The Disposable Woman - NYTimes

Charlie Sheen's TV show and behavior for the public in "real time" aren't the only things going on in our culture that say women are disposable. How about gay marriage, surrogate pregnancies, gay adoption of children, the disappearance of women from substantial roles in film after about age 40 when they are no longer sex kittens and too young to play grandma roles, and can we please get some women in the lighting design field? I'm so sick of buried can lights, lights that shimmer and quiver because they are "environmentally sustainable" and ugly lamps. Also, to look at the lack of women in the leadership of many businesses that need to grow from inspired entrepreneurship, I suspect the government is pushing them all into "public service." Unfortunately, there are female, morally bankrupt, addle-brained, implanted and botoxed counterparts of Charlie Sheen, but because they are more disposable, they don't last as long.

The Disposable Woman - NYTimes.com

To say nothing of the women so stupid they actually spend time with this abuser--or watch his show.

"Our inertia is not for lack of evidence. In 1990, he accidentally shot his fiancée at the time, the actress Kelly Preston, in the arm. (The engagement ended soon after.) In 1994 he was sued by a college student who alleged that he struck her in the head after she declined to have sex with him. (The case was settled out of court.) Two years later, a sex film actress, Brittany Ashland, said she had been thrown to the floor of Mr. Sheen’s Los Angeles house during a fight. (He pleaded no contest and paid a fine.)"

David Brooks is not a bold thinker

What passes for criticism in a NYT Op-Ed column left me speechless. David Brooks actually writes that after pulling off amazing things in the first 16 months, Obama's become bogged down. The oil spill is a turning point. Huh? No Mr. Brooks, Obama cooked his goose by attempting to "fundamentally transform the country." His campaign promise.

• The health care bill was agonizing, and he did that first instead of addressing the jobs problem.
• It barely squeaked through with no one knowing what was in it, and even with all the MSM like NYT, WaPo and WSJ rooting for it, and his deadly monotonous speeches, it has turned out to be a bust with 70% of American voters not wanting it.
• He dawdled and crept along on the Afghanistan decision last summer, and God only knows how much that set a resolution back. I think he's addressed the war maybe three times in 16 months.
• His national security, anti-terrorism plan has become a joke because all he knows how to do is rename the problem so that the words, Muslim, Islam, jihad and terrorist don't appear in any media reports.
• He criticizes the Arizona SB1070 without ever having read the bill--a more serious rerun of the
•  Gates/police problem last summer where he called out the police without ever learning the facts.
• The ARRA has done zip, nada, zilch in restoring the economy--we had loads of evidence from FDR in the 1930s that this government take over doesn't work, but he did it anyway.

Just where is the "bold movement" of which you wrote, Mr. Brooks?

"For the past 16 months he has been on nearly permanent offense, instigating action with the stimulus bill, Afghan policy, health care reform and the nearly complete financial reform. Whether you approve or not, this has been an era of bold movement.

But now the troops are exhausted, the country is anxious, the money is spent and the Democratic majorities are teetering. The remaining pieces of legislation, on immigration and energy, are going nowhere. (The decision to do health care before energy is now looking extremely unfortunate.) Meanwhile, the biggest problems are intractable. There’s no sign we will be successful in preventing a nuclear Iran. Especially after Monday’s events, there’s no chance of creating a breakthrough in the Arab-Israeli dispute. Unemployment will not be coming down soon. The long-term fiscal crisis won’t be addressed soon either."

Op-Ed Columnist - The Oil Plume - NYTimes.com

NYT buries Obama story

New York Times today does report in a story by Sheryl Gay Stolberg on p. 14 (paper ed.) that Obama wants to "ease the debate," and wants US to "lower our voices." He could start that process by dropping the jokes about grandma, being less combative and making inflammatory remarks about doctors amputating for money and insurance companies overcharging, the professional choice of millions of his supporters.

What does make page one of the Times? Greedy, lying Christians. I actually find the "health and wealth" and "prosperity gospel" to be a complete distortion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and also wish they'd stop hiding behind their tax exempt status to fatten their wallets. I don't care if you are a fan of the Copelands or Joyce Meyer, whose followers have made her extremely rich, they preach nonsense when they talk health or money. And the peace and justice Christians who preach a form of humanism and promise you will save the world (eventually) by funding one more of their projects (with well paid directors and staff) aren't far behind them. However, these guys, who take up collections in buckets, not plates, are small and insignificant compared to what Obama wants to steal from us. They may collect millions, but he's going after trillions. Both call their programs a "stimulus package." One for God, the other pretending to be one.

Front page and center--NYT features soldier suicides

Isn't it nice the NYT wants to feature a suicide story front page with a 3 column wide photo about a 2007 death of Jacob Blaylock. Of course, no bias against the war or soliders on their part, right? The death of any soldier or former soldier, during combat or later from mental illness, is tragic. In WWI there were battles whose names we don't remember that wiped out 7,000 men in a few days--I'm sure the survivors had a difficult time the rest of their lives wondering "why did I live?." However, after you get past the "ain't it a shame that we're at war" theme and you get into the story, you find the featured soldier had many demons. ". . . the elements for disaster were in place long before he went to war." So it wasn't just the death of 2 in his unit or combat (he was in a transportation unit). Financial troubles, huge marital and custody battles, a sensitive nature, moody, the butt of jokes and teasing, apologetic, but musical and poetic. Into the second page, which many don't read, "Researchers of military suicide find not a single precipitating event, but many." "Soldiers who kill themselves are also likely to have a history of emotional troubles. . . "

So the reporter's mined that hole, and moves on to "screening." Why was he even in the Army? He'd been discharged once for mental health issues, but was "called back up when the Army was desperate for troops." NYT also got ahold of his VA private health records for treatment for depression--whether from someone inside or a family member, it doesn't say, but that's just a hint about privacy and health.

Then there's an itsy bitsy chart on the third page. Army suicides were well below the civilian rate up through 2004, and began to rise above the civilian rate in early 2007. Do you suppose the constant drum beat in the media and Congress-- Murtha, Pelosi, et al--against them had anything to do with their sense of mission, self-esteem and willingness to sacrifice, especially if they were fragile to begin with?