People everywhere are collectively groaning over the choice to name Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, as Time’s Person of the Year. Who would make such an idiotic, shallow, superficial choice?

Well, when you consider that the driving force behind his nomination was Meghan McCain, it suddenly makes sense. Meggie Mac wrote another ghastly column, wasting space on The Daily Beast this week defending her choice to nominate Zuckerberg.

I was one of the people on Time’s panel to nominate and argue over who was most deserving of the title. My two choices were the Tea Party and Mark Zuckerberg. The Time panel consisted of myself, Joe Trippi, Google’s Marissa Miller (who petitioned hard for Steve Job’s to be considered for person of the year), Wyclef Jean, and the executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement Daisy Khan. Everyone chose both interesting and year poignant candidates. Other notable people that were discussed were Nancy Pelosi, Glenn Beck and the country of Haiti.

Hang on — stop right there. Did I just see Meghan McCain write Steve Job’s? As in, she added an apostrophe into the name of Steve Jobs, the co-founder and CEO of Apple? And someone, please, explain to me what exactly this sentence means:

Everyone chose both interesting and year poignant candidates.

Perhaps the most pressing question that needs to be answered is why in the name of God this blonde bimbo hasn’t been assigned the desperately needed team of editors to scrutinize every word of drivel that she writes. But this is about Mark Zuckerberg, so let’s continue.

Time’s choice is like the man himself, innovative and controversial. The “Person of the Year” is an illusive title that has historically showcased, for better or worse, the individual who has had the most distinctive impact on the previous year. In 2010 Facebook hit its five hundred millionth member. A feat no social network has ever achieved before. David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin’s The Social Network was also released to both commercial and critical acclaim. Mark Zuckerberg has become the first true millenial rockstar, and he is ushering in a completely new era.

At the end of the day, Mark Zuckerberg really is the most forward thinking and relevant candidate, even beating Julian Assange and the Tea Party. He transcends all of these people and, dare I say, even countries because all of these subjects are more than likely be read about, discussed, and debated via users on—where else?—Facebook. I believe that Mark Zuckerberg is the Henry Ford of our times and Facebook is the Model-T.

There you have it, folks: according to brilliant pundit Meghan McCain, Mark Zuckerberg is just as genius as Henry Ford, and Facebook — a website that’s primarily used for wasting time — is an invention as historically significant as the Model-T.

Previous people to have been awarded the now-defunct honor of being name the Time Person of the Year include Charles Lindbergh, Walter Chrysler, Winston Churchill, Harry Truman, Martin Luther King Jr, Henry Kissinger, Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and Bill Gates. More recently, esteemed winners have included… er, Barack Obama and you. Mark Zuckerberg cements it: the Person of the Year award has officially jumped the shark.

Sure, a lot of people use Facebook for lots of different reasons. What has Mark Zuckerberg done this year, in 2010, to make him the Person of the Year? Well… his website inspired a movie that made a lot of money. A lot of people signed up to use Facebook. And… that’s about it.

Other people considered? Well, there’s Julian Assange, who while not likeable to most normal human beings certainly had a major impact on the world this year, thanks to Wikileaks. He also came in first in Time’s online voting poll. Mark Zuckerberg came in tenth, behind Lady Gaga, Glenn Beck, Steve Jobs (or Job’s, as Meggie Mac spells it), the Chilean miners, and the unemployed American. The Tea Party movement? While it didn’t make it into the top ten of the online voting poll, that would also arguably be a better choice.

Let’s see, founder of an internet site famously used for wasting time vs. a movement that redefined politics and halted socialism in its creeping tracks. I guess for Meggie Mac, it’s no contest. After all, those Tea Partiers sure do like Sarah Palin a lot, who is Meggie Mac’s arch-nemesis, so clearly she can’t side with them. (For that matter, Sarah Palin would’ve been a better choice than Mark Zuckerberg, too.)

Hey, maybe next year we can make the Kardashians the Persons of the Year! Their TV show is really cool and stuff! Right, Meggie Mac?

In all seriousness, while Facebook has indeed impacted many, many people, there was nothing in the year 2010 that made Facebook particularly newsworthy. As Ed Morrissey pointed out yesterday, Time is a little behind on the times.

Apparently, Time didn’t know that Facebook launched in February 2004, and had achieved the status of most trafficked social network by the end of 2008. If the issue was impact, it seems as though Time is two years too late in awarding this.

Honestly, though, what other real and significant impact has Facebook had? It has spawned a Hollywood movie, which is probably why Time bothered to notice it after more than six years. It’s a popular meeting space, and it allows people to reconnect to old friends, as well as waste vast amounts of time with imaginary farms and wannabe virtual Mafia dons. Facebook is mostly a time suck. At least Twitter had an impact last year in the attempt by the Iranian people to rebel against the dictatorship in Tehran.

But of course, Meghan McCain, political genius, wouldn’t need to bother with finding out stuff like that, would she? There was that Facebook movie that came out, y’all!! Come on!

Of course, while Meggie Mac might be the intellectual lightweight responsible for arguing that Mark Zuckerberg deserves the title of 2010′s Person of the Year, the blame ultimately falls with Time itself. What else did they expect? When you put a moron like Meghan McCain on your panel to choose the Person of the Year, what else are you going to get but a moronic choice?

(3 votes, average: 3.67 out of 5)

 Loading ...

