Who Is Responsible?

Two different incidents, several deaths and serious injuries later, who is to blame? Where is the individual responsibility?

(AP) Gov. Jon S. Corzine was apparently riding without a seat belt, in violation of state law, when he was critically injured in the crash of his official vehicle, a spokesman said Friday.

A state trooper was at the wheel and the governor was sitting as usual in the front passenger seat when the SUV slammed into a guard rail Thursday night, authorities said. Corzine broke a leg, his breastbone, 12 ribs and a vertebra.

Corzine, 60, was sedated and on a breathing tube, and a doctor who helped treat him said the governor was fortunate he was not more seriously hurt.

and...

(sacbee.com) The shock of a horrific car crash that took four young lives reverberated statewide Tuesday as police arrested a prominent Latino Republican activist and said he drunkenly struck the victims' car head-on.

Roberto P. Vellanoweth, 63, of Greenhaven was booked Tuesday night into the Sacramento County Main Jail after being released from the hospital...

What the Sacramento Bee neglects to report is that none of the victims in the car Vellanoweth struck was wearing a seat belt, nor was the toddler in a car seat. Why not? Governor Corizine was not wearing a seat belt. Are any of these "victims" to blame for the deaths and injuries?

Yes. But the media will not call them on their irresponsibility or culpability. Yes, Vellanoweth was drunk beyond the legal limit, and yes he should and will suffer the consequences. But the individuals in the car he struck would not be dead if they had been wearing their seat belts and his defence lawyer will no doubt make that point in court during the inevitable lawsuit.

Governor Corzine? Who will he sue since it was his limo that hit a guardrail. And sadly he was severely hurt. Why was he not wearing a seat belt? Who will he sue? Himself? The State of New Jersey? He would not be in the hospital suffering from severe injuries had he worn his seat belt. Whose decision was that?

Juries rarely connect the dots when personal responsibility is involved in the equation. Who would you blame if you did not insist that your child or sister put on a seat belt and then died? The driver of a car has a responsibility to his passengers to insist everyone in the car wear seat belts.

Ignorance is expensive.

Bad reporting is irresponsible.

The following comments from Sac Bee readers on the stories of the Vellanoweth case are sadly as ignorant as they crash victims. (I copied them verbatim - spelling and grammatical errors are theirs):

"if your rich you walk, if your poor you rot in jail.

Drunk cop hits little kid and runs and gets off with less than 3 years, drunk man hits cop and runs and gets 15 years.

Poor man hits family and kills 1 drunk and gets 2nd degree murder charges and no bail, Rich man and politician kills 4 people, resists arrests and gets bailed out within 12 hours and gets his licence back in less than 48."

Don't slap this man on the wrist. I am appauld that he received a license to kill again. What a joke! Mr. V has no heart-felt sympathy for what he's done. He has not preached what he has spoken to all those following him about being held accountable for driving drunk on the streets.

The past doesn't erase what he has done, now. He needs to pay for it like everyone else. It's funny how most people get years behind bars for manslaughter, so perhaps he along with Officer Marshall will get less time. I smell money in this entire ordeal.

What a joke! You can just about buy your way out of jail time these days.

Embarrassingly ignorant. Thankfully another reader wrote the following comment:

The law is the law, and as it is for Eric Musselman it is for Vellanowith (sp) and it is for you or me. The Admin per se 'law' mandates that upon arrest for DUI, the persons' driver license is taken from them by the police. The law mandates a 45 day license which is ostensibly there to allow the accused a chance to iron out his case, and present facts that might mitigate or reverse the mandatory suspension of their license. It is not only normal, it is mandated by law. He could even (gasp) get an extension on it if DMV so allows, in the course of his hearing with them. The license issue has NOTHING to do with a judge yet..and only DMV can take any action until sentencing. And guys? Get prepared for outrage.. I doubt he will do more than 18 months in custody, if this is his first offense... it just does not usually happen that way. He seems to have lived an exemplary life, and is an old man..

Mr. Vellanoweth will be judged according to the law. The dead victims won't. But had they followed the law and secured their toddler in a car seat, and worn seat belts, they might have had a chance to look this drunk driver in the eye and demand justice.

But they broke the law as well, and now they are dead. No one comes out of a sitaution like this unscathed, nor is any one person 100% to blame for the consequences.

A friend who was a cop for 40 years has repeatedly said that there is no such thing as a victim; i.e.: we are always even somewhat responsible for the consequences we face.

This was no accident. Mr. Vellanoweth is facing dire consequences for drinking beyond the legal limit and getting behind the wheel of his car. And the dead women and toddler are dead not just because he hit them, but because they did not wear seat belts.

The Gay Rights Game

UPDATE: A cross-dressing, self-described "transgender" high school girl is running for Prom King at her Fresno high school. Originally when she announced that she wanted to run for Prom King, school officials told her that she could only run for Prom Queen. But they reconsidered, and now Cinthia Covarrubias will be running for Prom King.

Gay youth advocates called it a landmark victory for campus gender expression and said they believe it's the first time in the U.S. that an openly transgender student has run for prom royalty. "It's really important for an individual student like Cinthia to be able to feel she has the same access to participate in this rite of passage," said Carolyn Laub, director of the Gay-Straight Alliance Network. "We are growing as a society to accept much more diversity in gender expression, and that's a positive thing.". (Sacramento Bee)

Spare me.

