The joys of Flyover Country

Yesterday we butchered four animals. These ladies were two troublesome mother/daughter pairs, three of whom were horned, and they routinely caused problems either by escaping fences or attacking other animals.

I hate butchering days; not because I mind animals being butchered, but because I don’t like causing anguish among the rest of the herd. (I tend to anthropomorphize a lot. Maybe it’s a woman thing.) Whenever possible, I like keeping the rest of the herd out of sight from where the animals are being butchered.

So when the region’s most revered mobile butchers, Potlatch Pack, rolled in yesterday morning, we had the herd down in the pasture and well away from the four targeted animals, which we kept in the rocky driveway area where mud and other complicating factors were minimized.

Don stayed outside to watch one of the butchers, a fellow named Chance, do his magic. I stand in absolute awe of Chance’s sharpshooting skills: one single clean shot in one of two preferred locations (either between the eyes, or better yet, a spot between the eye and ear). On this particular occasion, he peeked around the corner of the house and dropped all four animals within 15 seconds of each other. They literally didn’t know what hit them; they didn’t panic; they didn’t even realize their fellow herdsmates were down. The animals didn’t even kick or struggle. They just – dropped.

Chance and his helper had the animals processed (gutted, skinned, quartered) within a few hours, then with a cheerful wave they were on their way. The carcasses will be hung in a cooler for about ten days, then cut, wrapped, and frozen.

Whenever I read about someone in their ivory tower complaining about the backward rednecks in Flyover Country, I think about the wonderful, humane, efficient people working for Potlatch Pack. I know the type of people among whom I prefer to spend my life. Give me the “backward rednecks” like the Potlatch Pack folks any day.

Poor brainwashed child

Now this is fascinating -- and very very sad.

A couple of years ago, I wrote a column for WND entitled Help! My 15-year-old daughter is having sex! It sparked a lively debate among readers, many of whom flatly disagreed with my stance and defended teen sex as normal and healthy.

Just this morning (I get notifications of such things) another comment was added to the column from a 15 year old girl as follows. Some horrific swear words were "bleeped out" (I get the unedited version). Before reading her comment, please read the column first to understand the context.

As a fifteen year old girl, who is a virgin, a straight A student, a feminist, and a liberal (things you obviously don't agree with) the first thing that came to my mind after reading this is what the ***.

Firstly, I would like to comment on the homeschooling/ private school section of this. Children put in private schools, especially religious ones, tend to have sex earlier and party harder because when you are put in a strict environment you tend to want to rebel. Children who are homeschooled, if they don't have enough extracurricular activities, are weirdos. Sorry, but people have to interact with other people their own age. A fifteen year old shouldn't be spending all her time with her parents. You need friends and interaction to be able to learn how to function in society and be able to create your own opinions and ways of thinking.

Next, lets talk about the slut shaming in this. Having sex, no matter your age, does not make you a whore, slut, bad person, or anything negative. Sex is a decision between two people and they can choose to do whatever makes them comfortable. You cannot speak for someone you have never met. You do not know why she chose to have sex and you can't say it was from pear pressure because you do not know. Maybe she felt ready and her boyfriend felt ready so they made the decision to have intercourse with each other. Maybe she thought it would make their relationship better. Maybe she was horny and decided to just go for it. You don't know and it's not your place to guess or to judge. You also cannot speak for this girl's mother when you talk about what you think her parenting style is. You have not met any of these people so you cannot speak about them or for them.

I will also talk about how you say staying married is important. Single parents can raise a child perfectly fine. A person doesn't need a mother and a father, they just need female and male role models. Staying married won't change how early someone has their sexual debut.

Now lets talk about contraceptives. These are so very important because whether you like it or not teenagers are having sex. In every generation in the past, present and future teenagers have always been and will always have sex. Contraceptives like condoms, the pill, IUDs, the shot, the patch, etc. reduce the chance of a person getting pregnant. This is important because sometimes people don't want a kid. Is that surprising to you? People are going to have sex no matter what so providing birth control is necessary to prevent teen pregnancy.