The internet is buzzing today over a horrifying video of a deranged man who opened fire on a Bay District School Board meeting. Clay Duke, a former convict, said he was angry about his wife being fired and that he was going to die. Here is the unbelievable video (you can see the uncut version here:

Much has been made of this incident. Luckily, the only person shot ended up being the shooter, who was shot by a security guard and then apparently took his own life.

And it was because of just that — luck.

Much has been made of the woman seen in the beginning to the clip, Ginger Littleton. A member of the school board, Littleton tried to stop Duke by hitting him with her purse, before he knocked her to the ground and pointed the gun at her. He ended up letting her go. Littleton said she felt that she needed to do something to stop the shooter from the defenseless men left in the room before the police could get there.

Before the shooting, board member Ginger Littleton, who initially exited the meeting, snuck back in and tried to disarm Duke, swinging her purse at his arm holding the gun.

“I knew that he had the gun right there. There wasn’t anything I could do. My plan A was to try to get the gun away from him. Unfortunately, because I’m probably not smarter than the average bear, I did not have a plan B,” Littleton told “Early Show” co-anchor Harry Smith.

Littleton’s attempt was unsuccessful. Duke, a large, heavyset man dressed in a dark pullover coat, got angry, turned around, and she fell to the floor, as board members pleaded with her to stop. Duke pointed the gun at her head and said, “You stupid b–” but he didn’t shoot her, she said.

Littleton said she it was her concern for her defenseless colleagues that drove her to take such a risk.

“Their shield was a three-ring binder and [their] lethal weapon was a ballpoint pen. They were lined up like ducks in a pond. And this guy was very scary. So, I could either leave and I knew something bad was going to happen. I could either leave and try to live with myself if it did or go back and try to at least delay or divert until we could get some help,” she said.

Littleton was exactly right: her colleagues had nothing they could use to defend themselves against this crazed gunman. As you can see in the video, the gunman was there for over six minutes. He was able to walk in with a gun and fire multiple gunshots at unarmed, defenseless men before a security guard was able to get into the room and take him down. The school board superintendent, Bill Husfelt, was able to do nothing but plead for his life when the gun was pointed at him.

Had it not been for the fact that Clay Duke was unable to aim correctly, how many lives would have been lost yesterday? It was nothing but luck that kept those school board members alive.

Now, imagine if someone, anyone, in that room had been carrying a gun. How quickly could Clay Duke have been brought down? Had someone there been armed, he might not have been able to fire his first shot. It’s another example of why it is so important to carry a weapon. In the countless instances of mass shootings, they all have one thing in common: had someone present been carrying a gun, countless lives would have been saved. Gun control advocates like to ignore that little nugget of logic, but keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens does nothing but ensure that they are defenseless when confronted with a gun-wielding criminal (who likely didn’t care about breaking handgun laws to acquire their weapon). Making schools gun-free zones does nothing but set up easy targets for situations like the Columbine shooting, the Virginia Tech massacre, and this school board shooting to continue happening. A gunman can rest assured that no one will be there to take him down while he murders innocent people. Gun control does nothing more than make innocent, law-abiding citizens sitting ducks when a dangerous situation arises.

We should be thankful that no one was hurt or killed in the altercation yesterday — and remember the importance of maintaining a well-armed populace.

(6 votes, average: 4.33 out of 5)

 Loading ...

For most Americans, someone who betrays their country and puts the lives of our troops in danger is considered a traitor.

In Berkeley, that person — Bradley Manning — is considered a hero.

An Army private jailed for allegedly leaking sensitive military data is a hero and should be freed, according to a resolution under consideration by the Berkeley City Council.

The council is expected to vote Tuesday on whether to declare its support for Pfc. Bradley Manning, who’s suspected of providing WikiLeaks with classified military documents and a video depicting an Army helicopter attack in Baghdad in which 11 civilians were killed.

Manning, 22, currently in the brig in Quantico, Va., faces 52 years in prison if convicted. Manning has not commented on his guilt or innocence.

“If he did what he’s accused of doing, he’s a patriot and should get a medal,” said Bob Meola, the Berkeley peace and justice commissioner who authored the resolution. “I think the war criminals should be the ones prosecuted, not the whistle-blowers.”

The proposed resolution originated from the same commission that declared the Marine Corps “unwanted intruders” in Berkeley in 2008. The council’s ensuing approval – and reversal – ignited some of the city’s most raucous protest in years and prompted more than 25,000 e-mails to City Hall.

This time, however, the commission’s vote was not unanimous. The resolution passed on a 7-3 vote, and it’s likely to be just as contentious when it meets the City Council.

… Berkeley’s proposed resolution thanks Manning “for his courage in bringing the truth to the American people and the people of the world.”

The courage of the men and women in uniform currently defending the freedom of the Berkeley buffoons doesn’t matter. Berkeley moonbats have a long history of attacking the military, and the Marine Corps in particular. When a Marine Corps recruiting center opened in Berkeley, all hell broke loose, with Code Pink leading the way. The center was vandalized twice. Protestors started a near riot and attacked the police. The same commission looking to honor Bradley Manning passed a resolution, along with the City Council, calling the Marines “uninvited unwelcome intruders”.

Considering Berkeley’s anti-military history, it’s not altogether surprising that they would choose to honor someone like Bradley Manning. What exactly did Bradley Manning do that was do despicable? Well, he is allegedly the person who gave Wikileaks access to thousands upon thousands of files which have been released and are potentially harmful to our military.

The first to debut was the “Collateral Murder” video, which showed the deaths of two Reuters journalists who had chosen to embed with terrorists. This caused a firestorm of controversy against our military, which was once again smeared and slandered as being made up of ruthless, cold-blooded murderers.

