomes tyranny) of course the flag is back -- because Obama is the best president this country has ever seen and if you don't agree then you're racist or wearing a tinfoil hat or waging the war on women or trying to take away rights or or or... Yeah. Keep pulling up all the crazy counterclaims that make it seem like you're just oh so proud Americans (even though you apologize for how horrendous Americans are because of cases like Trayvon Martin and immigration and a lack of healthcare for all). If you truly love this country in my opinion, you'd respect our beloved flag.
If Americans had burned the Quran on the Mall all hell would break loose. If you deny that, then just go back into your pink shoe wearing, amnesty for all, George W and Rush are the devil poster filled hole. I'm not trying to be a jerk but just reasonable. So why is it ok to remove the stars from our flag and replace it with the President's face? Is it because Obama doesn't know how many states are in the Union (there's 50) so his faithful followers are trying to help him out? We could revert to our favorite scenario, if a Republican let's say decided to put George W's face in place of the stars, again like the Quran burning, it would light a whole bunch of public fury. I'm so sick of this double standard crazy that the other side likes to utilize. I'm over this "do as we say or else get out of this country." If that mentality is kept up then perhaps before long, people with money who pay the most into the system will get fed up and leave. Then we'll have an entire country looking like Detroit.
Now if you go back to the Twitchy article, if you look at one of the screenshots, the lady waving the flag seems to be a member of the National Education Association (NEA), which is... The teachers' union. Awesome. I understand that teachers back when I was in grade school weren't allowed to disclose their political affiliations in the classroom. Social studies teachers to include history and government teachers were to remain neutral on how they presented certain events and people in history. Somehow, I don't feel that neutrality exists amongst a majority of our teachers today -- especially those teaching at the high school level. I'm not even going to touch at the university level, as a political science major, I had my fair share of liberal professors but always stuck my ground. It does bother me that an apparent member of the NEA was proudly wearing this flag. Does she remain impartial in her classroom, or does she ferret out students' parents' political affiliations and find fun ways to punish them in order to create mini-locksteppers? As the mother of a toddler, it is instances like this as well as Common Core that really makes me want to homeschool B if we can't afford Montessori.
Finally, finally... I wonder how much trouble we would get in if I decided to fly an American flag upside down in front of our house one day. Granted I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't even begin to know the meaning behind that and would probably roll their eyes, assuming we're idiots, or come ring my doorbell to inform me of my "error". I doubt that they'd think the best of me if I just laughed at them and shut the door in their face, but at this point I'd fly Old Glory upside down before I ever let a flag fly desecrated with the face of our President.
If Americans had burned the Quran on the Mall all hell would break loose. If you deny that, then just go back into your pink shoe wearing, amnesty for all, George W and Rush are the devil poster filled hole. I'm not trying to be a jerk but just reasonable. So why is it ok to remove the stars from our flag and replace it with the President's face? Is it because Obama doesn't know how many states are in the Union (there's 50) so his faithful followers are trying to help him out? We could revert to our favorite scenario, if a Republican let's say decided to put George W's face in place of the stars, again like the Quran burning, it would light a whole bunch of public fury. I'm so sick of this double standard crazy that the other side likes to utilize. I'm over this "do as we say or else get out of this country." If that mentality is kept up then perhaps before long, people with money who pay the most into the system will get fed up and leave. Then we'll have an entire country looking like Detroit.
Now if you go back to the Twitchy article, if you look at one of the screenshots, the lady waving the flag seems to be a member of the National Education Association (NEA), which is... The teachers' union. Awesome. I understand that teachers back when I was in grade school weren't allowed to disclose their political affiliations in the classroom. Social studies teachers to include history and government teachers were to remain neutral on how they presented certain events and people in history. Somehow, I don't feel that neutrality exists amongst a majority of our teachers today -- especially those teaching at the high school level. I'm not even going to touch at the university level, as a political science major, I had my fair share of liberal professors but always stuck my ground. It does bother me that an apparent member of the NEA was proudly wearing this flag. Does she remain impartial in her classroom, or does she ferret out students' parents' political affiliations and find fun ways to punish them in order to create mini-locksteppers? As the mother of a toddler, it is instances like this as well as Common Core that really makes me want to homeschool B if we can't afford Montessori.
Finally, finally... I wonder how much trouble we would get in if I decided to fly an American flag upside down in front of our house one day. Granted I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't even begin to know the meaning behind that and would probably roll their eyes, assuming we're idiots, or come ring my doorbell to inform me of my "error". I doubt that they'd think the best of me if I just laughed at them and shut the door in their face, but at this point I'd fly Old Glory upside down before I ever let a flag fly desecrated with the face of our President.
Monday, August 26, 2013
A Syriously Short Post
There's rumblings going around that we could send military into Syria. My position is short and sweet: No. We don't know who the enemy is over there, whether it's the fallen regime, the rebels, the military, there are no clear lines of who is our enemy. Usually, I back war because war brings jobs and keeps my husband in a job. Yes I know the repercussions, and fully understand that. While an ultimate sacrifice is never what anyone, whether military or civilian, wants to hear of the fact is, it's apart of this life. And if you think that we should just blindly send military members into a chaotic situation you are nuts. Would you support the NYPD or LAPD or BPD sending in their SWAT units into chaos without a clear plan of action, without knowing who they are targeting? While it is tragic what is happening in Syria (and Egypt) the fact remains, we cannot go into further debt, and risk our military members lives just because someone is using chemical weapons, or bombing, or whatever. Until we have a clear plan of action, a clear enemy we stay put. Too many people were irate at the Bush administration for putting us in Iraq and Afghanistan, do you really think that putting boots on the ground in Syria would be any different?
ID Please
Let's face it, if we were to look in your wallet, purse, whatever more than likely we'd find a form of government issued photo identification. For military families, that stupid ID card is like a lifeline and god forbid you lose it because then you can't get in to see the doctor, pick up a prescription, or you know, even get on post in a timely manner or sit and suffer through the vehicle check for those without. Seriously, I panic faster when I can't find that versus my driver's license (which I'm sure that most of you have). In addition to being my lifeline here on post, it's my lifeline in case I have an accident while out running (yeah, I hear all my friends laughing at that, I giggled too -- I haven't ran in months and have a 5k in two weeks, awesome) or on my bike. Having a photo ID seems pretty commonplace for most folks, in addition to the above mentioned reasons you need it to purchase booze (Kroger has to input your birthday into their register before you can purchase), cigarettes, R rated movies, a firearm, to board an aircraft, to cross into a foreign country, to obtain a job, the list goes on. You don't need an ID to vote though, seriously, you don't.
The Department of Justice (DoJ) is trying to prevent states like North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas from making voters show a photo ID to prove that they're actually the person voting. Personally, I've never understood why I haven't needed to show my ID when voting because it makes sense to me. The reason behind the DoJ's action is this: requiring voters to show a photo ID disenfranchises and discourages minority voters. I wish I was making that up. Despite that fact that North Carolina has even said that they will make photo IDs available free of charge (FREE!) for those who need one in order to vote. Ummmmmmm... Yeah, I'm baffled. How do you shut down that logic? Is it a matter of access to a Department of Motor Vehicles where these IDs will be issued? Pretty sure that each county has its own and often times, they have satellite offices throughout the county. I just cannot wrap my head around how this will be a detriment to legal citizens wishing to vote.
But then, I saw this article and giggled. Rep. Stockman pretty much nails it. Sometimes, I reconsider moving to Texas once hubby is out of the army since most of Texas is ok with guns & religion and they have common sense representatives like Rep. Stockman and Sen. Cruz. End of the day, showing proof of who you are isn't a burden unless you've got something to hide.
The Department of Justice (DoJ) is trying to prevent states like North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas from making voters show a photo ID to prove that they're actually the person voting. Personally, I've never understood why I haven't needed to show my ID when voting because it makes sense to me. The reason behind the DoJ's action is this: requiring voters to show a photo ID disenfranchises and discourages minority voters. I wish I was making that up. Despite that fact that North Carolina has even said that they will make photo IDs available free of charge (FREE!) for those who need one in order to vote. Ummmmmmm... Yeah, I'm baffled. How do you shut down that logic? Is it a matter of access to a Department of Motor Vehicles where these IDs will be issued? Pretty sure that each county has its own and often times, they have satellite offices throughout the county. I just cannot wrap my head around how this will be a detriment to legal citizens wishing to vote.
But then, I saw this article and giggled. Rep. Stockman pretty much nails it. Sometimes, I reconsider moving to Texas once hubby is out of the army since most of Texas is ok with guns & religion and they have common sense representatives like Rep. Stockman and Sen. Cruz. End of the day, showing proof of who you are isn't a burden unless you've got something to hide.
I Predict Another Train Wreck
Full disclosure: I did not watch the VMAs last night. In fact, I didn't know that MTV even played music videos still, that "artists" still made music videos, and honestly I wouldn't have known who most of those "artists" were anyway. My newsfeed did blow up over Miley Cyrus and twerking. If you don't know what twerking is, just google it because it's ridiculous and stupid. So I did a search of People, E!, and Twitchy to see what was up. Um, are you for real? If you missed it, and somehow I'd be shocked because I'm fairly certain it'll be brought up on the radio and TV throughout the morning, Twitchy has a run down of the tweets that went out last night.
I just wrote not that long ago about how these so called celebrities need to be mindful, that even if they don't believe they are role models, they are. Many young girls pretty much grew up with Miley as Hannah Montana was all the rage not that long ago. These girls still take social cues from Miley and honestly, I think now would be a perfect time for parents to step in and say, "No, what Miley did on the VMAs was tasteless, vulgar, and completely inappropriate. The behavior Miley displays is not how normal, functional people act in public." I did type most normal, functioning but let's be honest, if you tell a teenager that it's ok for someone who is normal and functioning to act like that then the whole point is lost. Miley did not push any envelops, she didn't shock and awe, she just flat out acted like trash. Again, this whole, it's normal for young girls to think acting like strippers, porn stars, sluts, etc notion needs to end. Modesty needs to make a comeback, and Jessica Rey of Rey Swimwear recently had a talk about modesty and the evolution of swimwear. I was pretty skeptical when I first saw this video pop up on my newsfeed but I took the time to listen to what she had to say. At the end of the day, Miley was just shameful, it lacked class, it lacked depth, it lacked shock, it lacked inspiration, it did nothing to liberate women and young people. It's time to rebel against the female "artists" who think that teaching our younger generations it's ok to be viewed as an object, not as a human.