Here we go again with the double standard: liberals and liberal special interests can say what they wish, wear anything with a message, protest their causes, but as soon as Straight, heterosexuals and religious groups speak out against them, it's offensive and a violation of rights, policies, etc... Gays can offend as many people as they wish with their "lifestyle," but when a heterosexual person fires back expressing their offense with the gay lifestyle, somehow that makes us discriminatory.

Sacramento Bee 4/19/07: About 15 students were suspended from San Juan High School, according to Sarah Grondin, director of high schools for the San Juan Unified School District. She said they were wearing shirts that are inappropriate for school because their message "targets a group of students."

"We don't allow anything to be done where you're addressing a particular student, whether it's (on the basis of) homosexuality, race or gender," Grondin said.

They were met by another group of students wearing shirts that said "Day of Silence." Some of them described themselves as lesbians, others said they wore the shirts in support of gay friends or family members.

However, the gay activist students were wearing t-shirts advertising "Day of Silence" promoting gay rights in schools. The same gay activist students made same-sex public displays of their affection for one another, kissing, holding hands and making out in front of other students.

I asked several high school students that I know what they thought of this. "Gross" was the usual response. Several of these students commented further offering that when they see same-sex students at their school making out, they think it's "just for show," meant to elicit a reaction from the straight students. Some even feel that the gay students try to goad straight students into making comments that can be construed as discriminatory... a sort of set up.

One student summed up the gay rights activism as this: "It's just about homosexual sex. What don't people get? It's not about human rights or equality; it's about being able to have homosexual sex without feeling bad about yourself; they want approval. Kind of forcing us to accept their weird lifestyle." He also explained "that is the reason why homosexuals are not allowed in the Boy Scouts... it's about gay male sex, and not about gay boys wanting to learn how to hunt and camp." He wanted to know why it was even an issue in the first place. "Why would a gay kid even want the other scouts to know he was gay?" I told him that it's the adults who do, not the kids; kids just want to fit in. The adult activists want kids to believe that it's normal to be gay, and it's okay to be gay, and because you are normal, you can join any club you want. However, Boy Scouts don't want a homosexual kid sleeping in the tent with them, wathing them undress, any more than a girl scout wants a boy scout in her tent watching her undress, or having sexual fantasies about her. It is disgusting and innappropriate.

Last year I had several run-ins with my son's high school about their promoting the Day of Silence, promoted by the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN). I argued that promoting a gay lifestyle does not belong in any school any more than promoting heterosexual sex to students. They wouldn't allow a member of the NRA to demonstrate to the students how to use an AK47, so why invite lesbian women into English class and allow students to ask them about their coming-out and gay lifestyles? (This actually did occur) The ridiculousness is blatant. Many school officials are kicking military recruiters off campuses but allowing gay persons to speak to kids. It's absolutely perplexing.

The Day of Silence promotes the idea that students, even in middle school, should openly embrace homosexuality, bisexuality or transgenderism.

So the kids who are repulsed by and speak out against the gay-sex lifestyle get suspended, but the kids who physically demonstrate gay-romance-sex in public, and promote a gay lifestyle, are left alone.

The group Concerned Women For America reports, Many Americans view the homosexual lobby as a powerful, aggressive and vocal force in society, and are deeply concerned at the inroads it has made in the nation's schools. A recent poll of 1,200 parents found that by a margin of more than four to one, they disagree with teaching children that "homosexual love relationships" can be as satisfying as heterosexual relationships.

It is preposterous to assert that homosexual and radical gender activists are "silenced" on high school and college campuses. The reality is that "gay" activists are often among the loudest — and most coddled — interest groups in many schools.

The students who are often "silenced" in school environments today are Christians, Orthodox Jews and others whose faith or moral belief system recognizes homosexual conduct as unnatural and immoral. These very students are further ostracized and alienated by "Day of Silence" activities, especially when school administrations tacitly recognize or, worse, openly endorse this activism.

'Day of Silence' activities promote the idea that homosexuality is normal, good and harmless. This may be the view of homosexual activists, but millions of parents and students disagree. School administrators should no more endorse "Day of Silence" activities than they would any other controversial political or social cause.

Students and parents may wish to take advantage of the "Day of Silence" by educating homosexual activists and their allies about the moral objections to homosexuality, bisexuality and gender confusion, and the risks associated with these lifestyles. An excellent report on the health risks associated with homosexual behavior can be found on Alliance Defense Fund's website.