You also made a facetious comment about abortions. Any living creature has the right to decide what happens to THEIR body and who gets to "use it". This means no one gets to use their body without permission. That could be a man, a woman, or in the case of abortions a fetus. You are in control of your own body and no one gets to use it unless you say okay. So if someone decides to terminate a pregnancy because they don't want a child to grow inside them, that is their *** damn business and it should not concern you. I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. Meaning that I believe no one else should have a say in what you decide.

To close my argument, although i have so much more to say about this, I'll talk about this comment, "Too often, modern parenting techniques are antithetical to the old-fashioned time-tested ways to raise children, complete with restrictions, religious values, discipline, repercussions, training and high expectations of moral behavior." The reason for modern parenting techniques instead of old-fashioned time-tested ways is that people evolve with the times. If we didn't we all would be sold into marriage, people would be stoned for committing crimes, and we would burn "witches" at the stake. Times change and so should parenting techniques. When your baby cries you probably shouldn't give it whiskey or wine because we now know that alcohol is bad for people, especially infants. Swaddling techniques have changed. Car seats have changed. Dietary habits for kids has changed. Disciplinary acts for teenagers has changed. Approaches to dealing with teenagers expressing their sexuality has changed because now we now better. Do we know everything? No. Is that okay? Yes. Should we be open to other opinions? Yeah. Should you realize that things change and thats okay? Yup. No matter what you tell your kids are they still going to make their own decisions? Yes because everyone is an individual and you have to realize that. Get with the times and open your *** damn eyes because sheltering your kids isn't going to help anyone.

To be quite truthful, I feel achingly sorry for this child. Liberals like to accuse conservatives of "brainwashing" their children to be good moral decent citizens. But can you honestly say this poor kid hasn't been brainwashed into liberalism? She parroted every talking point in the left-leaning spectrum without, I'm guessing, any true comprehension of how easy sex, easy contraceptives, and easy abortions can impact a young girl's life forever.

The progressive mindset that self-control must equal repression is a clear sign of this girl's immaturity. Hey, the sky's the limit, do whatever you feeeeeel like doing! Who cares what the consequences might be? If the 15-year-olds in question feel "ready" for sex, whoo-hoo! The kids are "horny" so they shouldn't bother their little heads about about self-control -- go for it! If the birth control fails, that's what abortions are for!

Thanks but no thanks. I'd rather have teens who are "weirdos" (her term) than teens like this young lady. I don't want to "get with the times" if the "times" produce fruit like this.

Stop reading to your children! It's unfair!

Holy cow. Just when you think things can't get any whackier, things get whackier.

We all understand, academically as well as emotionally, that children raised in a loving family do better in life. That love often translates into doing such wonderful things as reading to your children.

But what happens if you have the audacity (gasp) to raise your children in a loving family, and the temerity to (gasp) read to them? You're being unfair to children who don't have those advantages!

So what's a good loving family to do? Rather than encourage more parents to be loving, instead parents should stop being loving because they're giving their children an "unfair advantage" over other children who may not be lucky enough to have loving parents who read to them.

Or so concludes a whack-doodle progressive "professor" (I use the term lightly) in England. Only in academia could the obvious conclusion be twisted so badly.

"I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally," British academic Adam Swift told ABC’s Joe Gelonesi.

In his article, Gelonesi added: “This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion that perhaps – in the interests of leveling the playing field – bedtime stories should also be restricted.”

Don came in from the shop laughing his head off after listening to Rush Limbaugh blast this fellow to pieces. From Limbaugh's transcript:

"One wacko, one lunatic, one extreme leftist who is obsessed with this perverted definition of fairness and equality and who is determining that parents who can read to their kids at night are giving them an unfair advantage. ... All of this is rooted in the idea that nobody should be any different – we should all be the same, we should all turn out the same.

