Okay, what's going on with Barbara Walters?

Why is a post I wrote back in 2009 about Barbara Walters is getting more hits than any of my othr posts by far.

Barbara Walters gets "Edgy!" Dec 3, 2009  - 177 Pageviews

Rick Santorum is Fucking Insane Apr 11, 2011, 4 comments - 147 Pageviews

Way to blow the Olympics, Mr. President! Oct 3, 2009, 1 comment  - 127 Pageviews

Glam Cats Jan 15, 2011, 2 comments  - 95 Pageviews

Search Keywords

barbara walters . . . . . . . . . .182

manatee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

adorable kittens. . . . . . . . . . 53

cat wigs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Has Barbara Walters been in the news lately? Did she kill a guy? I bet she killed a guy. She's been itchin to kill someone for a long time.

Or is there a sex tape? Oh God, please not a sex tape. Why would she make a sex tape? No one wants to see that. What is wrong with you, Barbara Walters?

Romney Says Dumbest Thing of Campaign so Far.

“Those people who don’t think that Latinos will vote for a Republican need to take a look at Puerto Rico,” Romney said

  

Aaaaand, hold for applause. . .

Oh, good point, Mitt! When given a choice between 4 Republicans, Puerto Ricans will vote for a Republican. Wow! What a fucking insight! No wonder you're in the lead.

Fired for no reason? Too bad. This is Florida!

This is what can happen in a "right-to-work" "at-will" state:

Law firm fires 14 employees for wearing orange shirts

By Eric Pfeiffer | The Sideshow – 5 hrs ago

It sounds like some sort of ridiculous exaggeration. Like someone would say "in an 'at-will' state,  your boss can fire you for any reason. You can be fired if the boss doesn't like the color of your shirt!"
And then the other guy would say "yeah, right!' And then the first guy would say "okay, not the color of your shirt, but you get the point." Well, yeah, you can apparently get fired for the color of your shirt.

In an interview with the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, several of the fired workers say they wore the matching colors so they would be identified as a group when heading out for a happy hour event after work. They say the executive who fired them initially accused them of wearing the matching color as a form of protest against management.

The law offices of Elizabeth R. Wellborn, P.A. offered "no comment" to Sun-Sentinel reporter Doreen Hemlock, but four ex-employees tell the paper they were simply wearing their orange shirts to celebrate "pay day" and the upcoming Friday group happy hour.
"There is no office policy against wearing orange shirts. We had no warning. We got no severance, no package, no nothing," Lou Erik Ambert told the paper.

 

 This is the model. This is what they want to roll out across the country. Busting unions, "right-to-work" laws, this is the end result. You can be fired for no reason, and you have no recourse.

After the 14 employees were fired, an executive said anyone wearing orange for an "innocent reason" should speak up. At least one employee immediately denied any involvement or knowledge of a protest and explained the happy hour color coordination. Nonetheless, they were still fired.

"I'm a single mom with four kids, and I'm out of a job just because I wore orange today," Meloney McLeod told the paper.

 

And there's really nothing anyone can do about the terminations since Florida is an at-will state, meaning employers can fire an employee who doesn't have a contract "for a good reason, for a bad reason or even for the wrong reason, as long as it's not an unlawful reason," Eric K. Gabrielle, a labor and employment lawyer at Stearns Weaver, told the Sun-Sentinel. Gabrielle said there was no apparent violation of the law in this case.

No violation of the law. It is perfectly legal in Florida to deprive people of their livelihood if you don't like the color of their shirts. This is the future if people like the Koch brothers, the Scaifes, the Coors family, etc. get their way.

Taking a couple days off

I will be taking a couple days off visiting family.

Back soon.

I might do some "twittering," keep an eye on the top right column if you're interested.

Meanwhile, here's this:

There is apparently such a thing as a "Men's Rights Movement"

I had no idea there was a "men's rights" movement until pretty recently. Once I heard about them, I was pretty sure they were nuts.

Yep!

Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement

I'm not saying he's nuts for committing suicide. People who commit suicide do so for a variety of reasons, all of them tragic, suicide has nothing to do with insanity. This does, though:

In a lengthy “Last Statement,” which arrived posthumously at the Keene Sentinel, Tom Ball told his story. All he had done, he said, was smack his 4-year-old daughter and bloody her mouth after she licked his hand as he was putting her to bed. 

His four-year old licked his hand? I can't believe the restraint this guy showed by not murdering her right there in her bed! No jury would've convicted him! Goddamm four-year-olds going around licking people!

Feminist-crafted anti-domestic violence legislation did the rest. “Twenty-five years ago,” he wrote, “the federal government declared war on men. It is time to see how committed they are to their cause. It is time, boys, to give them a taste of war.”

Stupid feminists! Passing laws against beating up four-year-old girls! If that's not a war against men, I don't know what is.

Calling for all-out insurrection, he offered tips on making Molotov cocktails and urged his readers to use them against courthouses and police stations. “There will be some casualties in this war,” he predicted. “Some killed, some wounded, some captured. Some of them will be theirs. Some of the casualties will be ours.”

 

Ball’s suicide brought attention to an underworld of misogynists, woman-haters whose fury goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations. There are literally hundreds of websites, blogs and forums devoted to attacking virtually all women (or, at least, Westernized ones) — the so-called “manosphere,” which now also includes a tribute page for Tom Ball (“He Died For Our Children”). 

  

Oh hell no, there isn't! Is there?

 

Sighhhhhhh, of course there is!

SUMMARY OF THE THOMAS JAMES BALL CASE

On Friday June 15, 2011, the world became aware of a man who after years of being brutalized by the family court system, decided to share his pain and outrage with the world, with the intent of shining a bright light on the ongoing feminist corruption and the systematic destruction of human beings by a corrupt court system.

The man’s name was Thomas James Ball. He doused himself in gasoline then self immolated on the steps of a family courthouse in New Hampshire. Mr. Ball chose to use his own agonizing death to focus public attention on the corruption of the family courts.  The mainstream media has no interest in human suffering, when it belongs to a man, and before just now, you have probably never heard of him

Yes, the mainstream media has no interest in men, which makes sense since almost all the reporters, editors, and on-air broadcasters are women.

 

One out of three, that's a majority where I come from!

 

The White House Press Corps, aka the Hen Party.

Thomas, odyssey with Cheshire superior court's "justice" system stretched for an entire decade of his life, and despite making child support payments and having unsupervised visitation with his young son, he was unable to have unsupervised visitation with his two daughters, not because he was considered a danger, but because he refused to attend counseling as ordered by the court. Why did he refuse? Because the location of the counseling was to be Monadnock Family Services, the very same agency that he believed was responsible for escalating the situation and intimidating Karen Ball into calling the police in the first place.

So this whole tragedy could have been avoided if Ball had simply shown up for court-ordered counseling?
Maybe refusing to follow the rulings of the court might not be the best way to convince the system that you're a responsible parent?

He had tried the legal route, filing lawsuits to no avail. He tried to protest, joining the Fatherhood Coalition and picketing courthouses and the state house. Nothing worked.

He tried everything! Except for showing up for court-ordered counseling. But other than that, everything!

I don't want to make fun of this guy, clearly he was mentally disturbed. You can read his final statement here: http://thomasjamesball.com/thonas-james-ball-last-statment.html,

It's full of paranoid victim-speak like:

Labeling someone's action as domestic violence in American in the 21st century is akin to labeling someone a Jew in Germany in the 1930's. The entire legal weight of the state is coming down on him. But I consider myself lucky. My family was destroyed. But that poor bastard in Germany had his family literally annihilated. 

and

 Feminists had always claimed that when women took over, we would have a kinder, gentler, more nurturing world. After 36 million arrests and 72 million evictions what we got was Joe Stalin.