Miley Cyrus, I won't be surprised if you're the next child star turned train wreck -- hopefully you get your act together and prove me wrong, but I won't hold my breath in the mean time.
I just wrote not that long ago about how these so called celebrities need to be mindful, that even if they don't believe they are role models, they are. Many young girls pretty much grew up with Miley as Hannah Montana was all the rage not that long ago. These girls still take social cues from Miley and honestly, I think now would be a perfect time for parents to step in and say, "No, what Miley did on the VMAs was tasteless, vulgar, and completely inappropriate. The behavior Miley displays is not how normal, functional people act in public." I did type most normal, functioning but let's be honest, if you tell a teenager that it's ok for someone who is normal and functioning to act like that then the whole point is lost. Miley did not push any envelops, she didn't shock and awe, she just flat out acted like trash. Again, this whole, it's normal for young girls to think acting like strippers, porn stars, sluts, etc notion needs to end. Modesty needs to make a comeback, and Jessica Rey of Rey Swimwear recently had a talk about modesty and the evolution of swimwear. I was pretty skeptical when I first saw this video pop up on my newsfeed but I took the time to listen to what she had to say. At the end of the day, Miley was just shameful, it lacked class, it lacked depth, it lacked shock, it lacked inspiration, it did nothing to liberate women and young people. It's time to rebel against the female "artists" who think that teaching our younger generations it's ok to be viewed as an object, not as a human.
Miley Cyrus, I won't be surprised if you're the next child star turned train wreck -- hopefully you get your act together and prove me wrong, but I won't hold my breath in the mean time.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
A Lil Snack
You know what's awesome, when people find out that Planned Parenthood doesn't offer mammograms. Yeah, most people don't know that but it's true. People are flipping out over this Buzz Feed article. You know what, some times the truth hurts. Just a lil something for the weekend, which I hope you all are enjoying!
Friday, August 23, 2013
Heroes and Workplace Violence
Being in the military community, you tend to pay attention to certain things more than others. Recently, the Bradley Manning and Nidal Hassan cases have been back on our radar. And they both grind my gears to no end. There's just so many articles that I wouldn't know where to start or which would be the best links, but trust me if you google them, you'll get results.
PFC Bradley Manning is a traitor, not a hero. He knowingly sold classified information to WikiLeaks that damaged credibility, were made available to the enemy and could have put our troops in an even more precarious position that could have compromised their safety. Hubby has been on multiple deployments, so as a spouse the last thing I need to worry about when he's downrange is that some jackass PFC has leaked information that could get my husband killed. I understand why we're there, I absolutely support our troops. You can argue until you're blue in the face with me but basically it all boils down to, if you had just been attacked on US soil and were the president, would you not have done the same thing? (Because look where ignoring problems and appeasement once got us (and if you don't get it, then I guess you're not a history person, sorry)) In my opinion, Manning got off light with 35 years. But now, now outlets are reporting that Manning wants to immediately start a sex change. Really? Seriously? No. Absolutely not. The government cannot allow this to happen on their dime. First off, the government doesn't have money for frivolous things like this in comparison to oh I don't know, let's say the economy, no actual passed budget since this administration took over (despite the fact that the Democrats controlled both houses and the White House and could have passed any budget they wanted but didn't -- real responsible leaders we have elected). Second off, he was still getting his measly E3 pay while sitting in the brig as far as I know. He can use that money to pay for it, after he serves his time. Someone pointed out that this may just be a ruse to distract from the real issue: he sold secrets as a soldier of the United States Army and is a traitor of the highest ranks.
Another traitor of the highest ranks is Major Nidal Hassan, also known as the Ft Hood Shooter. Although he has confessed that he was motivated by his faith and was in contact with a known extremist prior to his rampage, it is not being considered an act of terrorism but workplace violence. Are you serious? He killed 13 people, both civilians and soldiers, and wounded 30 more in the name of extreme Islam. He was in contact with our enemy, plotted with our enemy and it's still just workplace violence. Yes totally makes sense. He represented himself in court, he has said he wants to die for his actions. No. Sorry, Major but I don't think you should. I think that you should be sent to Gitmo and stay there until you rot. If the US government sentences you to death and carry it out then Hassan will be considered a martyr, and that is what he wants. In the meantime, the victims of this shooting have fought to gain the benefits that would have be granted if this had been declared what it was, an act of terror but because the government refuses to recognize it as such they continue to fight an unnecessary fight.
It's a sad day when our own soldiers turn against the country they've sworn to protect. It's an even sadder day when the country goes soft on these traitors, who knows how many more attacks they'll encourage by it.
PFC Bradley Manning is a traitor, not a hero. He knowingly sold classified information to WikiLeaks that damaged credibility, were made available to the enemy and could have put our troops in an even more precarious position that could have compromised their safety. Hubby has been on multiple deployments, so as a spouse the last thing I need to worry about when he's downrange is that some jackass PFC has leaked information that could get my husband killed. I understand why we're there, I absolutely support our troops. You can argue until you're blue in the face with me but basically it all boils down to, if you had just been attacked on US soil and were the president, would you not have done the same thing? (Because look where ignoring problems and appeasement once got us (and if you don't get it, then I guess you're not a history person, sorry)) In my opinion, Manning got off light with 35 years. But now, now outlets are reporting that Manning wants to immediately start a sex change. Really? Seriously? No. Absolutely not. The government cannot allow this to happen on their dime. First off, the government doesn't have money for frivolous things like this in comparison to oh I don't know, let's say the economy, no actual passed budget since this administration took over (despite the fact that the Democrats controlled both houses and the White House and could have passed any budget they wanted but didn't -- real responsible leaders we have elected). Second off, he was still getting his measly E3 pay while sitting in the brig as far as I know. He can use that money to pay for it, after he serves his time. Someone pointed out that this may just be a ruse to distract from the real issue: he sold secrets as a soldier of the United States Army and is a traitor of the highest ranks.
Another traitor of the highest ranks is Major Nidal Hassan, also known as the Ft Hood Shooter. Although he has confessed that he was motivated by his faith and was in contact with a known extremist prior to his rampage, it is not being considered an act of terrorism but workplace violence. Are you serious? He killed 13 people, both civilians and soldiers, and wounded 30 more in the name of extreme Islam. He was in contact with our enemy, plotted with our enemy and it's still just workplace violence. Yes totally makes sense. He represented himself in court, he has said he wants to die for his actions. No. Sorry, Major but I don't think you should. I think that you should be sent to Gitmo and stay there until you rot. If the US government sentences you to death and carry it out then Hassan will be considered a martyr, and that is what he wants. In the meantime, the victims of this shooting have fought to gain the benefits that would have be granted if this had been declared what it was, an act of terror but because the government refuses to recognize it as such they continue to fight an unnecessary fight.
It's a sad day when our own soldiers turn against the country they've sworn to protect. It's an even sadder day when the country goes soft on these traitors, who knows how many more attacks they'll encourage by it.
Here We Go Again....
I've had way too many thoughts rolling through my head and I just can't get them organized every time I try. Last night though had my blood boiling. I just wrote about how senseless the Chris Lane murder was and was wondering where the Trayvon Martin level of outrage was (still not there, in fact -- although Jesse Jackson acknowledged it with this tweet. Yes, "frowned upon", like what I do when spouses act all crazy around here). But then last night came another story of another bunch of thug teens who killed someone -- this time it was an 88-year old, WWII veteran who was beaten in a parking lot. There seems to be no motive, just that it was a random beating. What. The. Hell?!
Seriously people it's time that we go back to treating our children like children. We need to bring them up with respect for other people, for other people's property and most of all that if they fail to be good, decent human beings that fail to adhere to the rules we set for them that there will be consequences. My two year old understands that if he talks back, if he doesn't share his toys, if he hits/bites/punches another living being (this is to include our family's dog who, bless her heart, doesn't flip out every time he yanks her tail and attempts to drag her down the hallway) that there will be age appropriate consequences. Ok, so I know that I'm a long ways from having a teenager however I remember how I was raised and I knew that there were consequences for my actions, from being grounded to getting my car keys taken away and everything in between. My parents taught me to have respect for those around me, to help out in our community in whatever way I can (do they still require community service hours in high school in order to graduate?) and to just be a decent human being. I know that most of my friends growing up had the same rules (some of their parents might have been more strict or more lenient than mine, but still it was very similar across the board). And by high school, a lot of us had both parents working outside the home, which is pretty commonplace now to have both parents (or the only parent in some cases) work a regular job. I think that the main difference is, even with their fulltime jobs our parents managed to stay involved in our lives and knew who our friends were, where we were, etc. Parents need to be parents and they need to be in their kid's business. That didn't stop either when I was in college and home on breaks, I still had a curfew, was expected to help out around the house, hold a job during the summer, and follow a few simple rules. As close as my mother and I were, she was still my mother and often would say, "I'm not one of your friends off the street, I am your mother!"
Perhaps if we had more parents with the mantra my mother had, we wouldn't have teenagers killing for the hell of it. We would have productive young citizens in this country who would care more about their future and that of the country than the latest pair of Jordans, being the next reality star, or just simply proving that they're thug enough. Our culture needs to change because young men who prey on old men aren't strong, aren't cool, aren't badasses, they are weak, scared little boys.