"But, of course, we’re not all the same. Every damn one of us is unique. We are not like anybody else, by design and by definition. We all have different talents, characteristics, abilities, albatrosses, liabilities, differing levels of ambition. We have differing degrees of health, genetic codes. ... Nobody’s the same. And these people always insist, nevertheless, with enforcing uniformity on everyone.

"As liberals, the answer is not to help the kids who are not in good families. They become the lowest-common denominator. They become the baseline. Everybody must be made to be like them in order for everything to be fair and equal. The natural tendency of the left is to punish success, to punish achievement, to punish anything that they believe gives an unfair advantage."

It's comforting to know that while I may have major philosophical differences with liberals, even they admit this kind of logic is, well, dumb.

Now get out there and read to your kids.

Resignation Letter

Some time ago, in response to a WND column entitled Another Year, Another Failure, I received an email from a gentleman named Harry who related an extraordinary story. I asked permission to post his email as well as some supporting information.
_____________________________

I always enjoy your commentary and can relate somewhat directly to the problem of the teacher in Chicago who is being charged with "weapons violations" for showing tools to a second grade class.

In my case, and to give you a little history, I retired from design research and after being bored for a year took a job in the local school district serving hot lunches to little kids. It was perhaps more fun than my career. But even though I had three very good performance reviews, an excellent working relationship with the kitchen staff and certainly had a good rapport with the kids, I was threatened with disciplinary action up to and including termination because I had the insipid gall to defend the word "Christmas" and other such indiscretions.

A teacher distributed a survey around the school asking for thoughts on the establishment of certain activities: A bowling team, a bus trip to Boston for shopping, a theater trip, etc. The thing that got me in hot water was the part of the survey that asked where should we have the "Winter Holiday" party: Should the "Winter Holiday party be at the school? Should the "Winter Holiday party be at a local restaurant? Should the "Winter Holiday" party be ...?, etc. I got out my black marker, crossed out "Winter Holiday" and wrote Christmas. In the comment section I wrote a very pointed opinion about the issue saying in effect that I thought it was a shame that this school saw fit to minimize or eliminate a part of our culture and heritage that has been with us for many, many years just so we wouldn't offend someone. I also made a remark about "weak-kneed" administrators who didn't have the courage to stand up to this nonsense.

I also discovered a new oxymoron: Tolerant Liberal. The HR director in another meeting with me actually said in so many words that unless I was a politician or a school board member I should, in effect, keep my mouth shut. The fact that I told school officials that I would not apologize for anything I said really got their shorts in a twist.

I had already signed a new contract for the following year but as time went on the situation became untenable. It was right near the end of the school year and the day, the DAY after school ended for the summer, I received a letter explaining that if my disrespectful behavior continued I would be subject to further disciplinary action up to and including termination.

That did it! I decided that I was working there because I wanted to and not because I had to. So, I spent the next two weeks composing my letter of resignation: two pages and single spaced, where I lambasted them for all this idiocy. I had it read by educated friends for their input and suggestions and whether I was taking the right approach. They all felt the letter was well written and to the point. [NOTE: Letter copied below.] So I mailed it and in response I got a letter accepting my resignation and wishing me well in my future endeavors. How nice of them!

In my professional life I have taught at the university level, I taught kindergarten while in graduate school and over the years have developed a very negative opinion of our educational system. Are we doomed as a nation or is there a solution? Closing down the Department of Education, abolishing tenure and eliminating a lot of professorial deadwood might be a way to start. Just thought I would pass this on.
_____________________________________

Here is the instigating document, ironically called a "Joy and Celebration Survey." (I blocked out a name.) (Click to enlarge.)

