The fact that he feels some new, (albeit conflicting and confusing) sort of self-awareness of his daughter’s entrance into the world of sexuality frightens him. Why? Well, he seems to understand that men tend to objectify girls, the media sluts, as he refers to them. He himself seem to have a few screws loose on the way he has objectified women.

I believe that he needs to do a little house-cleaning before he directs his well-intentioned but seriously misguided belief systems on his budding baby girl. Hopefully he will be able to understand that his views are skewed, and re-think his desires to view said sluts in front of her.

What is troubling, is he wants one thing for her, and another one for himself. Double standard will be seen by her, and she will see what her father is finding exciting in a woman, unfortunately, it’s not going to be a very well adjusted young lady, unless he changes course. She is inundated with the idea of women being objectified without her own father saying “Do what I say, not what I do”. It just doesn’t work that way. Little girls look up to their fathers, and will emulate what he sees as attractive in order to gain his acceptance. Tread lightly, Dad. Here is his post. Check out the comments.

here is his post

It is incongruous to me how, in one instance, Rev. Wright said in a statement last week, that all of his snippets that have been taken out of context, however…he reiterated those same idiotic statements all over again, the idea that the U.S. has introduced the HIV virus to kill black people, (What?!), USA of the KKK, and this whole media blitz is an attack on the “black church” not on him personally.  Outrageous and untrue statements, also that Obama will pretty much say anything to get elected, I mean it was an under-handed way to go after Obama.  Why not say what you really think?  That you don’t want Obama to be elected at all, that way you can continue to scream Racist! all the way to the bank.  Because I believe he is preaching hatred and preying on people’s fears of racism and by vilifying all white people, he feeds on those fears.  It’s easy to throw punches, when no-one hits back.  I’m glad Obama did.  I feel like we should just stop paying attention to this person, and move on.  Unless something else really juicy comes out.

“Yo NAACP. Surely you could have found someone less divisive to speak your fund raising dinner or does the hype help you sell tickets? What is the point of having this man speak? I am not black, but I can understand the points the Reverend makes in the speeched that have garnered so much attention, but I am not black and I have not lived in this country as black person, so what do I know about it? I do know this… this is not the way of Dr. King. Any talk of hate — only begets hate. An eye for an eye — and we all go blind. This does not mean be a victim. Stand up. Protest. But lose the hate, it serves no one. How will having the Reverend Wright speak at the dinner help the NAACP? Would he have been asked if there was no controversy surrounding him? How is this moving people forward?

SOMEBODY ENLIGHTEN ME — I WANT TO KNOW.”

That last paragraph was written by a blogger at myfoxdetroit by Kraniak_the_Maniak , btw.  He’s got a good blog about this, some interesting comments as well. 

This is from the National Review site called the Corner…..heed well.

The Scary Legacy of the 2008 Democratic Primary  written by Victor Davis Hanson at Real Clear Politics.

“One of the strangest things about the NAACP Wright pseudo-scientific speech on learning, and its enthusiastic CNN coverage and analysis, was the abject racialism of Wright. It was sort of an inverse Bell-Curve presentation, based on assumed DNA differences.

His convoluted explanation of African-American right-brain ‘oral’ culture as more creative, musical, and spontaneous versus European left-brain traditional analysis could never have been given by someone white to that audience without justifiably earning booing and catcalls.

Three comments: this was just the sort of racist ‘genetic’ difference that most Americans learned to shun, now apparently quite acceptable again, and part of the mainstream.

Second, there is no evidence that so-called Europeans could not “rap” or create an oral literature as well as Africans — remember, oral poetry as we know it , began with bards like Homer somewhere in the southeastern Aegean and continued into modern times in the Balkans.

Three, some of the most accomplished speakers of English and analytical thinkers are African-Americans, a fact everyone immediately recognizes from what they read and with whom they speak.

In short, Wright’s speech on black-right brainers, white-left brainers — replete with bogus stereotypes and crude voice imitations — was about as racist as they come and at one time antithetical to what the NAACP was once all about. Again, the Obama campaign and its appendages have set back racial relations a generation. Just ten years ago, any candidate, black or white, would have rejected Wright making a speech about genetic differences in respective black and white brains. Now it’s given to civil rights organizations by the possible next President’s pastor and spiritual advisor — and done to wild applause for an organization founded on the idea that we are innately the same, while being gushed over by ignorant “commentators.”

As I said before, between Wright’s racism and hatred, and Obama’s contextualization of what he has said, we have so lowered the bar that the next racist (and he won’t necessarily be black) who evokes hatred of other races and then offers a mish-mash pop theory of genetic differences will have plenty of “context” to ward off public fury.

Orwellian times.”

Amen!  I definitely couldn’t have said it better, I loved how he put this.

      What I came out of this speech with is more confusion about his message, other than we are so different, seemingly from deep within our own brains, that most things that are forgivable, because we European-Americans just do not understand the African-American.  Firstly, I am an American, secondly, my ancestors came from Scotland, and Ireland, and thirdly….I’m a human being.  Actually, I got that in the wrong order, but you get my gist.  We are created equally, I don’t believe we learn any differently than any other human.  It makes no sense.  How do you explain how so many black people do so very well, in our society?  Tell me that.  And the amount of whites who do not do well.  Still, no sense. 