Seriously people it's time that we go back to treating our children like children. We need to bring them up with respect for other people, for other people's property and most of all that if they fail to be good, decent human beings that fail to adhere to the rules we set for them that there will be consequences. My two year old understands that if he talks back, if he doesn't share his toys, if he hits/bites/punches another living being (this is to include our family's dog who, bless her heart, doesn't flip out every time he yanks her tail and attempts to drag her down the hallway) that there will be age appropriate consequences. Ok, so I know that I'm a long ways from having a teenager however I remember how I was raised and I knew that there were consequences for my actions, from being grounded to getting my car keys taken away and everything in between. My parents taught me to have respect for those around me, to help out in our community in whatever way I can (do they still require community service hours in high school in order to graduate?) and to just be a decent human being. I know that most of my friends growing up had the same rules (some of their parents might have been more strict or more lenient than mine, but still it was very similar across the board). And by high school, a lot of us had both parents working outside the home, which is pretty commonplace now to have both parents (or the only parent in some cases) work a regular job. I think that the main difference is, even with their fulltime jobs our parents managed to stay involved in our lives and knew who our friends were, where we were, etc. Parents need to be parents and they need to be in their kid's business. That didn't stop either when I was in college and home on breaks, I still had a curfew, was expected to help out around the house, hold a job during the summer, and follow a few simple rules. As close as my mother and I were, she was still my mother and often would say, "I'm not one of your friends off the street, I am your mother!"
Perhaps if we had more parents with the mantra my mother had, we wouldn't have teenagers killing for the hell of it. We would have productive young citizens in this country who would care more about their future and that of the country than the latest pair of Jordans, being the next reality star, or just simply proving that they're thug enough. Our culture needs to change because young men who prey on old men aren't strong, aren't cool, aren't badasses, they are weak, scared little boys.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Fun Has Changed in the Last Decade
So it started off fairly quietly, I honestly first saw it on The Blaze and then Fox News and now it seems as more details come out, more outlets are picking it up. Who kills someone just for fun? Seriously, who? Apparently these three teenagers do. First off, I feel so awful for the victim's family, girlfriend, teammates, and friends. What they're going through is absolutely horrendous. No one should ever have to go through a senseless tragedy such as this. Second off, good for the DA's office for prosecuting these three men as adults. Hopefully it will send a message to other wannabe young thugs that going around killing people isn't cool, it isn't fun, it isn't your video game where people just get life after life after life no matter how many times they got blown up or whatever. When I first read about this on The Blaze, it didn't identify the killers and in the comments there were people who immediately thought that it was suspect. Well today, not only were the killers identified but their mug shots were on display as well. It goes a step further on The Blaze and shows screenshots that were taken from the killers' facebook accounts, showing off weapons and if that is a legit photo, a significant amount of cash. My quick parent reaction was this, what in God's name are these kids doing brandishing weapons like that and why the hell do they have that much cash, in hundreds no less, in their possession? Please, someone explain this to me.
But here's where I'm very perplexed. Where are the Reverends? Why aren't they in Oklahoma raising hell, saying that the two accused killers have been wrongly accused and such? Especially since the two black men are younger than Trayvon Martin. I'm just wondering what the standard is here after the circus that was the Zimmerman trial and Al and Jesse ran their mouths saying that there was no justice. Where are the celebrities coming out in droves twitting and facebooking their support for these two guys? Seriously, what is the criteria to get that group riled up? Is it because the victim and one of the accused killers are white? If the killing of Trayvon Martin was senseless in their words, is than is the killing of Chris Lane an act of sense or something? Why are they not saying, this just needs to stop -- no matter what the skin color of the accused and the victim.
We need young people to have better role models than the guns, drugs and money thug life culture. I know that not every home is a two parent household or that one parent is always able to stay home; but parents need to be more involved in their child's life -- no matter how old. This whole it takes a village, I'll let someone else take care of it mentality is bullshit. Plain and simple. This just isn't an isolated incident in Oklahoma. This is happening throughout the country, whether young people are killing others just for fun or for drugs or money or gang allegiances or whatever. The Reverends, the activists, the celebrities all need to take a hard look at themselves and realize what is important and look at all the facts before screaming fire in a crowded theater. And these double standards of raising hell for political gain need to end. We need to value all lives.
But here's where I'm very perplexed. Where are the Reverends? Why aren't they in Oklahoma raising hell, saying that the two accused killers have been wrongly accused and such? Especially since the two black men are younger than Trayvon Martin. I'm just wondering what the standard is here after the circus that was the Zimmerman trial and Al and Jesse ran their mouths saying that there was no justice. Where are the celebrities coming out in droves twitting and facebooking their support for these two guys? Seriously, what is the criteria to get that group riled up? Is it because the victim and one of the accused killers are white? If the killing of Trayvon Martin was senseless in their words, is than is the killing of Chris Lane an act of sense or something? Why are they not saying, this just needs to stop -- no matter what the skin color of the accused and the victim.
We need young people to have better role models than the guns, drugs and money thug life culture. I know that not every home is a two parent household or that one parent is always able to stay home; but parents need to be more involved in their child's life -- no matter how old. This whole it takes a village, I'll let someone else take care of it mentality is bullshit. Plain and simple. This just isn't an isolated incident in Oklahoma. This is happening throughout the country, whether young people are killing others just for fun or for drugs or money or gang allegiances or whatever. The Reverends, the activists, the celebrities all need to take a hard look at themselves and realize what is important and look at all the facts before screaming fire in a crowded theater. And these double standards of raising hell for political gain need to end. We need to value all lives.
Better Late Than Never, Right?
I'm a slacker... I know. I promised the guys I'd make them biscuits for breakfast which in our house doesn't mean busting open that scary can (yes, I am terrified of losing an eye every time I have to open one of those cans) but actually making buttermilk biscuits from scratch. Well, I apparently was super motivated and did a double batch to freeze and in the middle of it little man was demanding stories so we ended up going to story time at the library. Whew, busy morning. Now though, now I have a few minutes to myself so let's do this (sorry if I seem slightly distracted, have The Real Housewives of Orange County on in the background, and if you're unaware it's the reunion episode... Bring on the drama!).
When did we turn into a bunch of whiney pansy assed babies in this country? So a few days ago as I was perusing facebook, my fav instigator posted this. Really? Seriously? People, people, people... This is why we need to issue parenting licenses (yes, I promise I will get to voter IDs within the next week or so). To me, putting your laundry pods, your dishwasher pods, your other detergents, your bleach, your cleaning supplies, everything that should have a "Mr Ick" (do you remember those? Am I dating myself with that?) sticker on it should be locked up, up high, whatever so your child doesn't to it is simple common sense. Then I have to remind myself, "Self, clearly people lack common sense if people are all in a tizzy and demanding that these pods be taken off the shelf."
Now, going back to the whole people need parenting licenses... This is not a new thought for me or for other people I know. You need a license to vote, to drive, to hunt, to fish, to run a business, etc. Having children isn't a right, it is a privilege -- whether you conceive a child naturally or adopt or whatever -- just like driving, voting, running a business, etc. I get it, "accidents" (I prefer to call them happy surprises) happen and people get pregnant (I'm not getting into you know what right now) so you put them into a parenting class as soon as possible. If you're ambitious, take the class early and get licensed. No license? No taking the baby home (in theory you should have at least six months, if not more to take this class). Now what would be required in this class? What I consider "the basics": proper diaper change, feedings (both breast & bottle with no bias towards either one because let's face it, there's already enough pressure out there for moms -- especially first time moms), what to do if the baby isn't feeling well, proper safety like sleeping conditions, covering wall outlets, locking up chemicals and stuff in cabinets, etc. To me, this is reasonable and can be taught by nurses, the Department of Family & Child Services. I just don't really understand how people can be so moronic that it has gotten to the point of needing parenting licenses. Oh and what happens if the person doesn't obtain their license in time? As much as I hate the idea, foster care. Go ahead, jump all over me but honestly in some cases it needs to be done.
Awesome, it's now raining and I left my bike in the middle of the driveway. Time to take care of that, and then maybe a nap and to brainstorm for tomorrow morning's snark.
When did we turn into a bunch of whiney pansy assed babies in this country? So a few days ago as I was perusing facebook, my fav instigator posted this. Really? Seriously? People, people, people... This is why we need to issue parenting licenses (yes, I promise I will get to voter IDs within the next week or so). To me, putting your laundry pods, your dishwasher pods, your other detergents, your bleach, your cleaning supplies, everything that should have a "Mr Ick" (do you remember those? Am I dating myself with that?) sticker on it should be locked up, up high, whatever so your child doesn't to it is simple common sense. Then I have to remind myself, "Self, clearly people lack common sense if people are all in a tizzy and demanding that these pods be taken off the shelf."
Now, going back to the whole people need parenting licenses... This is not a new thought for me or for other people I know. You need a license to vote, to drive, to hunt, to fish, to run a business, etc. Having children isn't a right, it is a privilege -- whether you conceive a child naturally or adopt or whatever -- just like driving, voting, running a business, etc. I get it, "accidents" (I prefer to call them happy surprises) happen and people get pregnant (I'm not getting into you know what right now) so you put them into a parenting class as soon as possible. If you're ambitious, take the class early and get licensed. No license? No taking the baby home (in theory you should have at least six months, if not more to take this class). Now what would be required in this class? What I consider "the basics": proper diaper change, feedings (both breast & bottle with no bias towards either one because let's face it, there's already enough pressure out there for moms -- especially first time moms), what to do if the baby isn't feeling well, proper safety like sleeping conditions, covering wall outlets, locking up chemicals and stuff in cabinets, etc. To me, this is reasonable and can be taught by nurses, the Department of Family & Child Services. I just don't really understand how people can be so moronic that it has gotten to the point of needing parenting licenses. Oh and what happens if the person doesn't obtain their license in time? As much as I hate the idea, foster care. Go ahead, jump all over me but honestly in some cases it needs to be done.