(For clarity, his comments at the bottom read, "Comment -- It is time that this idiocy and weak-kneed attitude of school administrators is questioned and acted on. Christmas is an important and valued part of our culture and heritage and should not be treated so indifferently or out of fear of offending someone. You are in America! Act like it! Merry Christmas!"
__________________________________________

Here is the resulting disciplinary letter he received (click to enlarge):

__________________________________________

Here is a copy of Harry's resignation letter:

Dear [name deleted],

This letter is to inform you of my decision to resign my position at [name deleted] School.

I find it quite interesting and unfortunate how a situation can be allowed to deteriorate because of fragile egos. I also find it interesting how my job can be put on the line because of my personal views and comments on issues that are not unique to [name deleted] School, but are of concern to many across the U.S. and, at the same time, for my excellent job performance review of May 12th of this year to be totally ignored. It makes me think that there is a distorted sense of values in play here. At this stage in my life I will not allow myself to be intimidated and scolded like a little child, especially by people considerably younger than I am. Management by intimidation is unprofessional and wrong and I will not tolerate it. I will not allow myself to be manipulated by signing something I feel is inaccurate. “Disrespectful Behavior”? That really should be explained further as it seems to relate more to my job performance than my views. If there was any disrespect floating around it certainly did not come from me. “Discomfort with my responses”? I guess nobody has ever confronted or challenged school officials before and they are at a loss as to how to handle it. But if these are the ways that challenges are met and handled at [name deleted] School, then perhaps they should look inward for resolution.

Other issues are the Halloween problem and my supposed comment to [name deleted] that I truly believe never happened. This could have been reliance by [name deleted] on second or third hand information or made up, as was the insinuation that I criticized the President at some point. Also the anonymous survey where the comment I made in defense of Christmas so upset some people that they were determined to find the source. Having done that they had the gall to confront me with it. That was bullying, intimidation and a violation of my privacy which probably could easily be determined by legal counsel. And for [name deleted] to say that I am intolerant is unconscionable. When [name deleted] mentioned my “emailing the world” about the talent show problem I was disappointed that you did not interject the fact that it was your suggestion that I also email your boss after offering me your support. What was that all about? In another instance I remember the presentation the kids put on the Friday before spring vacation. I found it appalling that several got up and recited little speeches about global warming and related issues. I wasn’t listening to kids, I was hearing little programmed robots that have been taught what to think and not how to think. I learned in graduate school almost 40 years ago that education was beginning to spiral downhill and, in so many words, I told [name deleted] that in our first meeting. She quickly said it was getting better. Of course I disagreed. Apparently we don’t read the same books.

And when it comes to the murals in the hallway I thought it was a wonderful project, especially with all the kids participating. I could have taken issue with that too but chose not to. I came to work one morning and saw several people working on the tiles and talked with one to get an understanding of the project. Nice conversation, until I made a suggestion that got brushed off without so much as a “thanks for your input”. I thought it would be nice to have next to the murals a chart listing all the kids names, their grade and the code that would allow them to find their particular tile in the several hundred that comprised the murals. My reasoning was that each child should get individual recognition for their work and also be able to show their parents the tile when they visit the school. I was told it was a “school project” and that everyone from the “school” participated. Apparently the “individual” is not important but the “group” is.

A short time after the murals were finished I happened to see one of the third graders in the hall. She was heading for the library with a cart of books and I asked her about the mural and where her tile was. She told me the code number. I committed that to memory and next morning I brought in my camera and took a picture of her tile. I went on the computer at home and made a print of it complete with all the pertinent information about school, grade and her name. I then gave it to her for her birthday, so at least one student got recognition. These are the kinds of things I am concerned about and justifiably so. This was a time to pat the kids on the back and I don’t believe it was forthcoming.

