…..Just a little taste of what you’ll find at the Daley Gator Videos site:
PAT CONDELL: LAUGHING AT THE NEW INQUISITION
MONTY PYTHON’S FLYING CIRCUS: MINISTRY OF SILLY WALKS SKETCH
DR. PAUL VITZ: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ATHEISM (PART 1)
The Other McCain has an update of sorts on the outrage some Feminists vented at Kirsten Dunst because she dared that she saw benefits to traditional gender roles
Hayley Hoover at The Gloss (calling Dunst’s comments “a pile of problematic bullshit”) and Ariane Sommer at Fox News(accusing Dunst of “regressing to a 1950s archetype of womanhood”). So if there was not perhaps an “outbreak of mass Dunst-induced psychosis,” certainly the reaction was more widespread than the comments of Ryan and Ritzen.
Furthermore, since when is calling attention to the lunatic screeching of feminists the same as “pathetic pandering of the notion that women are crazy and overemotive”? Conflating these separate categories — women and feminists — is at the heart of complaints that conservative women have been making for decades, namely the tendency of the liberal media to present feminist ideologues as the spokeswomen for the interests of all women. (This tendency is paralleled by the way the media present labor unions as representatives of “the working class” and present Al Sharpton as a spokesman for “civil rights.”) What the women defending Dunst —e.g., Dana Loesch, Katie Yoder and Melissa Braunstein – are saying is that feminists don’t speak for them and their interests.
And thank God for that! If women let feminists speak for them, they must believe that the pinnacle of women’s rights is legalized abortion, all heterosexual intercourse is rape, and lesbianism is the only possible escape from male oppression. Insofar as feminist ideology has prevailed, the effect of its influence has been to send its disciples hurtling toward extinction by encouraging them to view the normal means of procreation with horror, as a cruel device of the patriarchy.
“I don’t want a baby. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . “This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
– Amanda Marcotte
Well there you go, Amanda Marcotte is still crazier than a pet coon, and Feminists are still not pleased when a woman does not know her place.
You should go read the rest, no one really rips the mask off the grotesque face of Feminism like Stacy McCain does. Basically, Feminism, to me, is just another arm of Leftism. They seek to control women’s actions, and words by bullying tactics, and they seek to
empower embitter as many women as they can. And, in the end, as the title suggests, Feminists will lose because they are fighting against nature Yes, you heard me, Feminism is about indoctrinating women to change basic behaviors that women have naturally. Women love men, are attracted to men, and yes, need men. And yes, most women want to be mothers and cherish the role that mothers and wives traditionally have had and flourished in. Feminists would love to change all that. They seek to convince women that they do not need men, and that staying at home and raising kids is akin to slavery, and that the two greatest achievements any woman can have is to A) have an abortion, and B) become a Lesbian.
And, yes, I do realize that any Feminist reading that last paragraph will become outrageously outraged, but really, they seem to be perpetually outraged anyway, so…..
Ah, Obamacare deals out yet another blow to the American public. Apparently Obamacare enrollee’s better make sure they want to tie the knot – or better yet if they can afford it, before signing up.
As we all know, the Affordable Care Act, isn’t as affordable as the president would like to have us think. That being said, couples living together, could potentially save $10,000 over the couple who are doing the same thing, but possess the legal document.
That’s right, Obamacare is punishing you for being married.
The way this loophole works is based on income levels. You see, when you are single, it appears that you only make so much, and having less than a married couple, you can afford less. But when you live with someone, and aren’t married you incur half the cost of living expenses. Obamacare does not factor this in.
This in turn makes it look like you are making less than the married folk, but in all reality, the income may be exactly the same between competing couples.
In a mathematical demonstration, Britbart explains:
“In order to receive a government subside, a married couple must earn less than $62,040. Therefore, a married couple with each spouse making $35,000 annually for a combined income of $70,000 dollars would not qualify for a healthcare subside. In contrast, an unmarried couple with each partner making $40,000 for a combined income of $80,000 could qualify for thousands of dollars in subsides.”
The fair thing to do here is to base the insurance on household incomes, but that may just be the point.
Robert Rector, a senior research fellow with Heritage Foundation, speculates that the “law was formulated on ideological grounds,” because, “unmarried couples often vote Democrat and married couples lean Republican.”
What do you think – just unfair, or liberal ploy?
When I say “debts,” I don’t mean loans that the parents willingly sought from SSA. It would be bad enough to hold a kid responsible for that (since when are children responsible for their parents’ obligations?), but at least it would have been voluntarily incurred by mom/dad. The “debts” here are overpayments of Social Security benefits, the product of SSA’s own errors. The parents who received them might not have even realized they were getting money they weren’t supposed to have. And now, somehow, it’s junior’s problem.
But wait. It gets worse.
When [Mary] Grice was 4, back in 1960, her father died, leaving her mother with five children to raise. Until the kids turned 18, Sadie Grice got survivor benefits from Social Security to help feed and clothe them.
Now, Social Security claims it overpaid someone in the Grice family – it’s not sure who – in 1977. After 37 years of silence, four years after Sadie Grice died, the government is coming after her daughter. Why the feds chose to take Mary’s money, rather than her surviving siblings’, is a mystery…
“It was a shock,” said Grice, 58. “What incenses me is the way they went about this. They gave me no notice, they can’t prove that I received any overpayment, and they use intimidation tactics, threatening to report this to the credit bureaus.”…
Social Security officials told Grice that six people – Grice, her four siblings and her father’s first wife, whom she never knew – had received benefits under her father’s account. The government doesn’t look into exactly who got the overpayment; the policy is to seek compensation from the oldest sibling and work down through the family until the debt is paid.
SSA insists that they did send notice – to a P.O. Box that Grice hasn’t owned for 35 years, even though they have her current address.
How can they demand restitution for a mistaken payment made in the late 1970s, let alone from someone who didn’t even receive it? Because: The farm bill that passed in 2011 lifted the 10-year statute of limitations on debts owed to the feds. Treasury has collected more than $400 million since then on very old obligations, many of them below the radar of public scrutiny because the amounts are often small enough, i.e. a few hundred dollars, that the targets find it’s cheaper to pay up than to fight. It’s a shakedown, based on the flawed assumption that a child not only must have benefited from the overpayment to his parent but that he/she received the entirety of the benefit, with little proof offered that the debt even exists. (One man who was forced to pay demanded a receipt from SSA affirming that his balance was now zero. The SSA clerk told him he’d put in the request but that the man shouldn’t expect to receive anything.) The only reason you’re hearing about Grice’s case, I think, is because they went after her for thousands, not hundreds, of dollars, which was enough of a hit to make her get a lawyer. Turns out that the feds had seized and then continued to hold her federal and state refunds, an amount greater than $4,400 – even though they were only demanding $2,996 from her to pay off her father’s debt. Lo and behold, once WaPo found out and started asking questions, the $1,400 excess was promptly returned to her. Amazing how fast bureaucracy can move when someone looks behind the curtain.
The whole thing is Kafkaesque – opaque, oppressive, arbitrary, and sinister in its indifference to making sure the right person pays so long as someone does. After reading the story, it’s not obvious to me what’s stopping Treasury from demanding a payment from every taxpayer whose parents are dead. If the chief witnesses are gone and the feds don’t have to prove that a child actually received any benefits from overpayment, the only “check” on this process is SSA’s willingness to tell the truth about who owes them money and how much. You trust them, don’t you?
Exit question from Karl: Isn’t holding children responsible for their parents’ retirement debts the governing model of the Democratic Party?