Awesome, it's now raining and I left my bike in the middle of the driveway. Time to take care of that, and then maybe a nap and to brainstorm for tomorrow morning's snark.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Oh, SNAP
I am not against people using government programs as a means of a hand up, however I am firmly against people abusing these government programs as a hand out. I believe there should be very strict time limits that one can be on these programs and after that time is up they may not reapply for the program for at least five years. Yeah I'm a jerk like that, I know. I've heard it all before and I just laugh. If you wanna know what military members get paid, here's the chart. I'll just say that we're at the lower end of the enlisted side with less than five years, but more than two and let you figure it out. By no means are we rolling in the money and living a lavish lifestyle that some people have suggested. However, we get by just fine with proper budgeting and going without some things (like a second car, a nicer house off post, daily Dunks runs, etc). I will admit that we are on WIC but there are time limits on it (no more after B hits 5 and pregnant/nursing moms are on it for a limited time) and WIC is a supplement as opposed to buying all of our groceries. Food stamps or the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP)? Not as rigid as WIC, and definitely is once again on my radar as something that needs to be overhauled completely as it's bringing up more wasteful spending.
Just a few months ago, the GOP proposed a drastic cut to SNAP within the farm bill. I thought this was great and went on a rant on my personal facebook over it. The general tone was good for them, it's about time that someone did something and that if members of Congress wish to keep food stamps in the farm bill then it needs to directly benefit the local farmers in that area. Some people didn't like this stance and while I get it, even on our small budget we still do a lot to support as many local farmers (especially our meat farmers and fruit orchards) that we can. One of our bigger local farmers' markets will accept food stamps and let you change it out and some times even give you an extra $1 for every $1 of food stamps you use. Keeping food stamps in the farm bill in order to support farmers in my opinion makes sense and is a win-win situation. Farmers get to farm and bring fresh foodstuffs to the community and in turn the community knows where their food is coming from (a lot of our farmers will offer for you to come up and see their farms and learn more about it which is pretty awesome) and the community is eating healthier.
Despite the epic failure of Michelle's plan to reform school lunches, I'm all for getting everyone to eat healthier -- especially kids. On WIC, sure it's pretty easy and they limit the sugary cereal (I think honestly the only sugary cereal that you can purchase is frosted mini wheats) and you can only get sweet potatoes, etc. Food stamp program? Sorry while I fall off my chair laughing. Before I did my research about what can be bought on food stamps, I had heard stories of people buying lobster and bakery cakes for their kids birthdays and soda. I thought, no way, food stamps are supposed to be like cheese and bread and stuff, just an expanded version of WIC. Dang, was I wrong -- these stories were truth. I told hubby and he joked that we should get on food stamps (truth, I have yet to meet even the basic level of military who is on food stamps, I've heard rumors of it but never, not even with our local hand out queen (and trust me, she'd be the first to be on food stamps if she could)). I'm sorry but "luxury" items on food stamps? No. We can't afford hubby's Monster habit so guess what, he gets maybe two a week. Cakes are made from scratch because we have everything in the pantry for it. And I can't even tell you when the last time we had seafood was (steak is a different story because our local butcher ran a special on meats a few months ago so we set aside some of our tax return for it and we still have meat in our freezer). It really upsets me that people who don't work seem to be eating better than my family.
But beyond the nearly limitless options for food stamps is what got my attention back to this subject over the weekend. Did you know that the program increased by over $500 million since the 2006-2008 period? Or that more people are selling their benefits back for cash? Yeah. That's right, selling their food stamps for cash. This... This is what really gets me upset. If you're in such a position that you qualify food stamps and then do get them in order to oh I don't know, feed your family but then turn around and sell them for oh I don't know, drugs, alcohol, new Jordans, a new smartphone, whatever then I think you have no business being on food stamps. There is absolutely no reason what so ever that benefits should be bought back and cash given to program participants. Too many people in this country go without and never take a government handout yet you have this. I think it's corruption because it doesn't follow what the program is intended for -- to feed Americans. Ah wait, tangent. Yes, I also believe that you must be a citizen or a legal resident in order to qualify for any government funded program -- and yes you should have to show a legitimate government issued ID. Oh and have at least a part time job, and can only be on it for a limited time frame. It's all about a hand up, not a hand out.
But until people learn how to not abuse what could honestly be a great program for those who need it the most, I stand with those wanted to severely cut (or completely defund) SNAP.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Friday Morning Fluff
It's Friday, usually total cause to celebrate but I'm tired and feeling super blah and it's rainy here. Again. I swear we've never had a summer this wet. Any who...
Apparently some people got their panties in a wad over yesterday's post. It made me giggle because it just went to reinforce the notion that the more open minded and tolerant you claim to be, you're not. Wish they would've actually put their two cents here instead of hiding on facebook, but I still saw and giggled. Don't ever be afraid to post your two cents in the comments, I promise that if you post anonymously I will never know who you are. I had one person who after I already had the snark posted send me the press release and said she couldn't wait to hear my opinion because apparently we don't agree on it (I racked my brain friend and I still don't remember getting into this with you previously, sorry!) and I'm ok with that. I got what I felt was a great compliment from her on my personal facebook: Way better than I was expecting. You made excellent points, even if I don't 100% agree. The thing with you is this, you know your info, not talking out if your ass, and don't try to cram it down someone's throat.... much Well played, well played. Pretty awesome in my opinion. See not even my friends agree with my snark all the time.
I'm planning on getting into the whole great immigration debate next week so be prepared for that. I also have something that will be touchy and I've been up in the air about whether or not I'm going to approach the subject but I feel that it's been spotlighted so much lately that how can I not? It's clearly more important than Benghazi (but isn't that the case for everything because honestly, What difference does it make?!), NSA, IRS, gun running, and I'm sure I'm missing a few. What in the world is this administration trying to cover up? I know that I might start sounding like a tinfoil wearing, crazy right winger conspiracy theorist but the thing I ask is that you keep an open mind. If you do that for me, and challenge me in the comments then I will keep an open mind and challenge you back. And maybe we can have a summit and drink beer and work things out. Who just giggled? Just me? Yeah, I told you that I'm just not feeling that great. So with that, I'm going to make some tea and catch up on some Top Chef Masters (Team Voltaggio all the way!). I promise that I will rest up this weekend and be back with a vengeance next week. Oh and Tuesday will be my last Tuesday morning snark unless I'm able to get it done Monday night and have it auto post on Tuesday morning, but I'll try to get some snark in Tuesday afternoons. Enjoy your weekend, Snarkers! And thank you for all the love. I don't know who you all are (some of you, but definitely not all of you who've been reading) but thank you, I honestly thought that I'd only get like five people reading this every day.
Apparently some people got their panties in a wad over yesterday's post. It made me giggle because it just went to reinforce the notion that the more open minded and tolerant you claim to be, you're not. Wish they would've actually put their two cents here instead of hiding on facebook, but I still saw and giggled. Don't ever be afraid to post your two cents in the comments, I promise that if you post anonymously I will never know who you are. I had one person who after I already had the snark posted send me the press release and said she couldn't wait to hear my opinion because apparently we don't agree on it (I racked my brain friend and I still don't remember getting into this with you previously, sorry!) and I'm ok with that. I got what I felt was a great compliment from her on my personal facebook: Way better than I was expecting. You made excellent points, even if I don't 100% agree. The thing with you is this, you know your info, not talking out if your ass, and don't try to cram it down someone's throat.... much Well played, well played. Pretty awesome in my opinion. See not even my friends agree with my snark all the time.
I'm planning on getting into the whole great immigration debate next week so be prepared for that. I also have something that will be touchy and I've been up in the air about whether or not I'm going to approach the subject but I feel that it's been spotlighted so much lately that how can I not? It's clearly more important than Benghazi (but isn't that the case for everything because honestly, What difference does it make?!), NSA, IRS, gun running, and I'm sure I'm missing a few. What in the world is this administration trying to cover up? I know that I might start sounding like a tinfoil wearing, crazy right winger conspiracy theorist but the thing I ask is that you keep an open mind. If you do that for me, and challenge me in the comments then I will keep an open mind and challenge you back. And maybe we can have a summit and drink beer and work things out. Who just giggled? Just me? Yeah, I told you that I'm just not feeling that great. So with that, I'm going to make some tea and catch up on some Top Chef Masters (Team Voltaggio all the way!). I promise that I will rest up this weekend and be back with a vengeance next week. Oh and Tuesday will be my last Tuesday morning snark unless I'm able to get it done Monday night and have it auto post on Tuesday morning, but I'll try to get some snark in Tuesday afternoons. Enjoy your weekend, Snarkers! And thank you for all the love. I don't know who you all are (some of you, but definitely not all of you who've been reading) but thank you, I honestly thought that I'd only get like five people reading this every day.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Equality... Or Something
One of my fellow conservative, army wife, SAHM & troublemaker sent me an email today. Receiving an email from this friend is an oddity since her husband used to make fun of us for texting each other with just a wall separating us (seriously, our couches backed up to the same wall and we would just text each other instead of getting up, walking thirty steps to the other person's apartment... Lazy yeah yeah yeah). Anyway, so I open the email and it's the press release from the DoD concerning gay spouse benefits. Oh geez-us. Here we go. You know the drill, I'll give you my background on the "controversial" stance and then I will rant my little conservative heart out after.
Marriage is not a federal issue. It is a state issue seeing as how it wasn't explicitly outlined within the Constitution. Any powers not explicitly granted to the judicial, legislative or executive branch shall be a state matter. I'm not opposed to gay people being legally bound in union to one another, however I do oppose the fact that they call it marriage. Marriage is between a man and a women for the purpose of procreation. (And before someone jumps all over me trying to say I'm hiding behind my religion, please tell me where I just used my religion (which is what by the way, have I even mentioned if I have a religious preference?)). Gay "marriages" cannot naturally procreate, nor are they obviously between one man and one woman. Now if you caught the fact where I stated that I'm not opposed to gay people being legally bound in union to one another here's how I believe that it should work. If a state allows gay unions then legislation should be written to as such: all persons wishing to be joined together by a legally binding union will be joined together by the state at a local county courthouse. No longer will clergy be able to legally marry people, but may still perform ceremonies of a religious nature to symbolize the union of two people (because some clergy are open to marrying gay people so fine whatever). Yay for everyone allowed to be joined together, it's no longer a religious issue as any religious ceremony, party, whatever will not mater as all people must go to the courthouse and be legally bound by a government official. Why no one has done that, I don't know. I'd think they'd be all over it because it would create some form of revenue and then everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. And isn't that what this is all about, equality under the law?