John Dewey, an educational philosopher, has been quoted as saying “Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent”. I could never be a disciple of John Dewey because he, as an educator many years ago, set American education on a path that is not working in the best interests of this country. In a different era, Alexis de Tocqueville, a French political philosopher in his Democracy in America said “The citizens are led insensibly, and perhaps against their will, daily to give up fresh portions of their individual independence to the government, and those same men who from time to time have upset a throne and trampled kings beneath their feet bend without resistance to the slightest wishes of some government clerk”. It was individuality and entrepreneurialism that made this such a wonderful country and it is gradually being decimated by an ideology that no one in education wants to admit exists. I have taught at the university level and continue to be disturbed at the “product” that higher education is producing. These newly minted “teachers” over the years have been saturating K-12 with an ideology that is preventing kids from understanding where they came from and who they are as Americans and watering down our culture and heritage with “diversity” and “multiculturalism”. American history, if it’s taught at all, utilizes textbooks that are revised, rewritten and misleading in their facts and downplays American exceptionalism. And if I were to go to the school library I would almost be willing to bet that I would also find a book entitled “Heather Has Two Mommies”. There are some very unfortunate agendas working their way into school curriculums at lower and lower grades. If I had any power I would shut down the Department of Education and break up the NEA for the corrupting influences that they are. I know I am digressing here and getting away from the issue at hand. But I just wanted to give you some insight.

I want you to know that I have the utmost respect for [name deleted] and can not see burdening her with my continued employment knowing that I would be going through the year with a large target on my back. I believe it would create a very untenable situation for her and be a source of unnecessary stress. Although I loved my job and certainly loved being around the kids I prefer not to be part of an institution that is drifting away little by little from all the positive American traditions and values that are so important in life, and to me.

Sincerely,
Harry S.
__________________________________________

The reason I took such pains to post this issue is because it so beautifully illustrates the (cough) "tolerance" and (cough) "diversity" in the public school system. Clearly employees can only be tolerant of one side of an issue, and diversity must never include traditional viewpoints.

My thanks to Harry for supplying this information.

Attacking a friend

I was shocked when I logged onto my friend Enola Gay's blog last night. She was the subject of some vicious attacks by a bunch of whining self-proclaimed liberals who have dedicated an entire forum to tearing her down.

Needless to say I'm horrified that these people whose favorite buzzword is tolerance would attack a family they don't even know on the flimsy basis of such things as her daughter Maid Elizabeth's spelling errors. The more I thought about it, the madder I got. Here these people are viciously assassinating the character of a non-public figure for no other reason than they CAN. What sad excuses for humans they are.

Maid Elizabeth, by the way, is a young woman of superior moral character and advanced EMT training who literally saved the life of a local man who had been hit by a car while crossing an intersection. The ambulance took half an hour to arrive. At the time, Maid Elizabeth was working in our local grocery store. The moment she heard about the accident, she dashed to her car, grabbed her medical kit (which she always keeps with her because she's prepared), and stabilized the man's bleeding and wounds until the ambulance arrived. But she can't spell as well as you can? Big whoop. Guess which skill I prefer?

As far as I can see, these attacks took place on a forum which has no other purpose than to let people complain. Specifically it’s a place for liberals to attack conservatives. They can do so with a viciousness and nastiness possible only when hiding behind the veil of anonymity.

The childish snarks against Maid Elizabeth’s less-than-perfect spelling – and by extension, the inferior academic credentials of all “homeskoolers” – is comical in the face of the semi-literate texting monkeys emerging from public schools. But of course it’s easier to snark about the sawdust in one family’s eye than to see the plank in their own.

"Oh for goodness' sakes," sneers a reader. "You put yourself out on the web advertising your lifestyle and you think you're supposed to be immune from criticism?"

Sorry folks, this isn't criticism. This is an attack. Big difference.

Yet I was heartened by the warm and comforting comments left on Enola's post. "Ignore all those tiny, small people who have so little self-worth or self-esteem that they have to attack others in order to justify themselves," advised one reader. "Deep down they probably are just jealous."

Very true. Soon, when I have a bit of free time, I'll go visit Enola. We will sit in her shabby-chic parlor and drink tea from recycled chipped cups and she will serve a home-baked treat and we will smile at the antics of her extraordinary children...and we'll know who has their priorities in the right place.