Hitler AND Stalin? That's not feminists, that's Tea-Party Obama!

It really is very sad. What is even sadder is how many of these nutty misogynists are out there on the internet.

Check out the Spearhead, (no link) where they post articles like this:
(Trigger warning: rape, misogyny)

An Illuminating Question

by W.F. Price on March 10, 2012

Rape is said to be one of the worst things that can happen to a woman. It leaves permanent psychological scars, is a tool of oppression, etc. However, it struck me that there are a lot of things women might consider worse than rape, such as, for example, having acid thrown on their faces. 

W.F. Price seems to spend a lot of time thinking about horrible things that can happen to women.

  

W. F. Price, artist's rendition

However, there’s one thing in particular that I’m curious about. Would women consider it worse to be raped or to have their children taken from them? If faced with a choice, which one would they choose?

Holy fucking hell, why would you be curious about that?

I’m willing to bet that most mothers would see losing their children as the worst of the two. Personally, I think that’s to their credit, but it brings up an uncomfortable issue. 

Wait, it hasn't been uncomfortable up to now?  Your casual curiosity about rape was not supposed to be uncomfortable?

. . .it brings up an uncomfortable issue.

That is the fact that women routinely take children away from their children’s fathers. Often with absolutely no sympathy and for no good reason, and certainly far more frequently than men rape women. So, it would stand to reason that fathers suffer a fate worse than rape as a matter of routine. 

 So how, then, can removal of children from fathers as a matter of routine policy be considered any better than institutionalized mass rape? 

Oh, but that's nothing.
 Because the readers of the Spearhead leave comments like this:

Rape is forced sexual-intercourse, and sexual-intercourse is not inherently unpleasant (so I have been told); indeed some women service up to twenty or forty men a day in this way (for reward). I understand (and I rely here on Steve Moxon’s book) that even in the worst cases of Rape – and obviously here I mean real Rape and not the new ‘ when I awoke I realised he wasn’t Brad Pitt after all’ type – that the WORST a woman suffers psychologically, is up to three months of MILD depression. . .

 Given that male suicides are four times higher than female suicides (and there was no difference in rates at the end of the Nineteenth Century) and further (again I learn this from Moxon) Suicide amongst Raped women are no higher than for the remainder of the Female Sex, one must conclude that Rape is fairly trivial. . . .

I am going to suggest further that the main victims of Rape are not Women but Men. Traditionally, a woman who had been Raped was less marriagable, – and thus a further drain on her Father – and a man whose wife had been raped was perhaps seen much as a cuckold would be with of course the reponsibility to raise any child born as a result of the Rape – a further financial drain. It is not for the sake of the woman, but the man that Rape was so disliked – as the Raper was a cheater on society. Women, of course, having little grasp of wider issues, – which was why wisely they were not granted Suffrage on a National level – see Rape as being only about themselves; and as they experience sexual intercourse as male power they easily convince themselves when weighing up and justifying their promiscuity, that they were raped when sex was, as it always, but on the rarest of cases is, consensual.

 and:

For women logic is a thin veneer when it comes to custody and access disputes. Most women quickly give up trying to justify their positions objectively. In the end they want what they want, and feel they have the right to get it.

Offer her a $1 million to give up custody of the kid and see what she does 

 and

American women today have neither shame nor dignity. They are also untrustworthy, and quite powerful in their own way.
This is the result of almost a century’s worth of reforms that effectively lifted past controls on women’s behaviors.
Rape arouses horror only when a woman a virtuous, i.e. she is a virgin. Virginity is tied to devotion, loyalty, obedience, and submission to man.
When she is taught to be an “equal” to man, she rebels against man and becomes a whore.
Without male dominance, women cannot be virtuous and moral — and consequently, rape loses its power to outrage or horrify.
Given the state of American women today, only a sap or a weakling would bother to lift a finger to save her from being raped.

 Honestly, I'm so horrified right now that I forgot what my point was when I started this post. And I'm just too depressed to go back and figure it out.