Well, the DoD is starting to slide down a slippery slope. I know, DOMA was rejected by the courts -- again, in my opinion they had no business doing that because it's a states issue, not federal. Rather than trample states' rights and just take over (funny how that seems to be a running theme lately with the government), they should have said that if the service member's home of record does not legally recognize gay marriage, then neither will we. Just about everything in the military is based off of your home of record -- your state income taxes, property tax breaks if they exist, etc. So why shouldn't the DoD just have said that? And what of the military installations in states which do not allow gay marriage? Should they be forced to recognize the union just because the federal government says it should?
The fact that it is specified a gay service member may take non-chargable (basically freebie) leave in order to go to a jurisdiction to be married. Um, I looked for the reg which gives straight service members non-chargable leave to get married. I cannot find it. I know from personal experience, hubby had to take charged leave in order for us to get married. I know plenty of straight service members who either get married on a long weekend, forego a honeymoon, or have a very small ceremony close to their post so they won't be charged with leave in order to get married. Fair & equal, got it. Oh and then there's the issue of the 10 days of paternity leave that married male soldiers get when their wives give birth. While nothing has been said, will a gay male service member be afforded the same paternity leave if he and his partner adopt a child? What about a female lesbian service member whose partner borne the child? I'm honestly shocked that this wasn't outlined in the press release but I'm sure that it'll happen.
Speaking of children, I wonder if Tricare (military health insurance provider) will cover fertility treatment for lesbian couples? There are very stringent guidelines for heterosexual couples concerning fertility treatments, how will they navigate this for lesbians wishing to get pregnant with a sperm donor? I know this sounds ridiculous, but with threats to cut Tricare for military families, these are legitimate concerns. Will all of this plus Obamacare drive our premiums up? Service members pay for their dependents' health and dental, and while it may be cheap, if pay raises are cut for service members and Tricare goes up this could put a lot of military families in a precarious financial situation.
It's all about providing fair and equal opportunities to our service members and their families. Well if that is the case, a non-married couple in a committed partnership of let's say 11 years of the service member's time in service should have benefits extended to them as well. Maybe they don't believe in marriage and have managed just fine. There are people out there in this community who never marry and just go from post to post together and they never have been vocal and demanding about equal treatment. They understand the rules of the game and they just roll with it. These people should be rewarded because they're not there with their hands out, screaming and shouting and demanding more. Next thing too the barracks rats will want benefits too.
I think that overtime, government has gotten far too big for their britches. They have seemed to just ignore the Constitution unless it is pertinent to their cause and have learned one of the most basic lessons in life: life is not fair. If everyone could be millionaires and not be in debt and live in mansions then wouldn't we all be there by now? Granted, I'd have nothing to snark about but at the end of the day, life isn't fair but it is all what you make of it. I just wish that the government would leave the military alone and stop using it as a testing ground for their social experiments -- why fix what isn't broken?
Marriage is not a federal issue. It is a state issue seeing as how it wasn't explicitly outlined within the Constitution. Any powers not explicitly granted to the judicial, legislative or executive branch shall be a state matter. I'm not opposed to gay people being legally bound in union to one another, however I do oppose the fact that they call it marriage. Marriage is between a man and a women for the purpose of procreation. (And before someone jumps all over me trying to say I'm hiding behind my religion, please tell me where I just used my religion (which is what by the way, have I even mentioned if I have a religious preference?)). Gay "marriages" cannot naturally procreate, nor are they obviously between one man and one woman. Now if you caught the fact where I stated that I'm not opposed to gay people being legally bound in union to one another here's how I believe that it should work. If a state allows gay unions then legislation should be written to as such: all persons wishing to be joined together by a legally binding union will be joined together by the state at a local county courthouse. No longer will clergy be able to legally marry people, but may still perform ceremonies of a religious nature to symbolize the union of two people (because some clergy are open to marrying gay people so fine whatever). Yay for everyone allowed to be joined together, it's no longer a religious issue as any religious ceremony, party, whatever will not mater as all people must go to the courthouse and be legally bound by a government official. Why no one has done that, I don't know. I'd think they'd be all over it because it would create some form of revenue and then everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. And isn't that what this is all about, equality under the law?
Well, the DoD is starting to slide down a slippery slope. I know, DOMA was rejected by the courts -- again, in my opinion they had no business doing that because it's a states issue, not federal. Rather than trample states' rights and just take over (funny how that seems to be a running theme lately with the government), they should have said that if the service member's home of record does not legally recognize gay marriage, then neither will we. Just about everything in the military is based off of your home of record -- your state income taxes, property tax breaks if they exist, etc. So why shouldn't the DoD just have said that? And what of the military installations in states which do not allow gay marriage? Should they be forced to recognize the union just because the federal government says it should?
The fact that it is specified a gay service member may take non-chargable (basically freebie) leave in order to go to a jurisdiction to be married. Um, I looked for the reg which gives straight service members non-chargable leave to get married. I cannot find it. I know from personal experience, hubby had to take charged leave in order for us to get married. I know plenty of straight service members who either get married on a long weekend, forego a honeymoon, or have a very small ceremony close to their post so they won't be charged with leave in order to get married. Fair & equal, got it. Oh and then there's the issue of the 10 days of paternity leave that married male soldiers get when their wives give birth. While nothing has been said, will a gay male service member be afforded the same paternity leave if he and his partner adopt a child? What about a female lesbian service member whose partner borne the child? I'm honestly shocked that this wasn't outlined in the press release but I'm sure that it'll happen.
Speaking of children, I wonder if Tricare (military health insurance provider) will cover fertility treatment for lesbian couples? There are very stringent guidelines for heterosexual couples concerning fertility treatments, how will they navigate this for lesbians wishing to get pregnant with a sperm donor? I know this sounds ridiculous, but with threats to cut Tricare for military families, these are legitimate concerns. Will all of this plus Obamacare drive our premiums up? Service members pay for their dependents' health and dental, and while it may be cheap, if pay raises are cut for service members and Tricare goes up this could put a lot of military families in a precarious financial situation.
It's all about providing fair and equal opportunities to our service members and their families. Well if that is the case, a non-married couple in a committed partnership of let's say 11 years of the service member's time in service should have benefits extended to them as well. Maybe they don't believe in marriage and have managed just fine. There are people out there in this community who never marry and just go from post to post together and they never have been vocal and demanding about equal treatment. They understand the rules of the game and they just roll with it. These people should be rewarded because they're not there with their hands out, screaming and shouting and demanding more. Next thing too the barracks rats will want benefits too.
I think that overtime, government has gotten far too big for their britches. They have seemed to just ignore the Constitution unless it is pertinent to their cause and have learned one of the most basic lessons in life: life is not fair. If everyone could be millionaires and not be in debt and live in mansions then wouldn't we all be there by now? Granted, I'd have nothing to snark about but at the end of the day, life isn't fair but it is all what you make of it. I just wish that the government would leave the military alone and stop using it as a testing ground for their social experiments -- why fix what isn't broken?
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
The Original Post for Wednesday
I am a stay at home mom (SAHM). I enjoy it most days. I don't enjoy however people who tell me that I need to get a job or that my son would benefit from being in a day care. How does my decision to be a stay at home mom affect anyone outside myself, my husband, and our son? It doesn't so why must people have such a negative mindset about this? Before I really get into this I will say, even if I did want to work there are very few jobs in our area as it is. If I were to take one of the few available jobs, by the time taxes were taken out, we paid for childcare, we purchased a second car (yep, we're a one car family and it's really not that big of a deal to me) and made that payment plus gas and insurance, we'd have about $5. It's not worth it to me to work for an extra $5. It just honestly doesn't make sense to me in the long run to do that. So unless you're willing to help financially contribute to B's childcare expenses, get us a second car or whatever, just keep it to yourself.
Now I do know that some people think that SAHMs do nothing but watch cartoons with their kids all day and nap and ok well some days that does happen (usually after the fourth or fifth consecutive day of rain), but let me tell you it's so much more than that. There's somehow a never ending pile of laundry that I get done, dishes, cooking (I do like that I am able to actually cook a lot of our meals from scratch and then have a family dinner at the table in the evenings), cleaning my house (and re-cleaning as B is often a force of two year old full on boy energy that rivals big tornadoes), and even though he's two we already are working with B on pre-school stuff. So please tell me again how I slack off and do nothing? I absolutely value this time because I know that at some point, I'm going to have to work again and I'm fine with that. As far as B getting "proper socialization" trust me, the kid gets plenty between MOPS, playdates with other SAHM's kids, etc.
I'm not bashing moms that work, I know plenty and they're awesome moms who absolutely value the time they do have with their kids. I'm just kind of over this whole thought process that SAHMs are slackers and need to be out there in the workforce (and again, there has to be jobs). Sometimes though that makes me giggle because growing up, until my brother & I were both in elementary school our mom stayed at home. In fact, a lot of my friends in elementary school and sometimes beyond, their moms stayed at home. I often wonder if the women who think that SAHMs are a detriment to whatever ridiculous female empowerment movement they believe in, if they had a stay at home mom and I'm willing to bet that a lot of them did. But you know, it's all about the money and keeping up with the Joneses and female whatever.
At the end of the day though I just wonder, will this aspect of the so-called mommy wars end?
Now I do know that some people think that SAHMs do nothing but watch cartoons with their kids all day and nap and ok well some days that does happen (usually after the fourth or fifth consecutive day of rain), but let me tell you it's so much more than that. There's somehow a never ending pile of laundry that I get done, dishes, cooking (I do like that I am able to actually cook a lot of our meals from scratch and then have a family dinner at the table in the evenings), cleaning my house (and re-cleaning as B is often a force of two year old full on boy energy that rivals big tornadoes), and even though he's two we already are working with B on pre-school stuff. So please tell me again how I slack off and do nothing? I absolutely value this time because I know that at some point, I'm going to have to work again and I'm fine with that. As far as B getting "proper socialization" trust me, the kid gets plenty between MOPS, playdates with other SAHM's kids, etc.