Keep your chin up, Enola. Those turds will never have the honor of drinking tea with you -- or knowing you as well as we we do.

Their loss.

UPDATE: Enola Gay has since removed the post from her forum so as not to give any more free press to the Forum of Hate.

Views from a liberal

In response to this weekend's WorldNetDaily colum (Have a Selfish Thanksgiving), I got a lengthy email from my favorite liberal reader, Robert. This gentleman routinely (but politely) takes me to task for just about any opinion I express. I guess he can never accept the idea that we disagree on almost everything (except a mutual love for classical music). Contrary to his claim, this fellow is about as deep a Progressive as you could ever define.

So here's his latest email to me. One common theme in his missives (besides the evils of homeschooling) is that because conservatives are less inclined to unquestioningly hand out money in the form of welfare, we are therefore a cold heartless lot who want to see poor people die on the street, yadda yadda yadda.

Anyway, decide for yourself.
______________________________________

Hello Patrice! I don't agree with you here. Yes, communism proved to be the worst economic system ever. It was horribly inefficient and unproductive.

But you have to realize that its polar opposite, pure laissez-faire capitalism, where it's dog eat dog and every man for himself, and if you're down on your luck, tough noogies, is no better. I'm no socialist, Marxist or communist, even though a lot of right-wingers have accused me of this on the internet just because I don't share their economic and social views, but there HAS to be a safety net.

Without it, too many innocent people will be helpless and fall through the cracks. I believe in capitalism, yes. But not the kind where we're all on our own, and if misfortune strikes, too bad. Unfortunately, too many right-wing Americans mistake the existence of a safety net for socialism.

They aren't the same thing at all. And many say that private charities should be that safety net, and that the government has no business helping any one. Wrong. Don't get me wrong; I'm all for private charities. But it's a mistake think that they can provide for every one in need. In fact,they can't even come remotely close.

You said in your last post that you don't want to live in America if "socialism" come here. It hasn't and won't. If anything, the danger is right-wing extremists who want to destroy our already inadequate one, which would be catastrophic.

Look. The vast majority of Americans, and people everywhere, aren't lazy bums who want the government to support them in style for life so they can live an easy life with no work to do. They want to work and earn a decent or better living and to be secure along with their families for life.

But you forget that social and economic conditions in America make this extremely difficult if not impossible for so many people.

It's not easy in America to get a good education past high school and get and keep a secure job with good benefits. Working hard is important and people should do this. But it's absolutely no guarantee of prosperity or security.

But unfortunately, the lame ducks in congress are about to be replaced by a lot of Republican lame brains who tell gullible people all they want to hear about lowering taxes, "limited" government, "smaller" government and all that, and restoring "freedom."

But beware. They aren't going to increase prosperity if they get power, but only make things much worse. Lame ducks to lame brains. Just what we need.

All the best,
Robert

A brief history of the human race

A friend sent this.
________________________

For those that don't know history, here is a condensed version.

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals; and
2. Conservatives

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. Those became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud or Miller. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, engineers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America . They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history.

It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it.

A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to piss them off.

And there you have it.

"A perfect laboratory for leftist policies at work"

Here's a remarkable (and depressing!) YouTube clip on the twilight of Detroit. It's long - thirteen minutes - so it will take awhile to buffer, but well worth watching as an example of how liberalism and the entitlement mentality brought a once-great city to its knees.

Pithy definitions and a cute pic

Contributions from friends:
__________________________

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn`t buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course.)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended."

Ten Reasons Why I Voted Democrat

Sure wish I knew who wrote this…

1. I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse.

2. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

3. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

4. I voted Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

5. I voted Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq, I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.

6. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

7. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

8. I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

9. I voted Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.

10. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything they don't own."
-- William F. Carling

"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
-- Margaret Thatcher

No really! We're not biased!

A reader sent this. Let it be known that I've seen none of these people, as we don't get TV reception.

So let me get this straight, the liberals call Fox News right wing.