Wikileaks then proceeded to release 90,000 pages of classified documents, which outed Afghan informants. This was unforgivable. The bravery of our United States troops is known and appreciated by most Americans, but many underestimate the danger that Afghan civilians put themselves in when they choose to work with us to bring the Taliban down. These informants, if discovered, will be murdered. Their families will be murdered. They took an incredible risk, and displayed unbelievable courage and bravery, and were rewarded by being sold out by a gay soldier who apparently felt like he was teased too much. (Because, you know, if someone hurts your feelings in high school you should definitely betray your country, put your fellow troops at increased risk, and sell out Afghan informants whose lives are on the line.) It’s reprehensible, and if any of these informants are killed, it’s Bradley Manning who has their blood on his hands.

Of course, saying all of this is like preaching to the choir. Most Americans find Manning’s actions to be despicable. Not the residents of Berkeley, however. No, to them Manning’s a hero. Someone to be honored. (This is also likely to be the only time that Berkeley ever sees fit to honor an American soldier.) Interestingly, this news report comes fresh on the heels of the news that Al Jazeera is now going to be broadcast over Berkeley radio waves.

These people don’t just drink the moonbat Kool-Aid, they bathe in it.

(3 votes, average: 3.67 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Edna Stern is a guest blogger for My Dog Ate My Blog and a writer on online schools and universities for Guide to Online Schools.

There should be no other women more respected in this country than military moms. These brave women watch their sons and daughters ship out to the most anti-American corners of the world to spread freedom and fight for the American way, knowing that some of them won’t come back. Losing a child is a mother’s greatest fear, but many military moms continue to support their beloved children in their endeavors out of an amazing sacrifice for their country.

However, a growing number of military moms cannot separate their personal interests from those of our country, especially when their children’s lives are at stake. In fact, there are quite a few who are staunchly outspoken against the war while their sons and daughters are actively serving this great country overseas.

How can a young soldier face the daily challenges of fighting in an unpopular war, knowing full well that he or she does not have the full support of family back home? By allowing space for doubt in their children’s minds, military moms against the war may be putting even more lives at risk. A distracted soldier does not perform at his or her best.

The irony here is that most military moms are supportive of their child while they watch him or her rise up through the ranks of the military, enjoying the perks and benefits of a steady paycheck, health care, and education, only to become vocal detractors after their son or daughter is deployed overseas.
What all moms should remember is that their children have trained for the day when they get the call, and they are ready to make sacrifices, sometimes even the ultimate one, for the country that has protected and provided for them since birth.

Moreover, it is the mother’s role to stand strong, especially when her child occasionally doubts the integrity of the mission. We are fighting for democracy and justice. We are fighting for those who lost their lives during 9/11. We are fighting for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of protecting the United States of America. Soldiers eat, breathe, and live this fight. They were born ready for it. Why question and criticize government initiatives that compensate soldiers for doing what they know is right?

Military moms who are outspoken against the war are more often than not worried for their children, which is only natural. It is an amazingly difficult thing to see a child leave in uncertainty, not knowing what lies ahead in the future. But it is also a beautiful sacrifice, one any mother should be proud to make. Those who cannot see it as such have lost the patriotism and dedication that they worked so hard to instill in their children.

(4 votes, average: 3.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

… With confidence in our armed forces — with the unbounding determination of our people — we will gain the inevitable triumph — so help us God.
— from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s December 8, 1941 speech to Congress.

Today marks the 69 year anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. The surprise attack shocked the nation and catapulted the United States into World War II. It was, at the time, the worst attack on American soil. 1,178 were wounded. 2,043 were killed. The water itself burned and bodies of the injured and the dead piled up.

As more are more Pearl Harbor survivors and World War II veterans leave this Earth, it becomes more and more of a distant historical event that we no longer honor and no longer remember. Each year, Pearl Harbor gets a little closer to becoming one of those events that we will only know of thanks to a few pages in a history book. The vast majority of survivors are gone now, and when there are none left, who will keep their memory alive? Who will honor the sacrifices of the fallen? Where survivors once fought the Japanese, they’re now fighting time — fighting to keep the memory of their fallen brothers alive, fighting to ensure that we continue to remember and honor Pearl Harbor always.

This summer, my husband and I chose to go to Hawaii for his pre-deployment leave. One of our first stops was at Pearl Harbor and the USS Arizona Memorial. We had the honor and privilege of meeting several survivors before riding out to the watery tomb of the 1177 American heroes killed that day. 33 survivors of the bombing of the Arizona chose to be interred with their shipmates.

We watched the black tears bubble to the surface, but the remains of the ship are less visible than ever. Standing before the solemn wall of names of those killed sobers you in a way we weren’t completely prepared for.

Seeing the names of these heroes was an emotional moment. Far more saddening was the behavior of the people at the memorial. The park ranger on the boat on the way to the remains of the Arizona laughed and joked about partying that weekend. When learning there were servicemembers aboard — my husband, a sailor, and an airman — she said nothing and continued laughing about her weekend party plans. Once we arrived at the memorial, I was appalled at the lack of respect shown. People ran around the memorial, laughing and joking. I couldn’t understand how anyone could treat the tombs of American heroes so callously. It was a warning sign, in my eyes, that too many have stopped seeing the attack on Pearl Harbor as the horrific day that it was, a day that deserves solemn remembrance and honor.