I'm not bashing moms that work, I know plenty and they're awesome moms who absolutely value the time they do have with their kids. I'm just kind of over this whole thought process that SAHMs are slackers and need to be out there in the workforce (and again, there has to be jobs). Sometimes though that makes me giggle because growing up, until my brother & I were both in elementary school our mom stayed at home. In fact, a lot of my friends in elementary school and sometimes beyond, their moms stayed at home. I often wonder if the women who think that SAHMs are a detriment to whatever ridiculous female empowerment movement they believe in, if they had a stay at home mom and I'm willing to bet that a lot of them did. But you know, it's all about the money and keeping up with the Joneses and female whatever.
At the end of the day though I just wonder, will this aspect of the so-called mommy wars end?
Role Models and Such: An Early Morning Rant
Since I'm up and the kiddo is still soundly snoozing and I'm feeling inspired, it's early morning snark - yay! So I was sitting here, staring at the ceiling figuring out if I was going to be able to go back to sleep (no), and if not what should I do? Can't touch the DVR because those are my watch while cleaning and B is napping shows. It's too early to put on the news and get all riled up over something ridiculous (although that happens a lot). Maybe I'll watch a movie? Pitch Perfect? And then without even turning it on, songs get stuck in my head (I do love Anna Kendrick's version of "Cup Song") but one in particular got stuck and made me think of my post yesterday. So if you've seen the movie you know where they have their little underground singoff thing? Yeah, remember how one of the categories was sex? And one of the songs was Rihanna's "S&M"? Well, I hate that song, and I'm not a fan of Rihanna, but the two together really made me mad when it came out.
Remember a few years ago how everyone was all, "Oh, Chris Brown beats women!" and "Poor Rihanna, she got beat by her boyfriend, a wannabe thug musician, blah blah blah"? Do you because I do and my eyes did a lot of rolling into the back of my head. Not because I'm all for women getting beat and such but because I feel that if you're a celebrity (whether legit or two bit), you should be held to a higher standard and you should not be beating people, driving drunk, setting fires in random people's driveways, and then have the media glamorize it (which even when they act like they're not, they do). Here's the thing, the Chris Brown-Rihanna fight blew up and she had a platform to be a voice. She could have stood up and really sounded off against domestic violence. She may have run a few PSAs or said something in interviews but clearly it didn't stick. Instead she released a song called "S&M". So, the press took pity on her, threw Brown to the wolves, and then acted like she was so liberated and forward by releasing this track. If you're unfamiliar with the lyrics the chorus goes as such,
Remember a few years ago how everyone was all, "Oh, Chris Brown beats women!" and "Poor Rihanna, she got beat by her boyfriend, a wannabe thug musician, blah blah blah"? Do you because I do and my eyes did a lot of rolling into the back of my head. Not because I'm all for women getting beat and such but because I feel that if you're a celebrity (whether legit or two bit), you should be held to a higher standard and you should not be beating people, driving drunk, setting fires in random people's driveways, and then have the media glamorize it (which even when they act like they're not, they do). Here's the thing, the Chris Brown-Rihanna fight blew up and she had a platform to be a voice. She could have stood up and really sounded off against domestic violence. She may have run a few PSAs or said something in interviews but clearly it didn't stick. Instead she released a song called "S&M". So, the press took pity on her, threw Brown to the wolves, and then acted like she was so liberated and forward by releasing this track. If you're unfamiliar with the lyrics the chorus goes as such,
Cause I may be bad
But I'm perfectly good at it
Sex in the air
I don't care
I love the smell of it
Sticks and stones
May break my bones
But chains and whips
Excite me
Because that's the message that I would want sent to my young daughter who idolizes Rihanna (you know, if I had a young daughter but thank goodness I don't because I'd probably lose my mind). She didn't have to do this song, it could have went to someone else but to me it's interesting that she did. In my opinion she's saying it's ok to get beat because it's a turn on. She got beat on in a horrific manner (we all saw the hospital photos) and people rallied around her and supported her and everything and then she lets everyone down by releasing a song like that. Oh, and she got back with Brown much to the dismay of many of her fans and the general public. She had such a chance to be a powerful voice for young women in abusive relationships and she failed. Perhaps if our "news" media was more obsessed with actual news and not just celebrity, this country would be a bit better off. I'm pretty much over the celebrity worshipping in this country where the goal is to get your fifteen minutes of fame rather than be a good, productive citizen.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
I'm All Jacked Up On Mountain Dew, Chip!
Gooooooooooooooooooooooooood morning, Snarkers! The title of this post has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm about to snark about. Hubby and I watched Talledega Nights the other day (one of my all time favorite movies) and I'm amped on sugar from homemade cinnamon rolls and two cups of iced coffee. It's Tuesday so let's go!
I have discussed this with a friend of mine on several occasions and for some reason it got back into my head last night and this morning. I wish we could do a throwback to the 50s, minus the whole segregation thing of course (although, apparently if you live in Florida you live in an apartheid state... Easy jab, easy jab, sorry). While I love that I can wear my running shorts and scrubby tshirts all day long as I clean the house and take care of my kiddo, I rarely go out in these clothes unless I'm actually exercising, going to the pool or beach. Or it's laundry day and I'm seriously behind on laundry. Other than that, I'm in proper pants and a decent top (most days). I think once you're out of college, rolling around in your jammies and flip flops and a cami is completely unacceptable. And I'm probably going to get some heat on this but I don't care, if you are a legal adult and married (ie 18 year olds who marry privates in the army fresh out of high school), it too is unacceptable for you to roll outta bed in your jammie bottoms and a cami and such -- especially if taking your child to a doctor's appointment. I cannot tell you how many times I have taken B to the pediatrician, it's 745am and I'm managed to be dressed in real clothes, hair pulled into something presentable, and B is in something other than jammies if it's a well kid checkup (jammies for little kiddos who are sick are totally acceptable and I get it, so no slamming there but I definitely commend the parents who even with a sick kid make sure they're dressed decently). It's seriously not that hard. Plus, we live on post and to the shock of some, there is a dress code that applies to civilian family members at well. Maybe if the DoD sent decency police around to ticket people who violate these codes of decency they could eventually ticket repeat offenders and get some money. No one likes to see someone's booty hanging out of their two sizes too small, cut off jean shorts at the grocery; or guys' crusty boxers because their pants are sagging (side note, a town over from me passed an ordinance where they can actually fine guys who walk around with sagging pants -- I love it!).
So going back to the whole throw back to the 50s thing, fashion was much more modest for women and I love that guys wore chinos and collared shirts when off work and suit and ties to work. People seemed to take pride in their appearance, no matter their socioeconomic status. Even though I hate pantyhose, maybe they weren't such a bad thing, like sweater sets and proper length skirts. Even if we didn't do total 50s fashion throw back, just look across the pond at Kate Middleton. Yes, ok she comes from a well off family and is married to a real life Prince but she always looks so well put together. If more women would emulate her fashion and make it more acceptable to rock outfits like Kate as opposed to Kim K, perhaps the world would be better. Or at the very least maybe it would help portray a message to younger women to dress modestly and take pride in looking feminine and not like some trashy, sex obsessed famewhore (and yes that is what I think of Kim K, she's famous because she was peed on in a sex tape by some two bit musician). Maybe I'm getting old, maybe it's because I had a mother who made sure that I never left the house looking scandalous (and I will fully admit that yes I did pack another set of clothes to change into at a friend's house when I was in high school and looking back I wonder what I was thinking, and yes in college I did the slutty Halloween thing), but maybe it's time for a change that would help promote what I feel would be benefiting a healthier body image and self esteem (seriously, when did self esteem become so important?) of younger girls. Let's lead the fashion revolution and start dressing like classy women of the glamorous Hollywood era and less like Miley, Kim K and other supposed liberated, forward thinking stars. Less isn't more, and men find women more desirable when dressed more modestly than stripped down to nothing. There was a study, and I'll look for it this afternoon and link it in to tomorrow's snark. But for now, it's off to get ready to take B to story time, guess I better get out of my jammies. Have a great Tuesday, Snarkers!
PS -- you know, it wouldn't hurt to bring back cocktail hour for grown ups too, just a suggestion! And happy hour so is not cocktail hour so don't even try to convince me that it still exists.
I have discussed this with a friend of mine on several occasions and for some reason it got back into my head last night and this morning. I wish we could do a throwback to the 50s, minus the whole segregation thing of course (although, apparently if you live in Florida you live in an apartheid state... Easy jab, easy jab, sorry). While I love that I can wear my running shorts and scrubby tshirts all day long as I clean the house and take care of my kiddo, I rarely go out in these clothes unless I'm actually exercising, going to the pool or beach. Or it's laundry day and I'm seriously behind on laundry. Other than that, I'm in proper pants and a decent top (most days). I think once you're out of college, rolling around in your jammies and flip flops and a cami is completely unacceptable. And I'm probably going to get some heat on this but I don't care, if you are a legal adult and married (ie 18 year olds who marry privates in the army fresh out of high school), it too is unacceptable for you to roll outta bed in your jammie bottoms and a cami and such -- especially if taking your child to a doctor's appointment. I cannot tell you how many times I have taken B to the pediatrician, it's 745am and I'm managed to be dressed in real clothes, hair pulled into something presentable, and B is in something other than jammies if it's a well kid checkup (jammies for little kiddos who are sick are totally acceptable and I get it, so no slamming there but I definitely commend the parents who even with a sick kid make sure they're dressed decently). It's seriously not that hard. Plus, we live on post and to the shock of some, there is a dress code that applies to civilian family members at well. Maybe if the DoD sent decency police around to ticket people who violate these codes of decency they could eventually ticket repeat offenders and get some money. No one likes to see someone's booty hanging out of their two sizes too small, cut off jean shorts at the grocery; or guys' crusty boxers because their pants are sagging (side note, a town over from me passed an ordinance where they can actually fine guys who walk around with sagging pants -- I love it!).