I don’t see the whole “Let’s get together” theme, it just doesn’t’ ring true.  Sorry.  I saw him mocking the way JFK spoke, and Pres. Johnson, claiming to compare it with the way certain black people speak, saying that we as whites aren’t able to understand the lyrics to rap albums.  Most people I know don’t.  But how does this bring us all together?  This is divisive.  I don’t think that the Rev. is helping Obama’s cause.  He mocks the white people that are in the audience, saying we don’t even know how to clap in time to music.  This man is absurd, and his messages misses by a mile.  I understand that he may be wanting to bring us together, but by mocking and exaggerating the differences of all of us, it does just the opposite.     

This was reported on Fox News Channel website:

The renegade Mormon splinter group requires girls at puberty to enter into polygamous marriages with much older men and produce children, authorities say. The sect also teaches children to fear the outside world, including the very authorities who removed them until a court hearing Thursday that will help determine their future.

“You’re taught to fear everyone and everything,” said Cooke, herself a 16-year-old bride.

In 2003 and 2004, Jeffs, the spiritual leader of an estimated 6,000 followers in two adjoining towns along the Utah-Arizona line, plucked children under the age of 6 to bring to Texas, some without their parents, former sect member Isaac Wyler said.

“Over age 6 they were too contaminated for the world to be of use to God,” said Wyler, who still lives in Colorado City, Arizona, and has 38 siblings. “He picked the ones that would be the most obedient, the ones that would be qualified to go to Zion.”

Authorities raided the Eldorado ranch April 3 after a girl from the clan made a whispered telephone call for help to a family violence shelter. The 16-year-old, who indicated she was a few weeks’ pregnant, said her 50-year-old husband beat and raped her. The girl has not yet been identified among the 416 children and may not even be among them.

In the call, the girl said that sect members warned her that if she ever left, outsiders would hurt her and force her to cut her hair, wear makeup and have sex with many men.

That was a small excerpt, but there is so much more.  My heart goes out to these innocents.  Maybe now we can set a precedent, go after all these sects and end it once and for all.

This one is a hoot!!

Not only can blogging wage war on your health, but public figures are getting in trouble for their online opinions. The BNP’s Nick Eriksen learnt this the hard way last week, after he was sacked as the party’s London Assembly candidate for publishing jaw-droppingly obtuse views on rape on his silly blog. The post has since been removed, but luckily journalists were quick to spot the following:

“Rape is simply sex (I am talking about ‘husband-rape’ here)… Women enjoy sex, so rape cannot be such a terrible physical ordeal…To suggest that rape, when conducted without violence, is a serious crime is like suggesting force-feeding a woman chocolate cake is a heinous offence.”

On August 24, 2005, Mr Eriksen wrote on the blog: ‘I’ve never understood why so many men have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the feminazi myth machine into believing that rape is such a serious crime…

Yeah. Whoa.

Almost 80% of rapes are “acquaintance rapes,” or sexual acts forced upon women by someone they know. Partner/husband rapes are the most common, and according to a 2000 British Crime Survey, strangers were responsible for a mere 8% of the rape victims surveyed. So no, Eriksen, rape is not exactly, nearly, or approximately anything remotely like eating cake, and whoever the perpetrator is, rape is by definition violent, and is never “simply” sex, whether or not it is instigated by a husband.

by Kira Hesser

Image courtesy of Simon Rigglesworth’s Flickrstream

 Now this is what Robin has to say about this insanity.

So, ok.  Here’s my take on this.  Exactly what do I need to do to be elected as an official in any country in the “civilized” world, these days?  I mean, you can have made a complete wreck of your life, and as long as you “get in front of it”. No-one will judge you, as a matter of fact; you can write a really great book and make a shitload of money!! 

 I mean, I know I’ve got skeletons in my closet,( at least they sure do keep making a racket in there, I wish they would quiet down, I throw them a bone once in a while, gotta keep ‘em company), but come on, getting raped is likened to getting chocolate shoved down your throat??  Maybe somewhere out there I can begin to campaign for the crackdown of the super-stupid remarks made by our lovely elected officials. 

I’m gonna advocate having chocolate shoved somewhere I believe he will most enjoy it, in my humble opinion.  And that’s just for starters.. how’s about having the hookers and other such acquaintances  have a little forum of their own, no holds barred?  It won’t hurt the credibility of the afore-mentioned official, gives them more street credit!  All will be appeased, and applauded, look at little miss Amy Winehouse, nice voice, scary as hell.  However, we love and adulate her, ‘cuz she was a very naughty girl.  Yaayy!! 

 There are no right or wrongs, here folks.  Just good old fashioned let’s just spit in everybody’s face and call it a day, and oh, by the way, can this Brit get re-elected?  You bet he can.  We’ll just say it was taken out of context.  Yeah, and then do a stint in a sex-appreciation rehab…I think there is one out there named “Do me with DARK Chocolate, dummy”.  He’ll come out a much better person, I guarantee it.