Students might say something like this to their "silent" pro-"gay" friends at school:

"I agree that it's time to end the silence about homosexuality, which is an unsafe lifestyle. Did you know that sexually transmitted diseases like hepatitis, chlamydia, and HIV are contracted disproportionately by men practicing homosexual behavior? Did you know that the trauma caused by anal sex can lead to fecal incontinence and something called 'anal fissures'? Did you know that a recent study by the Georgetown University's School of Nursing and Health Studies found that one in five urban gay men is battered by his partner? Why would anyone promote this behavior as just another harmless lifestyle? (Concerned Women For America)

GLSEN and Day of Silence organizers say they are promoting respect and tolerance, and fighting hateful speech. But GLSEN Executive Director Kevin Jennings--who is on record defending the idea of "promoting homosexuality" in schools--has a record of making hateful and ugly comments about his opponents. In March 2000, speaking at a church in New York City, Jennings resorted to using a nasty expletive in responding to a question about religious conservatives:

Twenty percent of people are hard-core fair-minded [pro-homosexual] people. Twenty percent are hard-core [anti-homosexual] bigots. We need to ignore the hard-core bigots, get more of the hard-core fair-minded people to speak up, and we'll pull that 60 percent [of people in the middle] … over to our side. That's really what I think our strategy has to be. We have to quit being afraid of the religious right. We also have to quit — … I'm trying to find a way to say this. I'm trying not to say, '[F---] 'em!' which is what I want to say, because I don't care what they think! [audience laughter] Drop dead![for further information, see CFI paper, When Silence Would Have Been Golden at www.cultureandfamily.org]

For pro-gay groups such as (PFLAG) Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays and GLSEN to claim they only promote acceptance of homosexuality, bisexuality and cross-dressing (even in elementary schools), is a bunch of baloney. Both of the PFLAG and GLSEN websites promote gay-teen books, have gay-teen and man-boy pamphlets available and GLSEN even lists books for sale, including the following:

A novel called "Rainbow Boys" (Alex Sanchez, Simon & Schuster, 2001) is recommended by PFLAG in its youth brochure and is available for purchase on the GLSEN web site. In this book, three teen boys are featured as they explore homosexual relationships with each other and others. Besides numerous graphic scenes of masturbation, sex between homosexual teen boys, and a bisexual boy and his girlfriend, a 29-year-old "meets" a 17-year-old in an online chat room (p.112). They eventually go on a "date" and teen readers are treated to an explicit sex scene involving anal intercourse without a condom. This takes place in the apartment of the adult man, cheating on his live-in lover who is out of town (p. 148).

"In Your Face: Stories from the Lives of Queer Youth" (Mary L. Gray, Harrington Park Press, division of Haworth Press-1999) is recommended by PFLAG in both its youth and parent brochures, and is available for purchase on the GLSEN web site, www.glsen.org . In this book, one pathetic story relates an 18-year-old boy's molestation by his mother's boyfriend who later became his step-father, beginning when the youth was ten. He informed his mother, but she didn't intervene. However, the boy's recollection is that the step-father "'didn't want a relationship; he just wanted to use me for sex'. I don't consider what my stepfather did to me child molestation, even though it was really. I consider it to be rape. That wasn't my first sexual experience, so I'm not scarred by it or anything." (pp.37-38)

In another incident, a boy named Todd recalled having a 25-year-old male sex partner when he was 16. They met when the boy went to the Sonoma County "gay" youth group (pp.58-59). He shortly began a different relationship with a 27-year-old male, a friend of the first partner (p.141). In another incident, a 15-year-old girl goes on a date and kisses an older lesbian, the person who had checked her in at the local homosexual youth group (pp.139-140).

The book "Growing Up Gay/Growing Up Lesbian: A Literary Anthology" (Edited by Bennett L. Singer, New Press, 1994) is an episode that might have been written by a pedophile. A boy raised by two gay men describes his first experience of anal intercourse with a man he guessed to be around 30 years old. The youth himself was 15 at the time(p.111). The boy claims he initiated it. He had already had previous homosexual experiences beginning at age eleven (p.110). This book is available for purchase on the GLSEN web site, and is recommended by PFLAG in its parent brochure.

"All of these books contain a wealth of other objectionable and obscene subject matter. Pornography is portrayed as an aid for teens and children in clarifying one's homosexual identity; visits to adult book stores are common. Masturbation, even by young children, is described in detail. Sexual experimentation between young children and teens is throughout. Joining the local community "gay" youth group, usually without parental knowledge, is also a standard part of virtually every "coming out" story. And in a typically irreverent and now, ironic episode, one 17-year-old boy in Two Teenagers in Twenty confesses his homosexual activity to his Catholic priest. The priest not only affirms the homosexual behavior, he directs the boy to a supportive club for "gay" youth where he can go without his parents' knowledge. This all takes place in the state of Massachusetts, site of so many current Catholic priest scandals (pp. 158-159). The boy takes the priest's advice, and goes full-steam into the lifestyle, even becoming a "gay" teen activist." (Mission America)

The Mission America Risk Audit "tool" compiles information on school policies, curriculum and extracurricular activities. Findings that indicate a school is "high risk" for indoctrinating students to accept homosexuality include:

--Anti-harassment or bullying policy that includes sexual orientation.

--Non-discrimination policy for students, teachers and staff that includes sexual orientation.

--Requirement for teacher/staff training on "diversity," "tolerance" or "sensitivity."

--Objectionable material in library.

--A formal relationship with gay advocacy group like GSLEN or PFLAG.

--Local or state laws or federal or private funding of programs that may include acceptance of homosexuality.

--Programs on "tolerance," "hate" or "bias."

--Learning about "different kinds" of families.

--"Pro-homosexual" stories and novels in suggested reading lists for literature classes.

--HIV/AIDS and "safe sex" education programs.

--A homosexual student club.

--Diversity day, Day of Silence or gay pride celebration.