So going back to the whole throw back to the 50s thing, fashion was much more modest for women and I love that guys wore chinos and collared shirts when off work and suit and ties to work. People seemed to take pride in their appearance, no matter their socioeconomic status. Even though I hate pantyhose, maybe they weren't such a bad thing, like sweater sets and proper length skirts. Even if we didn't do total 50s fashion throw back, just look across the pond at Kate Middleton. Yes, ok she comes from a well off family and is married to a real life Prince but she always looks so well put together. If more women would emulate her fashion and make it more acceptable to rock outfits like Kate as opposed to Kim K, perhaps the world would be better. Or at the very least maybe it would help portray a message to younger women to dress modestly and take pride in looking feminine and not like some trashy, sex obsessed famewhore (and yes that is what I think of Kim K, she's famous because she was peed on in a sex tape by some two bit musician). Maybe I'm getting old, maybe it's because I had a mother who made sure that I never left the house looking scandalous (and I will fully admit that yes I did pack another set of clothes to change into at a friend's house when I was in high school and looking back I wonder what I was thinking, and yes in college I did the slutty Halloween thing), but maybe it's time for a change that would help promote what I feel would be benefiting a healthier body image and self esteem (seriously, when did self esteem become so important?) of younger girls. Let's lead the fashion revolution and start dressing like classy women of the glamorous Hollywood era and less like Miley, Kim K and other supposed liberated, forward thinking stars. Less isn't more, and men find women more desirable when dressed more modestly than stripped down to nothing. There was a study, and I'll look for it this afternoon and link it in to tomorrow's snark. But for now, it's off to get ready to take B to story time, guess I better get out of my jammies. Have a great Tuesday, Snarkers!
PS -- you know, it wouldn't hurt to bring back cocktail hour for grown ups too, just a suggestion! And happy hour so is not cocktail hour so don't even try to convince me that it still exists.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Tolerance: Part II
This part of tolerance gets me a little more heated. While the liberals can push their gay agenda all they want, what gets me irked is when they try to invoke women's rights. I am completely intolerant of people who claim women's rights yet will walk into a government building with jars of urine and feces with the intention of dousing elected government officials with it. Yes we're going back to the circus that was (and let's face it will continue to be through at least the midterm elections, if not the next presidential race) Texas SB 5.
Wendy Davis rallied the crazies in her pink Mizunos (not gonna lie, was pretty glad that I switched my trainers to Newtons from Mizunos because she ruined the brand for me. Petty, I know but some things like that just bother me) and jacked a catheter up in her (sidenote: Senator Paul did not use a catheter during his thirteen hour filibuster, guess who I think is the bigger badass?) and went on a rant saying that this bill right here was going to be the end of women's rights. Ok, maybe a slight exaggeration but she and her lot of crazies (they brought in feminine personal hygiene products in addition to human excrement and oh yeah a brick to throw at legislators who wanted to pass SB 5) really and truly thought that the mean evil old white guys were trying to stomp all over women's rights. Guess what? Those who backed the bill are doing more for women's rights than Wendy Davis and crew are doing. But I'm sure Wendy is with Nancy and Harry and tends not to read legislation until it's passed. I don't reside in Texas (I've begged the husband to never reside there unless it's San Antonio because I have fond memories of frozen sangria/margarita twists on the Riverwalk, a hole in the wall Puerto Rican place up by the airport, hungover breakfast tacos, etc when we were stationed there... I'm a fat kid, leave me be!) but I did take the time to read this legislation. It's good legislation, actually I'll even go as far to say that it is brilliant compromise legislation between pro-lifers and pro-"choicers" (I hate that phrase, I'm very pro-life and believe that your choices are as follows: give birth and be a mother, give birth and let the child be adopted into a loving home, or just keep your legs shut and don't have sex if you're fearful of getting knocked up).
If you didn't read the bill, basically it bans abortions after 20 weeks (because at 20 weeks (or five months) a fetus is not a blob of tissue, it's a human that looks like an itty bitty human -- and which in recent polls a vast majority of Americans actually agree with), requires a licensed physician and a licensed anesthesiologist to be present and have admitting privileges at a hospital within a 30 mile radius, and finally that all stand alone abortion clinics be held to the same regulations and codes as hospitals and other stand alone health clinics. Ummm, how does that impede a woman's right to appropriate and safe health care? I, personally, am not seeing where this bill does that. If anything it promotes women's rights by still allowing abortions and making sure that the horrors of another Gosnell, or in the case of an actual Texas abortion provider, Douglas Karpen who ran his own house of horrors in Houston. If providers cannot comply with these regulations then you have to wonder why they're even in business, is it just the quick and easy money with little government interference? Isn't compromise the best solution to what is clearly an issue that either sides feels passionately about? Again, this is the best piece of compromise legislation on the books for abortion. It's not restrictive in the way that North Dakota has and has been legally challenged, but not as restrictive as Maryland who had fairly lax regulations as evidenced by the Bringham and Carhart cases.
But you know it's all about "it's my body" and what The Man will do to keep people down. Yeah, I just rolled my eyes. Just like respecting an individual (in this case, no matter how deranged I believe they are), and treating others as you would like to be treated, sometimes we must be willing to compromise in order to protect the rights of everyone because we all know how well appeasement worked out.
Wendy Davis rallied the crazies in her pink Mizunos (not gonna lie, was pretty glad that I switched my trainers to Newtons from Mizunos because she ruined the brand for me. Petty, I know but some things like that just bother me) and jacked a catheter up in her (sidenote: Senator Paul did not use a catheter during his thirteen hour filibuster, guess who I think is the bigger badass?) and went on a rant saying that this bill right here was going to be the end of women's rights. Ok, maybe a slight exaggeration but she and her lot of crazies (they brought in feminine personal hygiene products in addition to human excrement and oh yeah a brick to throw at legislators who wanted to pass SB 5) really and truly thought that the mean evil old white guys were trying to stomp all over women's rights. Guess what? Those who backed the bill are doing more for women's rights than Wendy Davis and crew are doing. But I'm sure Wendy is with Nancy and Harry and tends not to read legislation until it's passed. I don't reside in Texas (I've begged the husband to never reside there unless it's San Antonio because I have fond memories of frozen sangria/margarita twists on the Riverwalk, a hole in the wall Puerto Rican place up by the airport, hungover breakfast tacos, etc when we were stationed there... I'm a fat kid, leave me be!) but I did take the time to read this legislation. It's good legislation, actually I'll even go as far to say that it is brilliant compromise legislation between pro-lifers and pro-"choicers" (I hate that phrase, I'm very pro-life and believe that your choices are as follows: give birth and be a mother, give birth and let the child be adopted into a loving home, or just keep your legs shut and don't have sex if you're fearful of getting knocked up).
If you didn't read the bill, basically it bans abortions after 20 weeks (because at 20 weeks (or five months) a fetus is not a blob of tissue, it's a human that looks like an itty bitty human -- and which in recent polls a vast majority of Americans actually agree with), requires a licensed physician and a licensed anesthesiologist to be present and have admitting privileges at a hospital within a 30 mile radius, and finally that all stand alone abortion clinics be held to the same regulations and codes as hospitals and other stand alone health clinics. Ummm, how does that impede a woman's right to appropriate and safe health care? I, personally, am not seeing where this bill does that. If anything it promotes women's rights by still allowing abortions and making sure that the horrors of another Gosnell, or in the case of an actual Texas abortion provider, Douglas Karpen who ran his own house of horrors in Houston. If providers cannot comply with these regulations then you have to wonder why they're even in business, is it just the quick and easy money with little government interference? Isn't compromise the best solution to what is clearly an issue that either sides feels passionately about? Again, this is the best piece of compromise legislation on the books for abortion. It's not restrictive in the way that North Dakota has and has been legally challenged, but not as restrictive as Maryland who had fairly lax regulations as evidenced by the Bringham and Carhart cases.
But you know it's all about "it's my body" and what The Man will do to keep people down. Yeah, I just rolled my eyes. Just like respecting an individual (in this case, no matter how deranged I believe they are), and treating others as you would like to be treated, sometimes we must be willing to compromise in order to protect the rights of everyone because we all know how well appeasement worked out.
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Tolerance: Part I
Not that long ago like ten years ago not that long ago, things that are issues now weren't issues then. I don't care if you're black, brown, white, yellow, purple, straight, gay, confused, whatever. I don't so as long as you're happy. Now with that out of the way, let's get on with this shall we?
Within the last decade or so, the so called "gay agenda" has been thrown into the American public's face, shoved down their throats and basically held the people hostage until the masses agree and accept this agenda. It drives me nuts to the nth degree. Yes, I have gay friends and I'm fine with that. If they're healthy and happy good for them. This isn't the same thing as the Civil Rights Movement of the '60s, despite what people may think. This "you must accept us or else you're a bigot, you're going to hell, quit hiding behind your religion" mentality just puts people off more. While not all gay people feel this way, those who do and claim that they're such a tolerant bunch are a bunch of jerks. Maybe I might not seem so tolerant in this post but I seriously am over it. Below are some reasons why.
The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) have been a victim of this agenda. My brother was involved in the BSA organization while growing up (disclosure: I'm 28 and he's 26 to help keep this in perspective) so I was around it as my parents were also involved in helping out. I don't ever remember sexual preferences being an issue then. I still don't feel that it should be an issue now, however I feel this way mainly because I don't think that the younger ranks of BSA, Cub Scouts, should even be discussing sexual orientation. I understand some reluctance of gay/lesbians being in a leadership position if it directly conflicts with the sponsor church's beliefs. But some people think that even though it might go against a particular church's doctrine, gay leadership should be forced upon the sponsor church. Where is the tolerance? Moreover, if you so fervently believe that it doesn't matter what the sexual orientation of a leader is and such, why would you want to be associated with a church that does not agree with your stand point? Why bully them into a corner just so you can get your way? That is not tolerance. At the end of the day, I personally feel that the BSA should have just kept status quo, told the parents that they are not going to get involved in a scout's sexual orientation and that if the sponsor church is ok with gay leadership then fine whatever. If the policy worked for over a century just let it go. Respect everyone as an individual and respect the rights of the sponsor church. It's really not that hard.