1. Dr. Mark Lemont Hill
2. Chris Wallace
3. Kirsten Powers
4. Alan Colmes
5. Shepard Smith
6. Bob Beckal
7. Greta Van Sustern
8. Geraldo Rivera
9. Juan Williams
10. Mara Liason

l just named ten liberals on Fox News. Name me three conservatives that work on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, or PBS?

You could point this fact to liberals, and what's their answer? Bush's failed policies.

Liberalism truly IS a Mental disorder,

John in Helena Montana

Conversations with a liberal

The following is an email conversation between my favorite liberal detractor, a very polite fellow who sends thoughtful emails from the liberal side of things. He’s replying to last weekend’s column on Selective Feminism.

Hello Patrice! You're absolutely right about how wrong many feminists are. The extremist ones are always making wildly exaggerated claims about women's "oppression," and some are guilty of misandry, the equivalent of misogyny. Radical feminist Marilyn French has stated that "all men are rapists, and that's all they are." And some of these feminist wackos actually believe that all sex between males and females, even between consenting adults, is rape and should be prohibited, and that all reproduction should be by artificial insemination.

But the "Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant, women's place is in the home" conservatives are just as bad. They want to roll back all the progress that has been made for women. They are a kind of American Taliban.

I recently read an interesting book by Phyllis Schlafly, of whom I'm no admirer, in which she mocks radical feminists, makes fun of the whole feminist movement, and completely distorts and misrepresents much of what feminists say and do. She just sets up all manner of straw men (or women).

For example, she claims that one of the bad things about feminism is that so many women no longer stay home to take care of their children, and pursue their own careers. Supposedly this has a very bad effect on children. Day care facilities are bad, very bad. Women should be at home taking care of their children.

But what she conveniently fails to mention is the fact that many married couples have to have double incomes, and they would never be able to get by otherwise. These are the economic realities of today. Get a grip on reality, Phyllis.

And I'm still convinced that homeschooling is a very problematical thing. If parents have the skill and ability to teach their children everything they need to know, then it's alright. But too many of these parents are members of the evangelistic religious right, and they don't want their children exposed to ideas they don't like, such as the idea that the Bible isn't literally true, the world wasn't created in six days and is only 6,000 years old, which is 1,000 years after the ancient Sumerians invented glue, dinosaurs existed side by side with people, and that Adam and Eve, and Noah etc really existed.

They're also deathly afraid of having their children hear that what consenting adults do in private is nobody else's business, and that homosexuals are just ordinary people who deserve the same rights as every one else’s, and should be left alone as long as they harm no one else.

Their narrow-mindedness, intolerance and self-righteousness is appalling. I don't mind people being Christians. I don't hate them because of this. I just disapprove of their whole social agenda. I don't want to take any rights away from them, or interfere with their religious observances.

But I'm just as opposed to the stupidly multicultural and politically correct indoctrination in so many public schools today. Students should be taught to think for themselves, and to be ready and willing to disagree with other people without being disagreeable.

My own upbringing and early education was like neither. I wasn’t taught to be a homophobe. Homosexuality wasn't even discussed! It wasn't an issue back then. I wasn't taught that only Jews will go to heaven; my family has never even been observant Jews. Judaism teaches that God does not judge us by what religion we happen to follow. He does not care whether we are Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or whatever. We are judged by our actions and our actions alone.

My parents never even mentioned abortion when I was growing up in the 50s and 60s. It was a very different world back then.

Many conservatives whose websites and blogs I respond to consider me a terrible liberal, even a communist, even though I'm anything but that. But when I email far left ones, they think I'm much too conservative!

And in a separate email:

Another thing I meant to say about homeschooling is that it can deprive kids of the chance to be exposed to kids from other religious backgrounds and with different opinions and attitudes. It can give them a narrow and limited outlook on life by depriving them of the exposure to different worldviews. And the chance to discuss things and disagree with others, or possibly to come to realize that some things other people say might make sense, and that they may have a point.