--Pink triangle or rainbow safety program to designate "safe" areas for students to come with questions about homosexual feelings or to receive sympathy or advice.

Gay rights activists have so successfully hijacked language of the civil-rights movement, that students or staff member who object to homosexual behavior are "vilified as 'homophobes' and potential threats.

Children as young as kindergarteners are being exposed to the homosexual agenda. Teachers who have participated in "diversity" and "tolerance" training are exposing children who they feel may be "gender confused." The teachers then encourage the gender confused child to explore his or her feelings about being gay - as young as 5 years old! Effeminate and quiet little boys and tomboy girls are being identified as gender confused children, labeled and taught how to be gay by activist adults. This is sick.

Parents must address this issue with their childrens' schools, and let it be known that the homosexual agenda is not okay at school. Deviant behavior is just that, and children need to be protected from it.

Teachers Who Hate

What makes so many teachers so full of hatred? They seem to despise the very people they are in charge of educating.

But perhaps the most appalling example of “self-serving but pathetic hatred” came from an April 12 interview with Julianne Malveaux. Malveaux has been a regular commentator for the past decade on national politics and cultural trends. She also was recently named president of Bennett College in Greensboro, North Carolina.

When asked about the case on National Public Radio, Malveaux stated, "Those kids don’t deserve an apology. They hired strippers . . . They were known for hooliganistic behavior separate and apart from what happened to this woman. So, no, they don’t deserve any apologies at all . . . Not from the professors, not from anyone else."

What a peach. But where does her hatred come from? Why does she hate the Duke boys so much more than the repugnant District Attorney who manipulated the system to find them guilty?

Then there are "The Group of 88" the 88 Duke Professors who placed a full page ad in in the Duke Chronicle, the independent daily newspaper of Duke University, on April 6th, 2006. The advertisement featured statements from Duke students indirectly condemning the Duke lacrosse players and exculpating the alleged victim of their gang-rape.

Teachers. I often think back and remember my teachers. From Kindergarten through high school, it wasn't until college that I felt hatred from teachers. Teachers as late as the 60's and 70's, still seemed to be truly committed to teaching kids of all ages. When I remember the teachers my son had during his schooling (he's now 18), I can count many angry, agenda-filled, hate mongers in his elementary school! By the time he got to high school, that was the rule, not the exception. He has also had some very wonderful teachers however, they are usually older.

Back to the Group of 88: (Johnsonville News) The 'listening' statement reads like a deranged blogger's angry rant about sexism, racism, and sexual assault. It included eight anonymous and three attributed quotes that were allegedly made by Duke students.

One of the quotes in the 'listening' statement is attributed to Danielle Terrazas Williams, a first-year student in Duke's Ph.D. program in history. Two of the quotes are from Audrey Christopher, a recent graduate of Duke. Both women are African-American, but were not Duke undergraduates when their quotes were used for "The Group of 88" advertisement.

There are eight other unattributed quotes in the statement. None of the quotes used in the 'listening' statement are directly attributed to any Duke undergraduate. Who exactly were the Group of 88 listening too?

"Given its timing and the reference to "what happened to this young woman" the advertisement was clearly about going after the lacrosse team for perpetrating a crime, regardless of what the truth was."

A rush to judgment is what is is, by "enlightened", educated, educators.

One Duke graduate summed it up this way: They do not care about the students they have vilified. They are too small to say "I'm sorry". They do not care about the callous suffering they (not the wrongly accused Duke students) have inflicted on fellow human beings (not to mention students they - the Magisterial Instructors - were supposed to educate, nurture and protect).

They do not care for having administered an extraordinarily powerful credibility hit to the very causes they purport to hold dear - women rights and racial justice.

I find the words despicable, repugnant and ignorant, inadequate for the behavior of these teachers.

Yet teachers all over the country behave this way everyday. They pass judgment on rich, white students as spoiled, uncaring, elitist. Yet it is the teachers' attitude that is uncaring, spoiled and elitist. Teachers punish students for having conservative beliefs, opinions and actions. I remember a particularly despicable prof at CSUS who bellowed at me daily for working at a conservative lobbying firm for my internship. He tried to break me down, embarrass me in front of the class, used his power and knowledge to terrify me. And that is all I remember about his class. Political Philosophy or something or other... he was a horrible person but obviously terribly insecure to feel so threatened by little ole' me.

My son is President of the Young Republican Club at his high school. The classroom punishment he has endured because of this is unspeakable. Where are the open minds these teachers claim to have? How about the different learning experiences and opportunities?

He has had grades threatened by hemp-wearing, angry, middle aged female teachers for participating in school-sponsored sports. One of these enlightened females actually called him a dumb jock in class. He has a 4.2 GPA and was accepted and will be going to the Naval Academy... not just another dumb jock. Again, where is the tolerance and the love these people profess to have more of than conservatives? The best teachers my son ever had left him guessing about their politics. As it should be, and that is great.

Until parents boycott the universities and colleges that have activist-teachers and professors, this behavior will not stop. I fought all four years at my son's high school. I am not one of the beloved parents. However, the battles I fought were on principle, and not about making excuses for behavior or grades.