We can still make a choice, though. We can choose to remember the sacrifices of the men who fought valiantly and died with honor in service to their country.

We can remember men like Frank Flaherty. When it became known that the USS Oklahoma was going to capsize and the order was given to abandon ship, Flaherty chose instead to remain at his post with a flashlight, illuminating the way so that the rest of the turret crew could escape. Flaherty perished with the ship and was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.

We can remember men like Doris Miller, Navy Cross recipient. On the bridge of the USS West Virginia, Miller refused to leave his mortally wounded captain, despite enemy bombing and strafing and heavy fire. At great risk to himself, he moved his captain to a safer place and then returned to the bridge where he continued to man and operate a machine gun until ordered to leave the bridge.

We can remember men like William Turner, awarded the Bronze Star. Stationed at the Ewa Marine Corps Air Station, he jumped into the rear cockpit of an airplane with a fellow Marine, Master Sergeant Peters. Both men used the rear machine guns to fire at attacking Japanese planes, and despite being wounded, managed to shoot down one of the enemy planes. Private Turner ultimately died of the wounds he received that day on December 12th.

We can choose to let their memory fade away. Or we can choose to honor their valour, their bravery, their sacrifice.

Remember Pearl Harbor. Remember the men who fought and died 69 years ago today.

They fought together as brothers-in-arms. They died together and now they sleep side by side. To them we have a solemn obligation.
- Admiral Chester W. Nimitz

That was the most horrible scene you could ever think of. Shipmates there, you can’t save them.
- Ship Cook George Brown

When you go home, tell them of us and say for your tomorrows they gave their todays.
- John Maxwell Edmonds

(6 votes, average: 4.33 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Originally posted at David Horowitz’s Newsreal:

It seems almost unfair for an intellectual lightweight like Meghan McCain to take Palin on. While I personally find the Palin-Reagan comparisons a little insulting to the Gipper, Palin is still vastly more intelligent than the majority of PDS-sufferers and is certainly smarter than Meggie-Poo. If this was a boxing match, Sarah would be Mike Tyson facing off against Meggie Mac as Screech. While McCain’s rambling, nonsensical columns are usually full of schadenfreude-y goodness, the columns where she attempts to attack Sarah Palin are simultaneously the most groan-worthy and the most entertaining. In her latest pathetic excuse for a column, Meggie Mac calls Palin “uneducated” … right before she admits that she has no clue what the commonly-used term “blue bloods” means and had to Google it — and she still got it wrong.

Meggie Mac is, like, so insulted that Palin called the Bushes “blue bloods.” She didn’t know what the term meant (apparently she never came across it during her 100% academically-earned degree at Columbia), but since everything in the world obviously revolves around Meggie-Poo, it clearly was a personal hit on her. She was so insulted by Palin’s latest anti-Meggie Mac screed that she even took the time to Google the term “blue bloods” so she could figure out just what Palin was talking about! Now that, folks, is some good journalism.

Welcome to the echo chamber! This week’s (or possibly month’s) latest rhetorical talking point is “blue bloods.” And guess what? In the way it has been used I am probably considered one and so is the entire Bush family, not to mention countless others. And who else would deliver such a catchy media talking point than, yes, Sarah Palin. The reference to “blue bloods” was made after former President George H.W. Bush and his wife Barbara said in an interview that they thought Mitt Romney was essentially the man to watch in 2012, followed by an extra zinger from the notorious straight talking former first lady Barbara Bush who said she thinks “Sarah Palin should stay in Alaska.” Sarah Palin responded on the Laura Ingraham radio show saying “of course they think that, the Bush’s are blue bloods.”

I actually had to Google what the meaning of “blue bloods” was, although I could surmise that it was some kind of knock against education and coming from a family of some success. Yes, in essence that is what this statement meant. Families that work hard and achieve a long line of successful people are “blue bloods” and thus, she implied the opinions of said people are jaded and elitist, even if that family lineage has a long history of public service and leadership within Republican Party. Of course, Sarah Palin is also living the American dream, albeit a different one without the help of any kind of family lineage. She has a successful career that probably most Americans would want by earning millions for her reality show, appearances on Fox, and getting paid to go places and speak her mind. Both of these narratives exemplify why this country is still as Ronald Reagan famously put it “a shining city upon a hill.” America is a place where people can create their own success so their children can have more opportunities than they did. Neither the Bush family’s success nor Sarah Palin’s are relevant to the political conversation regarding who is best suited to be the next GOP leader. Both stories are simply the American dream and taking issue with one kind of path towards success versus another is very dangerous. Lest we forget, Sarah Palin herself is now a multi-millionaire.

Horrifying grammar aside — good grief, is the Daily Beast really so hard up that they can’t employ the requisite team of editors desperately needed to make sense of McCain’s drivel-filled ramblings? — all McCain did here was prove that, as usual, she has absolutely no clue what she is talking about. Daddy’s money that bought Meggie Mac her degree at the oh-so-reputable Columbia University clearly was worth every penny. And while Meghan McCain had absolutely nothing to do with Palin calling the Bush family “blue bloods,” since Meggie Mac is the center of the GOP’s political universe, it’s obvious that Palin was really talking about the McCain family.