The president said that he hopes that gay athletes will do well in the next Olympics. Ok so why is this a big deal? Exactly, this shouldn't be a big deal. Shouldn't he just have said that he hopes the Olympians representing the US should bring home the gold and just left it at that? Why does he have to single out gay athletes. Who cares if they're gay? They're freakin' Olympians and that should take precedent over their sexual orientation. We should take pride in the fact that these men and women have put forth the hard work and dedication as well as sacrifices they have made to get to where they are today. Ten years ago, did it matter if an Olympian was gay? Not that I can remember. Let these athletes compete with the dignity and grace they deserve without bringing up their sexual preferences. (And yes, I know that there's feathers being ruffled because of Putin and his anti-gay agenda)
So why can't we just let everyone be? If people were as tolerant as they claim then the Supreme Court wouldn't be involved in cases such as DOMA (even though I fully feel that gay marriage should not be a federal issue but a state issue). Remember when we were all younger how we learned "The Golden Rule"? Treat others as you would want to be treated. Perhaps it's time we get back to that.
Within the last decade or so, the so called "gay agenda" has been thrown into the American public's face, shoved down their throats and basically held the people hostage until the masses agree and accept this agenda. It drives me nuts to the nth degree. Yes, I have gay friends and I'm fine with that. If they're healthy and happy good for them. This isn't the same thing as the Civil Rights Movement of the '60s, despite what people may think. This "you must accept us or else you're a bigot, you're going to hell, quit hiding behind your religion" mentality just puts people off more. While not all gay people feel this way, those who do and claim that they're such a tolerant bunch are a bunch of jerks. Maybe I might not seem so tolerant in this post but I seriously am over it. Below are some reasons why.
The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) have been a victim of this agenda. My brother was involved in the BSA organization while growing up (disclosure: I'm 28 and he's 26 to help keep this in perspective) so I was around it as my parents were also involved in helping out. I don't ever remember sexual preferences being an issue then. I still don't feel that it should be an issue now, however I feel this way mainly because I don't think that the younger ranks of BSA, Cub Scouts, should even be discussing sexual orientation. I understand some reluctance of gay/lesbians being in a leadership position if it directly conflicts with the sponsor church's beliefs. But some people think that even though it might go against a particular church's doctrine, gay leadership should be forced upon the sponsor church. Where is the tolerance? Moreover, if you so fervently believe that it doesn't matter what the sexual orientation of a leader is and such, why would you want to be associated with a church that does not agree with your stand point? Why bully them into a corner just so you can get your way? That is not tolerance. At the end of the day, I personally feel that the BSA should have just kept status quo, told the parents that they are not going to get involved in a scout's sexual orientation and that if the sponsor church is ok with gay leadership then fine whatever. If the policy worked for over a century just let it go. Respect everyone as an individual and respect the rights of the sponsor church. It's really not that hard.
The president said that he hopes that gay athletes will do well in the next Olympics. Ok so why is this a big deal? Exactly, this shouldn't be a big deal. Shouldn't he just have said that he hopes the Olympians representing the US should bring home the gold and just left it at that? Why does he have to single out gay athletes. Who cares if they're gay? They're freakin' Olympians and that should take precedent over their sexual orientation. We should take pride in the fact that these men and women have put forth the hard work and dedication as well as sacrifices they have made to get to where they are today. Ten years ago, did it matter if an Olympian was gay? Not that I can remember. Let these athletes compete with the dignity and grace they deserve without bringing up their sexual preferences. (And yes, I know that there's feathers being ruffled because of Putin and his anti-gay agenda)
So why can't we just let everyone be? If people were as tolerant as they claim then the Supreme Court wouldn't be involved in cases such as DOMA (even though I fully feel that gay marriage should not be a federal issue but a state issue). Remember when we were all younger how we learned "The Golden Rule"? Treat others as you would want to be treated. Perhaps it's time we get back to that.
Friday, August 9, 2013
Friday Snark
Oh where to begin...
How about the fact that it's not even 9am and I can barely breathe because it's so gross outside? Nah, that's too typical for the swampland. It's a three day for the husband, maybe that's why I'm not as snarky this morning. And he actually made a pot of coffee this morning. And I feel like I could snark about politics so let's just go there for a minute.
(Full disclosure for those that don't know me, I'm a conservative and make no qualms about it. If you have an issue with my stance, feel free to comment, roll with it or just simply don't read what I have to say.)
I'm still amazed how certain media outlets decided to amend O's words to make it seem like he totally knew that Charleston, Savannah & Jacksonville are not on the Gulf Coast. Shocking, I know. Guess what? He said it, he didn't imply that those cities weren't on the Gulf Coast, and Jay Leno just went with it. Ummmm... Didn't the media jump all over Sarah Palin for geography gaffes not that long ago? Eh, whatever, she's just a silly woman from Alaska, what does she know right? (For the record, I'm not a huge Palin fan but do think that people greatly underestimate her) But here's the bigger thing, while I was flipping through the channels I heard something interesting that has been neglected from some media glare about O's Leno appearance. He actually said that the federal government doesn't do domestic spying. Sure he tossed around that NSA collects emails and such but it sounded like he was downplaying it. Although I really shouldn't be surprised seeing as how that along with Benghazi (a whole post unto itself) and the IRS targeting conservative groups are phony scandals that are detracting from the "real" issues at hand. Really? Because we all know how concerned this administration is about the economy as growth is still sluggish, a new report came out saying that jobless claims as risen again, albeit a slight raise the fact is it still went up. But I digress, back to the spying at home. So you've got NSA collecting data on citizens however we go back to my man Rand Paul. You know, the guy who stood up and did a legit filibuster in the Senate for 13 hours? The Senator from Kentucky who went on a rant and let people know that drones could be used and abused on US soil if the administration deemed it necessary -- even if it violates the Constitution (do they still teach the Constitution in schools today?). Well come to find out that the FBI has initiated 10 warrantless surveillance drones within the US over the last several years. Personally, this scares me. There should be a warrant with a specific threat involved before the FBI or any government agency deploys a drone to conduct surveillance on any American citizen on American soil. The fact is, I wouldn't be surprised if a drone took out an American citizen sipping a latte at a Starbucks here in America with no warrant, no warning, nothing if this practice is continued like Senator Paul suggested in that epic filibuster. Then again, I'm just a stay at home mom so what the heck do I know?
Oh well... I'll try to find something better for y'all next post. Like Beyonce cut her hair or the Redskins cave to pressure from the PC police and rename their team. But now I've gotta go play trains with my kiddo before there's a toddler coup in our house. Happy Friday!
How about the fact that it's not even 9am and I can barely breathe because it's so gross outside? Nah, that's too typical for the swampland. It's a three day for the husband, maybe that's why I'm not as snarky this morning. And he actually made a pot of coffee this morning. And I feel like I could snark about politics so let's just go there for a minute.
(Full disclosure for those that don't know me, I'm a conservative and make no qualms about it. If you have an issue with my stance, feel free to comment, roll with it or just simply don't read what I have to say.)
I'm still amazed how certain media outlets decided to amend O's words to make it seem like he totally knew that Charleston, Savannah & Jacksonville are not on the Gulf Coast. Shocking, I know. Guess what? He said it, he didn't imply that those cities weren't on the Gulf Coast, and Jay Leno just went with it. Ummmm... Didn't the media jump all over Sarah Palin for geography gaffes not that long ago? Eh, whatever, she's just a silly woman from Alaska, what does she know right? (For the record, I'm not a huge Palin fan but do think that people greatly underestimate her) But here's the bigger thing, while I was flipping through the channels I heard something interesting that has been neglected from some media glare about O's Leno appearance. He actually said that the federal government doesn't do domestic spying. Sure he tossed around that NSA collects emails and such but it sounded like he was downplaying it. Although I really shouldn't be surprised seeing as how that along with Benghazi (a whole post unto itself) and the IRS targeting conservative groups are phony scandals that are detracting from the "real" issues at hand. Really? Because we all know how concerned this administration is about the economy as growth is still sluggish, a new report came out saying that jobless claims as risen again, albeit a slight raise the fact is it still went up. But I digress, back to the spying at home. So you've got NSA collecting data on citizens however we go back to my man Rand Paul. You know, the guy who stood up and did a legit filibuster in the Senate for 13 hours? The Senator from Kentucky who went on a rant and let people know that drones could be used and abused on US soil if the administration deemed it necessary -- even if it violates the Constitution (do they still teach the Constitution in schools today?). Well come to find out that the FBI has initiated 10 warrantless surveillance drones within the US over the last several years. Personally, this scares me. There should be a warrant with a specific threat involved before the FBI or any government agency deploys a drone to conduct surveillance on any American citizen on American soil. The fact is, I wouldn't be surprised if a drone took out an American citizen sipping a latte at a Starbucks here in America with no warrant, no warning, nothing if this practice is continued like Senator Paul suggested in that epic filibuster. Then again, I'm just a stay at home mom so what the heck do I know?
Oh well... I'll try to find something better for y'all next post. Like Beyonce cut her hair or the Redskins cave to pressure from the PC police and rename their team. But now I've gotta go play trains with my kiddo before there's a toddler coup in our house. Happy Friday!
Morning Snarkers
Apparently, I'm very snarky in the morning and some of my friends enjoy my snark with their morning coffee. Some days it's snark about politics, sometimes it's concerning what I consider stupid parenting (I'm not saying I'm a perfect parent, I'm far from it... However, if you cannot properly secure your child in a seat belt, carseat, etc I might go off), and other days it's the oh so smart people around me. I have a lot to say some times and rather than clutter my facebook with it, it's going here. I'll change names, but if you recognize yourself or someone else and you call yourself or someone else out it is not my fault because you outed yourself. Now that that's out of the way, let's get on with it shall we?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)