The Duke Lacrosse players railroaded - not only by a ridiculous, ambitious DA, but by their own teachers, their University and the media. As an institution, teaching should have no opinions about pending legal matters nor politics. The Duke professors and teachers are legends in their own minds. They are not about teaching, they are activists. And they were blatantly wrong about this case. But even if they weren't, they had NO business putting their collective opinion in a newspaper.

The Duke graduate sums up the teachers appropriately: They do not care for having administered an extraordinarily powerful credibility hit to the very causes they purport to hold dear - women rights and racial justice.

All they care now is the safety of their own skin and shoddy tenures, their own shattered reputation, their own muddied public persona. Compared to this kind of behaviour, somebody hitting and running, abandoning his/her accident victims to die in their own blood, is by no means different, except for the higher degree of premeditation and more cynical avoidance of responsibility manifested in the Group of 88 way of "passing the buck".

I am repulsed by hate mongering, race baiting, activist teachers.

Cuba Is Lovely In The Springtime

(New York Post) A group of Manhattan public high-school students and a history teacher with a soft spot for Cuba flouted federal travel restrictions by taking a spring-break field trip to the communist nation.

The Principal initially claimed to have no knowledge of the trip but later recalled having denied approval for it. She said the teacher, Nathan Turner, then took it upon himself to arrange the excursion.

Turner, 35, a popular teacher whose classroom walls, students said, are adorned with posters of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara, declined to comment.

The lesson in socializing and socialism was given to about a dozen students from the selective Beacon School on the Upper West Side, which for years has organized extravagant overseas trips with complementary semester-long classes.

Perhaps when the parents of these elite students pay their $65,000 fine, they will think twice about "socializing and socialism." If they defied the same law in Cuba, they'd lost more than their $65,000. What a bunch of ignorant boneheads. And the teacher needs to be fired.

Terry Moran's Dukie

The view from the left is pretty dismal. It must be a frustrating existence for liberals who find only right-wing conspiracies in everything - especially when justice works for the middle class and affluent. Apparently only poor persons of color deserve justice.

Read on:

ABC reporter Terry Moran writes: "Mike Nifong, the North Carolina prosecutor who pursued a case of rape and kidnapping against three Duke University lacrosse players, has been found to have been reckless and deceitful in the discharge of his duties according to the state's attorney general. He abused the power the people of Durham granted him. Based on the public record of what he did in this case, he may well be properly disbarred.

The accuser in this case has been shown to be either a vicious liar or a troubled fantasist.

The three young men who she accused are truly innocent of the charges brought against them according to the North Carolina Attorney General and the investigation led by his office.

But perhaps the outpouring of sympathy for Reade Seligman, Collin Finnerty and David Evans is just a bit misplaced. They got special treatment in the justice system--both negative and positive. The conduct of the lacrosse team of which they were members was not admirable on the night of the incident, to say the least. And there are so many other victims of prosecutorial misconduct in this country who never get the high-priced legal representation and the high-profile, high-minded vindication that it strikes me as just a bit unseemly to heap praise and sympathy on these particular men."

"As students of Duke University or other elite institutions, these young men will get on with their privileged lives. There is a very large cushion under them--the one that softens the blows of life for most of those who go to Duke or similar places, and have connections through family, friends and school to all kinds of prospects for success. They are very differently situated in life from, say, the young women of the Rutgers University women's basketball team.

And, MOST IMPORTANT, there are many, many cases of prosecutorial misconduct across our country every year. The media covers few, if any, of these cases. Most of the victims in these cases are poor or minority Americans--or both. I would hate to say the color of their skin is one reason journalists do not focus on these victims of injustices perpetrated by police and prosecutors, but I am afraid if we ask ourselves the question honestly, we would likely find that it is."

Mr. Moran further demeans the injustice experienced by the Duke boys by comparing their situation to the Rutgers girls Basketball team incident. The girls basketball team received disgusting comments and slurs from a has-been shock jock. The Duke Lacrosse players were maligned, their lives threatened, their family's nearly financially ruined by a sick, ambitious prosecutor. The girls basketball team will get over the comments once the media moves on to another stupid event. The Duke boys' recovery will take much more time, energy and fortitude. They will always be known as "the rapists who beat the system" by the black community thanks to Jesse and Al and guys like Terry Moran.

Liberals always miss the point while they try to find the poor black or Hispanic victim in the story. It's as bad as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson trying and convicting the Duke boys in the media. I am waiting for their apology. Well-to-do white families do not deserve our empathy, nor do they deserve justice, according to Al and Jesse.

Terry Moran is just another embittered, bewildered "reporter." Long ago he forgot how to report on anything; he was so busy searching for stories to support his liberal politics, he lost the ability to see .

Sacramento’s Affluent Cesspool

The “Me” Generation is not just relegated to today’s youth; it actually spans a few generations. Too many Baby Boomers are all about me, Gen X’rs are all about me, and Generation Y believes that everything they do is remarkable. Gen X’rs even proudly display this condition in the form of a bumper sticker on their cars: It’s All About Me.

How nice it must be to love yourself so much.

This behavior is all too apparent primarily in Sacramento’s suburbs and affluent neighborhoods.