Interestingly enough, Sarah Palin got the term exactly right — and coincidentally, it does apply to Meggie Mac as well. The term also doesn’t mean what McCain thinks it does (from her expert Googling, of course). The term “blue blood” means a wealthy, aristocratic family. The Bushes — and yes, the McCains — could be considered blue bloods. People like Meggie Poo who are born with silver spoons in their mouths thanks to Mommy’s beer empire fortune are prime examples of brats born into blue blood families. Being called a blue blood isn’t necessarily an insult, and it certainly isn’t a knock against education and success. Meggie Mac, after all, would be a prime example of how being a blue blood does not equal educated and successful. Sarah Palin got a degree and worked her butt off to become the successful multi-millionaire she is today, but why let silly things like facts and common sense get in the way of jealousy-induced Palin-bashing?

McCain got into an Ivy League university based on her father’s name and her mother’s bank account. She got a “career” as a columnist, author, and political pundit thanks to her father, too. She has no experience and no qualifications that make her deserving of such success, but thankfully for her, she’s got a daddy willing to buy a career for her. It also helps that she’s willing to bash Republican women, conservatism, and the GOP in general to the left-wing media whenever possible. She happily soaks up the attention and publicity, never realizing she’s nothing more than a useful idiot who is playing right into the hands of lefties searching for someone to sell out the Republican Party. Whether she knows she’s being used or if she is just that stupid is open to interpretation.

Laughably, in this column she whines that “moderates” like her are completely innocent of causing any party infighting, yet for some reason always get blamed for it. Sniffle.

None of this is all together surprising except for the fact that historically it is the moderates—or people like yours truly—who get accused of starting party infighting and this statement from Sarah Palin showcases that on a very basic level the underlying cultural separation in this country is also happening within the Republican party itself.

It’s interesting that Meggie Mac would make this claim. For all of her inexperience (has the woman ever held a single job that her daddy didn’t buy for her?), she could actually be an asset to the GOP. If she put even a fraction of the energy she currently spends attacking the Republican Party towards attacking the socialist Left currently destroying our country, she could actually do some good. But no — McCain would rather use her tiny pea brain to fight the party she claims to love. We’re supposed to just go along with it and believe her when she says it’s for our own good.

It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with keeping her coveted interviews and speaking gigs and guest spots on “The View,” could it?

Apparently, we are supposed to abandon the conservative values that the GOP is supposed to stand for in favor of things like gay marriage and amnesty. Never mind that Republicans have lazily been abandoning said conservative values for years, and doing so is exactly what opened the door to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. If we just keep leaning more to the left more to the center, we’ll be popular again!

Wait, didn’t we try that in 2008 with her father’s presidential run? Didn’t quite work out the way Meggie Mac thought it would though, did it?

If Meghan McCain wants to help the Republican Party, she can start by going away. Not everyone loves Sarah Palin, but she brings an undeniable level of enthusiasm to the GOP that has been missing for far too long. (Heck, had it not been for Sarah Palin, McCain’s presidential aspirations would have failed even more miserably.) Meghan, meanwhile, contributes nothing and serves as a useful cheerleader for those who want to make Republicans look bad. Maybe Meggie Mac can take that blue blood money and see if Daddy can buy her a job writing for Playboy. She’s got the IQ for it, as well as the … other necessary assets.

(3 votes, average: 3.67 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Originally posted at David Horowitz’s Newsreal:

There are few people easier to offend than the “lactivists”. These are the breastfeeding moms who think that breastfeeding is akin to something holy and sacred, and get outrageously outraged if you mention that formula-feeding is just as good as breastfeeding — and even more so if they aren’t allowed to breastfeed anytime, anywhere they wish. Every so often there will be a story in the news about some hapless manager of a restaurant or a store asking a breastfeeding mom to cover up. The lactivists promptly descend upon said establishment to show their “right” to breastfeed in public and show their boobs to the entire world. The latest target of lactivist rage is Facebook, for daring to limit how much boob can be shown in breastfeeding photos.

The Facebook breastfeeding controversy is nothing new. For three years now, lactivist moms have been complaining that Facebook has been pulling photos of moms breastfeeding their babies. Time Magazine, however, posted an article a week ago fanning the flames, spotlighting a mother who has had her account suspended four times.

In one of the photos that keeps getting Emma Kwasnica’s Facebook account suspended, the Montreal-based mother and breast-feeding activist is tandem nursing, with a newborn at one breast and a two-year-old at the other. Classical art and public health be damned, Facebook has censored countless breast-feeding photos for violating the company’s terms of use, a policy that has inspired more than 250,000 people to join a Facebook group called “Hey Facebook, Breastfeeding Is Not Obscene!” Kwasnica has protested her four account suspensions by e-mailing administrators and keeps doggedly reposting photographs and organizing virtual “nurse-ins” via her Facebook group, Informed Choice: Birth and Beyond.

The Facebook group mentioned above, arguing that breastfeeding isn’t obscene, would like you to believe that the nasty people who run Facebook are just breastfeeding haters who are looking for an opportunity to promote bottle-fed babies over breastfed infants. Hey, what’s a good protest without a little conspiracy thrown in for good measure, right?

Recently, Facebook has started ‘pulling a myspace’ by not allowing people to post profile pictures of babies nursing. The pictures have been reported as ‘obscene’ and have been removed- their posters warned not to repost or fear being kicked off of Facebook.

We’re wondering: what about a baby breastfeeding is obscene? Especially in comparison to MANY other pictures posted all over Facebook that really are obscene.

Facebook, we expect more from you, and we expect you to realize that nursing moms everywhere have a right to show pictures of their babies eating, just like bottle-fed babies have a right to be seen. In an effort to appease the closed-minded, you are only serving to be detrimental to babies, women, and society.

So does Facebook really have a secret anti-breastfeeding agenda? Uh, not so much.