In an ideal world, kids would just be educated rather than indoctrinated, either with a multicultural and politically correct viewpoint in which they are taught to be paranoid about offending others and being offended, and that the whole history of the world is one of evil, greedy and crude whites oppressing all non-whites, etc and all that garbage, or a strictly religious and evangelically conservative viewpoint in which the Bible is literally true, and homosexuals are evil perverts doomed to hellfire, and that abortion must be ended at all costs, and that any one who does not subscribe to their narrow religious views is doomed to hell, and that liberals are evil atheistic moral relativists, and hedonistic immoral people who are out to undermine the nation's morality.

Kids must learn to think for themselves, and not see things in black and white.


My reply:

Goodness, you had me worried there! For a moment I thought we actually agreed on something, in which case, of course, I'd wonder what I did wrong (smile).

While I don't agree with the more excessive "keep 'em at home" conservative extremists, I believe a LOT more people can live on one income than you might suspect. But people have become accustomed to luxury. The wife works to provide money for extras. If people learned to be frugal and live within their means, more women could stay home. And believe me, a lot of women *want* to stay home. And yes, I happen to think daycare is bad. We've worked our fannies off since our kids were born to make sure one parent is at home - I've worked nights, swing-shift, etc. to make sure our kids never darken the door of a daycare.

We have an appointment to have our taxes done today, so yesterday I just finished crunching all our income and expense numbers for the past year. I learned something very interesting. If we exclude the very modest amount of money I make from writing (and let the records show, I don't get paid by WorldNetDaily), then we are $70 below the federal poverty level for a family of four. We have plenty to eat, our girls are in music lessons and other extracurricular activities, we have a lovely home and a small farm. Don't tell me people can't live modestly and have one person at home. It can be done if the priorities are in the right place.

Now here's something interesting – you segued from feminism into homeschooling with nary a blink and went on an oppositional rant worthy of the stuff I spew in my columns. Goodness me, you must have had a *seriously* bad experience with some homeschoolers along the way because I've never seen homeschoolers like the ones you describe. I can honestly say the homeschoolers I know – and I know a lot – don't fit your stereotype in the slightest. My literary agent just asked me to write a book on parenting because she admires how our girls are turning out, and a lot of how they're turning out has to do with homeschooling (lack of exposure to peer pressure and learning to treat one's parents with shocking disrespect, principally). I could as easily hand that assignment to any homeschooling mother around me because their kids are turning out just as admirably.

You speak of conservative Christians as if we're interested in turning this country into a bullying, intolerant Theocracy along the lines of the Taliban. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are horrified and appalled at how things are "progressing" in this country, but the vast majority of us *just want to be left alone.* We want our liberties as outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to be left untampered. The government has no interest in leaving us alone, though, so we must fight. We fight to homeschool, we fight to keep our kids unpolluted by what we see as the evils of the world rather than forcibly spoon-fed things in public school, and we fight to keep such basic rights as gun ownership and freedom of speech/religion/etc.

Believe me, homeschooled kids are exposed to a whole lot more stuff than you think simply by virtue of not being locked into a classroom with one age level for eight hours a day. Parents of homeschooled kids tend to take their kids with them everywhere and meet all sorts of people. We don't keep them locked in a trunk in the basement. They're in the real world – talking, socializing, working, volunteering, learning, seeing, growing. Studies have demonstrated over and over and over and over that homeschooled kids grow up to be highly socialized, competent adults. They just happen to become adults with their parents' morals intact...which, you must admit, is the dearest wish of most parents, *yourself included.* We just happen to differ on what those morals might be.

That said, I'll admit I find it fascinating to get a glimpse into liberal thinking through your emails. I'm quite serious. Frequently I'll ask my husband, "How can they THINK like that?" and you provide me with answers, for which I'm grateful.

Okay, off to get our taxes done. Joy.

Best regards,
Patrice