I am a Sacramento native. I have lived here for all of my 40+ years. I remember when Roseville was way out there and Gold River was Rancho Cordova, El Dorado Hills was in the hills, Elk Grove was inhabited by cowboys, and Rocky Ridge Road was a dirt road. Really. Today these neighborhoods are considered affluent. Take a drive through any of these areas and you will believe you are seeing affluence.

But does the insatiable desire for affluence come with a hefty price? Yes. What you don’t see in most of those driveways next to the new European car is the size of the lease payment and hefty interest. Or the ostentatious McMansion that is rented. Or the sports car that the daughter received for her sweet-sixteen party… all leased and/or financed. People are living highly leveraged lives and teetering on the brink of financial ruin, just to fit in.

The highly leveraged lifestyle translates to specific behaviors as well which I call Highly-leveraged family syndrome. Because these people exhibit no personal self-discipline and their status in the neighborhood is more important than their financial security, their children have no boundaries either. I know and have met parents who allow their teenagers to drink alcohol so they will “fit in” and be popular. The parents enforce no curfews, encourage partying, allow “recreational” drugs (that stupid expression coined in the 80’s), allow spending and sport-shopping, talking back and defying authority, and seem oblivious to the all around rotten behavior. The word “no” is never even whispered for fear the child will be disappointed or angry with the parents.

Have you heard about teens having sex parties where partners are switched many times in one evening just for fun. Where do the kids get outrageous ideas like this? From their parents who spouse-swap on weekends. I know a married couple who were invited to participate in such a party. They were outraged to find out what was happening right under their noses and down the street.

This out-of-control “lifestyle” is no longer consigned to the “bottom-rung” in society; it is right next door to you. So what makes people so desperate that they will spend themselves right into Chapter 7 and moral Bankruptcy?

It’s all about me.

The Baby Boomer generation has often been referred to the as the 'breakthrough', 'me' and 'stress' generation with a host of other terms used by astute marketers referring to the ageing segment of this generation as gray power and ABENS (Asset Backed Empty Nesters). In America there are about 76 million Boomers, which represents 29% of the population. Most demographers refer to the period as between 1946 –1964 (some demographers say 1961). Rock music, drugs and free love defined many of the Boomers, particularly those who were teens in the 60’s and early 70’s.

Baby boomers were Spocked when they should have been spanked Richard Ferber, author of the 20-year-old child-rearing classic, Solve Your Child's Sleep Problems, and creator of a by-the-clock method that promises to turn little screamers into independent sleepers - a "dare-to-discipline" book. Christopher Hitchens wrote in The Baby Boomer Wasteland, “To be a spoiled person is not to be well-off or favored by fortune or protected from brute realities. It is to be well-off and favored by fortune and protected from brute realities and not to know it.” Touche`.

The Baby Boomer generation has been, free of the fear of untreatable disease. Boomers have never experienced mass unemployment. Boomers were the first generation to have birth control readily available, and used it to promote their sexual freedom. Obviously forgetting how our parents lived, Boomers believed car ownership and cheap gas were rights, not privileges – listen to the whining today about gas prices. Anyone and nearly everyone who could speak in complete sentences went to college, regardless of cost. Yet, the whining has never stopped. Will there be enough Social Security when it's my turn What about my retirement fund? Who's gonna take care of me?” Certainly not their selfish offspring.

And Baby Boomers passed this entitlement attitude on to their kids, now living in affluent suburbs, a lifestyle they’ve come to expect, whether or not they can actually afford it. Kids who have never held even a part-time job, never mowed the lawn, or done chores in order to earn an allowance. These same parents open bank accounts for the kids, allow them to use the ATM whenever they want, and keep restocking the account so their little darlings are never without.

I have seen parents orchestrate complete cover ups of illegal behavior in order to prevent their kids from being expelled from private schools. Recently a local kid had a party when his parents were out of town. Some rival high school kids showed up flashing guns. A scuffle took place; people were injured. The police were called. Then the party boy's father orchestrated a meticulous lie about what really happened, altering the facts about his son's involvement so the boy wouldn't get kicked out of his private high school. What did this kid learn from this incident? How to effectively lie, how to get away with murder, how to cheat and how to not be held accountable. This did not take place in the inner city; it happened in an affluent suburb.

In the 1970’s McDonalds coined with the slogan, “You deserve a break today.” Burger King came up with "have it your way." Today most commercials on radio and television focus on what you deserve: a mortgage for a new home, you deserve a new car (regardless of your credit history), you deserve lots of new clothes and shoes, you are owed a 401(k) by your employer, you deserve a face lift and boob job, you deserve gastric bypass so you don’t have to diet, you need and deserve a wedding designed for a princess, you deserve a big house and fancy cars. Everyone is entitled to these things; in fact, you deserve them.

In our supersized society, more is never enough. As Sacramento has grown from Cowtown to a big-city, the insincerity becomes more evident and is glaringly apparent in entire communities. Values and morals are taking a backseat in the Hummers and Mercedes S500. The ownership of objects has replaced relationships. Children have become objects, possessions.

Affluence has it's place. And not everything about affluence is negative. Affluence can open doors of opportunity providing you know how to use it, not abuse it.

But usually affluence is ugly, reflecting the immorality of it's users and the shift away from value-oriented lives, to the value of stuff; more is never enough is more powerful than developing strong character complete with values, ethics and morals.