While lactivist moms like to pretend that breastfeeding is so sacred that it means they can violate Facebook’s Terms of Service, that’s not quite the truth. Nor is Facebook hunting down and deleting profiles of mothers with pictures nursing their children. The woman mentioned in the Time article, Emma Kwasnica, currently has a profile photo of her nursing her baby with pretty much her entire breast on display. But hey, just ignore that. This is controversial, dammit. Also ignore that Facebook doesn’t censor the lactivist groups angry about the Facebook breastfeeding controversy. (You might think that if Facebook really had an anti-breastfeeding agenda at play here they would delete the groups, too, but ssshhh — stop thinking so logically! Jeez!)

Reality isn’t quite so controversial. Women can show breastfeeding photos to their heart’s content, displaying as much boobage as they desire — as long as the nipple or the areola is not shown. And so the controversy becomes diluted. Facebook doesn’t give a hoot if you’re showing breastfeeding pictures provided you don’t show too much of the boob. A Facebook spokesman even gushed about how beautiful and natural breastfeeding is.

“We agree that breastfeeding is natural and beautiful and we’re very glad to know that it is so important to some mothers to share this experience with others on Facebook… photos containing a fully exposed breast – as defined by showing the nipple or areola – do violate [the site's] terms on obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit material and may be removed… the photos we act upon are almost exclusively brought to our attention by other users who complain.”

This is the same standard applied to pictures of girls in skimpy outfits and bikinis. If Facebook suddenly decided that displaying the entire breast was A-OK for breastfeeding moms, then why can’t women post topless pictures? Far from catering to the closed-minded, it seems clear that Facebook is trying to fairly police their obscenity standards. And their Terms of Service do not allow photos showing a fully exposed breast. Is the real beef here that lactivist moms don’t get special treatment? Gee, how horrible — they’re expected to follow the exact same rules as everyone else while using Facebook. What an outrage!

One might think that there’s no controversy here whatsoever. After all, no one is required to use Facebook. Facebook is a private organization with its own rules and standards, and even if they were deleting every breastfeeding photo on the site, they are absolutely free to do so. Angry lactivist moms would likewise be free to stop frequenting Facebook and perhaps create their own social networking site where moms can show off their fully exposed breasts to their heart’s content.

Of course, you would have to assume you’re dealing with reasonable people willing to consider rational arguments. You would be dead wrong — after all, lactivists have a history of going overboard with overblown protests.

Over a year ago, I wrote about how one lactivist threw a temper tantrum over a Chik-Fil-A manager asking her to cover up while breastfeeding. As I noted at the time,

I have to say, I feel for the manager in this situation and not much for the breast-feeding mom. First of all, a restaurant owner or manager should absolutely be allowed to decide how their business operates. If they don’t want breast-feeding moms in their place of business, then that’s their business. It may cost them customers, sure, but it’s their decision to make. Second, you see these stories all the time. Some establishment doesn’t want a mom to breast-feed in public without covering up, or wants them to use the restroom, and you see scores of breast-feeding moms out there in protest. But do those moms ever stop and think about the other patrons? No, because it’s all about them. They want to breast-feed in public, dammit, and to hell with what anyone else thinks. They’re going to stamp their little feet until they get their way, much like the children they’re breast-feeding would do. It doesn’t matter whether or not other customers are uncomfortable, it doesn’t matter if business operators should be able to run their businesses the way they should be run. Women should be allowed to breast-feed in public whether the public likes it or not. When you really think about it, it’s pretty childish.

The lactivist moms don’t seem to care how other people feel about them whipping out their boobs for everyone to see, do they? While most people have no problem seeing a woman breastfeeding in public, they don’t feel particularly comfortable when you can memorize the exact size, color, and placement of the breastfeeding mom’s nipples. A little discretion is all that’s usually asked for, and that request is met with the outrage of a temper tantrum thrown by a two-year-old. They pretend that breastfeeding is some kind of civil right, when it’s nothing of the sort. No one is trying to stop moms from breastfeeding. They’re just asking that when a mother decides to breastfeed in public that she doesn’t give everyone around her a glimpse of what they can also see in Playboy.

I’m expecting my first child next year. I plan on breastfeeding, and there will probably be times when I have to do it in public. Does that mean I feel the need to force my breasts on everyone else? Nope. Does it mean that I suddenly don’t mind seeing every detail of another woman’s boobs? Not really. Unlike lactivist moms, I don’t think discretion is an outrageous request — heck, I don’t want scores of other people looking at my breasts. I also don’t particularly care to make other people feel uncomfortable, and openly breastfeeding without covering up even a little makes many people feel uncomfortable. Most women don’t look at another women’s boobs and think “SEX”, but it doesn’t mean they want to see them, either. Most men don’t mind seeing a woman’s breasts, but when it’s a breastfeeding mom they’re uncomfortable as well — after all, if they so much as glance in her direction for a fraction of a second too long, then they get called a pervert and a creep.

But hey, who cares about how other people feel about it?? Breastfeeding is natural. So women shouldn’t have to show discretion when breastfeeding, right? Well, urinating and defecating are natural, too. But we don’t encourage people to do either of those things in public, do we? A lot of things are natural, but that doesn’t make them suddenly sacred.

Earlier this year, Lori Ziganto wrote about a new Obamacare provision for working mothers to get their very own special breastfeeding rooms at work. Unrelated to the Facebook controversy? Maybe, but it’s an example of how government can step in and force private businesses to cave to outrageous demands from lactivist mommies wanting special treatment.