"Woman-Haters" & Misogyny

This is a very important piece from Mary Katherine Hamm about the phoniness coming from the left in the defense of all women, not just liberal women.

********************

From Townhall.com
Monday, April 09, 2007
MKH and Huff on CNN's 'Reliable Sources'
Posted by: Mary Katharine Ham at 1:53 PM

Well, I was just YouTube-ing this segment when I noticed Allah had it up already.

I was on "Reliable Sources" this weekend with Joan Walsh of Salon and Arianna Huffington talking about misogyny on the Internet. Both of them resented my pointing out the lefty blogosphere's tendency toward vile chauvinism and lefty women's tendency to excuse it when directed at conservative women.

The truth is that misogyny is not confined to the Left or the Right. I was not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that I'm not keen on singing Kumbayah with women who think my politics somehow make me an inauthentic woman. Just because a politically neutral figure whom they feel comfortable defending allows them to finally "stand up" for all women doesn't mean I have to smile and play solidarity sister with them just because they're suddenly in the mood.

The Left has been more than happy to let Michelle Malkin endure the c-word and call Condi Rice "Brown Sugar" for years with very little concern. They have spent those same years calling people like Michelle and Condi self-loathers and the whole of the Republican party woman-haters. "How can you stand to belong to the party of women's oppression, you self-loathing, Rethuglican woman-hating c**ts," asks the Left without a hint of irony. So, no, I don't feel like aligning with traditional feminists in this fight would necessarily serve me well.

Instead, you just suck it up, take the nasty commentary, point it out, take precautions when necessary, and keep on plugging. It's obviously a personal decision for every woman blogger as to how to handle it, but I do think it sends the wrong message to online bullies to stop writing. As a conservative, I don't generally think appeasement works. Instead, it emboldens.

I am fortunate that I don't get nearly the volume or vileness that Michelle and other more high-profile conservative figures do. I usually leave most of my nasty comments up on YouTube and this blog because I think it helps illustrate exactly the character of my critics and the ground on which the losers are fighting. For reference, please see the comment about my teeth on the MKH on Paula Zahn post, which was posted while I was taping the segment on misogyny. A troll with timing! Some people erase them, and I wrestle with whether to do the same, but I sometimes feel like I'd be doing the trolls a favor by censoring what they should have known to censor themselves. I'd be imparting my good sense and manners to them that clearly don't deserve.

As for whether there's more on the left or right, isn't it interesting that I'm the only one who gets a nasty sexual comment read to her on the air? Could it be that nasty, sexual comments about me were more readily available than ones for Huffington and Walsh, despite my comparatively low profile?

As for Huffington and Walsh, both are undeniably smart, successful women who believe passionately in their work and their politics. They don't deserve the nasty, sexual comments about them (some of which may show up, but I hope don't, on the YouTube of this very segment). I appreciate that this is a problem for most women on the Web, and I hope it doesn't silence any more, as it did Kathy Sierra.
(In an online shouting match that was widely reported, Kathy Sierra, a high-tech book author from Boulder County, Colo., and a friend of Mr. O’Reilly, reported getting death threats that stemmed in part from a dispute over whether it was acceptable to delete the impolitic comments left by visitors to someone’s personal Web site.)

Distraught over the threats and manipulated photos of her that were posted on other critical sites — including one that depicted her head next to a noose — Ms. Sierra canceled a speaking appearance at a trade show and asked the local police for help in finding the source of the threats. She also said that she was considering giving up blogging altogether.

Such comments also serve to marginalize the blogosphere. A ton of great, level-headed analysis can easily be dismissed by the MSM when it finds a thread of "show us your ___, you w****" comments. And, yes, it happens on both sides, but yes, I also think if the Left's part of it suddenly disappeared, you'd be left with a damn sight less than half of the nasty.

At the very least, the Left blogosphere should be disallowed from using the "woman-hater" label for conservatives until the woman-haters on that side learn to heal thyselves, as the saying goes.

Oh, and many thanks to Newsbusters for posting video and kind words. I knew y'all wouldn't forgive me if I didn't ruffle Arianna's feathers just a little.

*************************

I also receive attacks from the left; things people wouldn't ever say to someone of their own "ilk."... deplorable, despicable comments. These two-faced, mean-spirited and hatefilled libs just can't bring themselves to see all of us bloggers as human and accept that people have differing opinions. I don't troll leftie websites and leave nasty comments, nor do I encourage anyone to do so. It's childish, selfish and pretty low-class. And because I am a conservative woman, frankly makes me far more thoughtful of all women. Why? Liberal women live in a bubble waiting for leftie female leaders to tell them what to think, how to feel, how to vote and what issues are "theirs." Me? I get to make my own decisions. It's good to be a thinking person.

5th Graders Have Sex in Class

Did you hear the one about the five 5th graders in Louisiana who had sex in their classroom when their teacher left the class alone for fifteen minutes? Ha Ha.

I'm not kidding. This happened on March 27, 2007... read on:

NEW ORLEANS - Five fifth-grade students face criminal charges after authorities said four of them had sex in front of other students in an unsupervised classroom and kept a classmate posted as a lookout for teachers.