How far do the Facebook lactivists want to go to get their way?

(12 votes, average: 3.08 out of 5)

 Loading ...

The entire point of these inane TSA policies is supposedly to prevent terrorists from bombing or hijacking planes. So far, TSA’s potential terrorists have been three-year-old children, nuns, middle-aged American citizens, and eighty-year-old grannies. Curiously, there haven’t been many mentions of Muslims being subjected to groping or body scanners, so I guess we can assume that TSA assumes that we’re the potential terrorists, and not Muslim extremists – the only group of people on the planet ever responsible for terrorism in the skies.

TSA’s newest group of potential terrorists? Soldiers returning home from Afghanistan, where they actually were fighting terrorists. Their brilliant strategy to keep us safe from these potential mass-murderers? Letting them keep their rifles and pistols, but taking away their real weapons: nail clippers!

So we’re in line, going through one at a time. One of our Soldiers had his Gerber multi-tool. TSA confiscated it. Kind of ridiculous, but it gets better. A few minutes later, a guy empties his pockets and has a pair of nail clippers. Nail clippers. TSA informs the Soldier that they’re going to confiscate his nail clippers. The conversation went something like this:

TSA Guy: You can’t take those on the plane.

Soldier: What? I’ve had them since we left country.

TSA Guy: You’re not suppose to have them.

Soldier: Why?

TSA Guy: They can be used as a weapon.

Soldier: [touches butt stock of the rifle] But this actually is a weapon. And I’m allowed to take it on.

TSA Guy: Yeah but you can’t use it to take over the plane. You don’t have bullets.

Soldier: And I can take over the plane with nail clippers?

TSA Guy: [awkward silence]

Me: Dude, just give him your damn nail clippers so we can get the f**k out of here. I’ll buy you a new set.

Soldier: [hands nail clippers to TSA guy, makes it through security]

This might be a good time to remind everyone that approximately 233 people re-boarded that plane with assault rifles, pistols, and machine guns–but nothing that could have been used as a weapon.

Nevermind that these soldiers had been inspected multiple times already. Nevermind that these soldiers had been kept in a secure holding area for two hours. Nevermind that these soldiers were returning from war, where they risked their lives to keep us safe. TSA must inspect them anyways, because hey, they could be terrorists.

Don’t you feel safer now?

Aside from the obvious absurdity of taking nail clippers away from someone carrying a rifle — because nail clippers are clearly more dangerous than a rifle — this is outrageous. This is how we’re treating our men and women in uniform now? Here we have men returning from war, from fighting the same terrorists that TSA is purportedly trying to keep us safe from, and they’re being treated like criminals. This goes beyond pure stupidity. It’s insulting. It’s insulting to our men and women in uniform, it’s insulting to the Americans who actually value their sacrifice, and it’s insulting to anyone who possesses even a modicum of common sense.

(16 votes, average: 4.25 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Not everyone supports the war in Afghanistan. It’s annoying, considering that people who spoke out against the war in Iraq claimed that the reason was because we should be fighting in Afghanistan. Now we are fighting in Afghanistan, and people are talking about how we should pull out of there too. It’s not surprising, but it’s still annoying.

When you discover that some of the people saying we shouldn’t be there turn out to be family members of our troops, it’s infuriating. Imagine my surprise when I find out that family members of the Marines in my husband’s unit, currently deployed to Afghanistan, have been saying these things.

There are several online forums, mostly on Facebook, for unit family members to try to keep informed. They aren’t official unit pages, but family members can go on there to talk to each other and try to find support or keep themselves infomed. I’ve been noticing over the past few weeks that there have been a lot of comments about how we shouldn’t be there, that it’s a lost cause, and that we just need to bring them all home. I’ve noticed that, for some reason, it’s mainly moms saying these things, too. And while it’s a very small number of unit family members saying these things, I’ve quite frankly had enough.

My husband calls home and every now and then, he’s demoralized. He’s tired, he’s hungry, he’s dirty. Marines in his unit have been killed, and other Marines have been injured. He misses me, he misses being home, and he doesn’t want to do it anymore. I tell him, every time, that I support him and his mission. That I’m waiting for him. And I remind him of why he joined the Marine Corps, why he was willing to fight. I remind him of what he’s fighting for. It lifts his morale and it gives him his motivation back.

When their sons call and tell them the same thing that my husband tells me, I wonder what these women tell them. Do they get told about how we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan? Do they get told about how we should pull out? Do they get told that this war is not worth fighting? I can only hope they keep their opinions to themselves — or that their sons never see their comments on Facebook — because what they are basically telling their sons is that their sacrifice is meaningless in their eyes, that the deaths of their fellow Marines were meaningless. I can only imagine how demoralizing it must be to know that the family you have back home, the people you likely are fighting for, don’t support you and the sacrifice you’re making.

One mom mentioned that she had asked everyone she knew what they thought about the “debate”, about whether or not Afghanistan was a lost cause that we should just pull out of. She somehow was puzzled that none of the military men in her family would comment. Gee, I wonder why.

Do they not get it? You cannot support the troops without supporting their mission. It’s as simple as that. And of all people who don’t support our Marines and their mission, the family members of those Marines should be their most ardent supporters. It breaks my heart sometimes. As it’s been explained to me by my husband and various other Marines, they don’t think America hates them. They think that America just doesn’t care. I used to argue so passionately against that, but I’m starting to think I know where that attitude comes from.

I remember sitting in an algebra class in high school when the speakers crackled overhead telling all faculty to stop what they were doing and turn the televisions on in every classroom. A plane had flown into one of the World Trade Center buildings. We were stunned, but just assumed it was a mistake. Then we watched as another plane flew into the second tower, and it suddenly became clear. It became very clear. The next few days were emotional and terrifying. I spent much of 9-11 crying, like most of the students at my school. I cried in the days that followed, watching footage of people jumping to their death to escape the fiery inferno inside the towers. I cried hearing of the heroism of the passengers on Flight 93. I cried listening to the phone calls of passengers who knew they were going to die and wanted to tell their loved ones “I love you” one more time. I cried for the heroes who ran into the buildings while everyone else was running out. The country, as a whole, wept and grieved and vowed to never let this happen, ever again. I, along with many other Americans, knew that this meant war. Many people, my husband among them, reacted to the horror of 9-11 by joining the military. They wanted to fight for their country, to avenge the deaths of their countrymen, and to make sure that this never happened again.

Islamic extremists have been trying to kill us for more than 30 years now. During the Carter presidency, American embassy staff were held hostage in Iran. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut were bombed, killing almost 250 American servicemen. There was the first WTC bombing in 1993. In Somalia, also in 1993, 18 American troops were killed and the body of one was dragged through the streets while Somalians cheered. In 1996, an Air Force housing complex was bombed in Saudi Arabia. US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed. The USS Cole bombing happened in the year 2000. All of these attacks were perpetrated by violent Muslim extremists. 9-11 didn’t come out of nowhere. It was a long time coming. We ignored what we saw happening for over 30 years and pretended that if we just left them alone they would stop trying to kill us. It culminated in the worst attack on American soil ever on 9-11.

But now, with almost 10 years without any attacks on American soil, people are already calling for us to stop the fight. It’s not from lack of trying — from the shoe bomber to the underwear bomber to the Times Square bomber, they’ve kept on trying to kill us. Luckily, we’ve been able to thwart those attacks. You’d think it would be a reminder that this war isn’t over, and that it won’t be over until we eradicate the threat of Islamic terrorism. Did anyone really think we could do that in just a few years? It’s going to take time, it’s going to take a lot of sacrificing. We’ve got a 30 year mess to clean up. For some of us though, it’s a sacrifice worth making.

This is why my husband and I both support this mission. We choose to support it. I am five months pregnant and I don’t want my son to ever have to go through a 9-11. We want a better future than this for our children. We can stand up to this threat, finally, or we can ignore it like we did for the last 30 years and let our children deal with it. Which do you support? Me personally, I’d rather take care of this now, even with the sacrifice that requires, than pass the buck on to my children to carry and endure.

Others, I guess, actually were content to pass the buck onto their children, and now they find the sacrifice too great. The solution for them is apparently to keep hiding their heads in the sand and just let their grandchildren handle it 20 years from now. I find that unacceptable.

The worst part about this, though, is that people who should be supporting our troops more than anyone else apparently cannot. These are our brothers, our sons, our husbands, and while it’s annoying when ordinary Americans can’t support our troops, it’s unforgivable in my book for family members of our troops to not support them. If this is how they feel, then they need to keep their mouths shut and their opinions to themselves until this is all over and done with. Can you imagine how unmotivating it must be to know that your own family doesn’t support what you’re fighting for? I can’t think of anything more demoralizing. To me, this is a badge of dishonor. We have one Cindy Sheehan. We don’t need any more.

(7 votes, average: 3.86 out of 5)

 Loading ...

In all of the reports I’ve seen of TSA security oversteps, this one might just be the worst I’ve seen — and the most difficult to watch. It’s bad enough to see TSA screeners groping adults. Now they’ve stooped to accosting a terrified, screaming three-year-old.

As a parent, how would you react if this was your child? Most parents teach our children that no one is allowed to touch them. They’re not exactly used to having people pat them down, nor are they capable of understanding why a rude stranger would be forcibly touching them all over their body. For a child, that must be terrifying. Are we supposed to let our children think its acceptable for strangers to touch them against their will?

In this video you can see the entire problem with our airport security system. Why did this child need to be patted down? Does she look like she might be a tiny terrorist? Sure, TSA has a policy that if the metal detector beeps twice everyone must be searched, regardless of age. So let’s just terrify children, who cares? As the TSA official stated, it’s not the policy that’s the problem, it’s “how we handle the child”. After all, why should we exercise common sense? The Taliban uses children as human shields, so surely soccer moms from, say, Nebraska, could be doing the exact same thing. And hey, if CAIR has their way, it will only be soccer moms and their children who get patted down. Muslim women wearing hijabs? Nope, sorry. No patdowns for Muslim women. Considering the absurdity of TSA’s current policies, I wouldn’t doubt that they’d find it perfectly acceptable to accost terrified children and let hijab-wearing Muslim women right on through. Figuring out which one would be most likely to smuggle a bomb is irrelevant anyways.

We have to ask ourselves: do we really feel like we’re going to be any safer with these idiots patting down children? We have a security system in place that refuses to profile the people most likely to be terrorists — they could be called racists, heaven forbid. Most of us are reasonable people, and are willing to accept some inconveniences in the name of airline safety. But these aren’t mere inconveniences anymore, and as we saw last Christmas, they aren’t keeping us any safer. There is one group of people responsible for every incidence of terror in the skies, and I’m pretty sure that three-year-olds are not included in that group.

(11 votes, average: 4.64 out of 5)

 Loading ...