The students were arrested Tuesday at the Spearsville school in rural north Louisiana, authorities said. Two 11-year-old girls, a 12-year-old boy and a 13-year old boy were charged with obscenity, a felony. An 11-year-old boy, the alleged guard, was charged with being an accessory.

”When no teacher showed up, the four began to have sex in the classroom with the other elementary students in the classroom with them," the sheriff reported.

School officials did not return calls seeking comment.

Oh, now there's a real surprise; no comment from the school or district. I wonder who they will blame for their inattention... parents? The eleven-year-old kids?

What is happening in society where 5th graders have sex in a classroom in front of other students? Since when do 5th graders have sex? Where is the public outrage?

I am sure this will be buried by the secular, liberal media, since they are never wrong. The libs got this one wrong; values-based education is sorely needed in a society where parents don't have a clue. Gotta love that bastion of liberal ignorance, Louisiana. Look at the mess that liberalism created.

But then again, they'll blame it on that hurricane that Bush caused...

New Bill of NO Rights

(KSCO Santa Cruz: Kay Zwerling Commentary) This is called New Bill of No Rights. It has been floating around for some time. It's really very good. It has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kay from Georgia. He says that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and they are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights, so here goes:

The Bill of No Rights

We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, delusional and other liberal bedwetters. We hold these truths to be
self-evident: that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.

Article 1: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

Article 2: You do not have the right to never be offended. This Country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone, not just you. You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots and probably always will be.

Article 3: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful. Do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

Article 4: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found and would gladly help anyone in need, but we're weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes. Get an education and go to work. Don't expect everyone else to take care of you.

Article 5: You do not have the right to free health care. Besides, most public health care systems are disasters.

Article 6: You do not have the right to physically harm other > people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

Article 7: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob or cheat, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

Article 8: You do not have the right to a job. All of us, sure, want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training to make yourself useful. Amen.

Article 9: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness, so go for it.

Article 10: This is an English speaking Country. We do not care where you are from. English is our language. Learn it, or go back to wherever you came from.

Article 11: You do not have the right to change our Country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in God. The phrase "In God we trust" is part of our heritage and our history, and if you are uncomfortable with it -- tough.

**************

It's a shame that we have to spell it out for so many Americans. The land of the free and all of the entitlements will be our undoing. The greedy always take advantage of the ignorant. What will it take for the majority of common sense folks to start doing something about it?

Nancy Pelosi: A Puppy Amongst The Big Dogs

Nancy Pelosi has made a royal fool of herself while attempting to trump President Bush's role as Commander in Chief:

Washington Post: HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.

Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

Has Mrs. Pelosi forgoten that she was elected to represent the 8th District in California? Someone has gotten a little too big for her britches... meanwhile, her behavior borders on treason.

At least the Washington Post called it right this time. She is at the very least, obviously trying to run with the big dogs, but still pees like a puppy.

Boy Scout Politics

This weekend we celebrated the official ceremony for son Biff for achieving his Eagle Scout rank. I have attended several Eagle Scout Courts of Honor since my son has been a scout. The ceremony is lovely, patriotic, honoring accomplished young men. Ours was no different. The three boys being honored are best pals so it was emotional as well.

They chose their former Scout Master to speak on their behalf instead of having three different speakers. He was an excellent Scout Master, loved by the entire troop.

However as he began to speak about my son Biff, he mocked his current position as President of the Young Republican Club at his high school, and then mentioned his acceptance to the Naval Academy, and lectured him about being in the militray - in front of the audience there to witness an Eagle Scout ceremony. The former Scout Master then talked to the boys about pursuing peace and dialogue instead of fighting. The audience squirmed.

He made a point of telling everyone that he is a liberal Democrat.

All at an Eagle Scout ceremony.

To describe his politics at a Boy Scout event as inappropriate is an understatement. This was neither the forum nor the audience.

I received many comments after the ceremony by friends and family about the inappropriateness of his comments. It was lost on no one.

Why must liberals let everyone know they are liberal? Why must liberals assume that everyone in the room feels the same as they do? Why must liberals ruin a beautiful event with their ignorant politics?

My son just rolled his eyes. "Considier the source mom," was his reply.

This is the same Scout Master who refused to deal individually with the out of shape and overweight boys who could not climb the 10,000 feet to the top of Pyramid Peak at their camp. His solution was to make everyone in the troop run 1 1/2 miles with him. This, after my son and his pals had already climbed the mountain the year before. The Scout Master didn't want anyone to feel badly about themselves for being "rejected" by him (the leader) in deciding who could make the trip.

This behavior goes against the very core of Scouting. And introducing politics of any kind at an Eagle Scout Court of Honor is deplorable. The Boy Scouts of America will hear from me.

Scout Oath
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Looking at the Scout Emblem, this is the description of it's meaning:
The three points of the trefoil stand for the three parts ofthe Scout Oath.
The shape of the Scout badge means that a Scout can point the right way in life as truly as does a compass in the field.
There are two stars on the badge. They symbolize truth and knowledge.
The eagle and shield stand for freedom and a Scout's readiness to defend that freedom.
The scroll bearing the Scout motto is turned up at the ends as a reminder that a Scout smiles as he does his duty.
The knot at the bottom of the scroll serves as a reminder of the Scout slogan, Do a Good Turn Daily.

Do you think liberal politics have any place in the Boy Scouts?