Welcome!

Welcome to the SoccerMom: Unplugged Archive.  With the unfortunate demise of Bloghi and the fortuitous discovery of WordPress, SoccerMom was able to avoid extinction.  Many thanks to Elmer’s Brother for wielding his keyboard in my behalf and moving everything over for me.

Currently I am writing at two other sites so you can still encounter musings by Cate (that’s me) at SMU over at Townhall and at a new joint venture over at Band of Bloggers. 

See you around the {cough} ethernet…

That’s not fashion! It’s a college prank…

Reuters is covering a fashion show at a Toronto AIDS Conference in which the outfits are made of (cough) condoms.

Who needs this many pockets?

For the person who just likes to collect quarters…

For the young mother, a diaper genie you can wear!

Don’t they know pleats make you look heavy?

I think they stole that blue design fom J Lo.

How about this thought:  If they’d really “worn” a condom, they probably wouldn’t have AIDS in the first place!

The American Media: a tragedy of Shakesperian proportion

The media.  It’s increasingly under fire in this country.  That’s distressing considering the arguably noble intent with which the founders sought to protect our press.  Aside from having the opportunity to become the initial chroniclers of history, standing on the periphery of earth’s bloody battlefield with pen in hand these writers could have recorded the churning upheaval that is humankind.  In America, they could have maintained a preeminent social position by standing guard as the people’s watchdog over a government, that like all buearacracies, inherently seeks more power.

There was a time in the nation’s early history that the dailies were known for their political leanings.  Everyone knew which papers, and which editors, leaned Republican and which leaned left.  The middle ground, if you cared to find it, was found amid reports from every side.  Over time, presumably in an attempt to professionalize the occupation, journalism became a job of “do not try this at home” proportion.  Information once passed over the wires was suddenly acquired by on-the-spot reporters and overseas correspondents.  And of course, the claims of objectivity followed.  As the trade developed into the work of “professionals”, reporters were suddenly endowed with the superhuman ability to put aside all bias and report from a position of near divine neutrality.  Only, as any honest observer of human behavior will admit, we mere mortals just aren’t equipped to stand apart from the fray, no matter how many college credits supposedly attest otherwise.

Once the American news peddlers began buying into the supremacy of their own written accounts, they truly became Carlyle’s fourth estate.  The status infused it’s constituents with a misguided, though undoubtedly for some well-intentioned, sense of noblesse oblige.  Oh, how the American media seeks to care for the ignorant masses.  Protecting us from our own interpretations of the day’s events.  Sheltering us from the hard work of thinking for ourselves.  And now, when technological advances provide a medium that undermines the elitism of the pen, there is backlash against the citizens who point out that the watchdog needs watching.  The response of the AP to bloggers who question the veracity of released reports can only be compared to the disgust of a master with the slave who doesn’t know his place.

As the press drives more and more wedges between other sources of information and the public, it’s own credibility is undermined.  Like an alluring companion, the media has drawn many Americans away from a simple trust in government and social institutions.  Unfortunately for the industry, this is proving a fatal attraction as more and more citizens become disillusioned with the seduction of a press desperate to sell information with reckless disregard for truth or public interest. The result is an American public that is increasingly characterized by Fox Mulder cynicism.  It’s as if our mantra with respect to information outlets is “Trust no one.”

The media would better serve itself if they pulled back the curtain and revealed the simple truth that behind the multibillion dollar business are men and women with their own ideas and agendas.  Consider the popularity of Fox News Channel among the cable media outlets.  Does it have more to do with the obvious slant of the commentators or the deference shown for viewers by not trying to hide behind the thin veil of objectivity?  I would argue the latter.  Interestingly, FNC’s newest catchphrase could be the title for this post and an indictment of the American media in general: We put the world in context. 

To which I can only respond, “Thanks, but no thanks.”

Photofraud exposed: Reading between the pixels

It’s all over the blogs.  The media is playing God with the facts about the middle east conflict but my guess is that average Americans have no idea how manipulated the news is.  With photographers earning cash bonuses for producing the best war pics, there is plenty of apolitical motivation for Jason Blair shutterbugging.  Not to mention the liberal anti-American (aka anti-Israel) mindset that appears to be a job requirement in the MSM…

Check out this concise expose by aish.com

 

One for the "Jerry" in each of you

Remember Jerry?  He was the Mel Gibson character in Conspiracy Theory.  If you’ve got a little Jerry in you, and face it, we all do, I invite you to join the freepers over at FreeRepublic in trying to solve the mystery of Green Helmet Guy.  GHG is mysterious rescuers that appears in so many news photos that showcase the horrors of Hezbollah’s suffering in Southern Lebanon.  Interestingly, he was exposed years ago and EU Referendum has video of him being exposed a director of macabre theatre for the rolling cameras.  Who is this helmeted man?  How is he always on the scene in front of the cameras and holding dead children just as the bulbs flash?  Watch the video of this Lebanese rescuer ordering that the body of a dead child be removed from the morgue truck, uncovered and placed on another litter so that cameras can zoom in and get better footage. 

And then for a laugh, check out what the spoofers have done at GreenHelmetGuyblog.

So if Joe Lieberman lost for being anti-war…

then how in the heck do you explain Cynthia McKinney?  She lost by a much wider margin that the CT Senator and she is as far-left as it gets. (Click on the link to see her singing an anti-Bush song) Oh yeah, that’s right… those darn voting machines. ROTFLMBO.  BTW, if “reutered” is new political speak for altered photos or “spun” news, then will “McKinneyed” become synonymous with getting hammered at the polls for being a dumba$$?

Aaah, the things that make you go hmmm…. 

 

*************McKinney supporters the New Black Panther Party fought with the press after McKinney’s disgraceful concession attributing her loss at the polls to Israel and Jews***************

Remember this is the woman who uses the race card to get her parking validated {sarcasm} You don’t suppose she could be a {gasp} racist?  Wonder if she’ll get the same public excoriation that Mel Gibson has gotten?  Probably not.  People don’t expect anything better from her.

Democrats: 6 in ‘06

The Boston Globe is reporting that Democrats are revising their campaign approach.  According to the Globe, “Democrats are poised to fan out across the country today to tout their “Six for ‘06″ agenda — a series of easily digestible policy proposals that party leaders hope will help them shed their reputation for diluting their positions with maddening complexity and nuance.”  As if we needed more proof that the Dean-led Dems think the American people are stupid.  Gotta remove all that darn nuance!

Chuck Schumer is quoted as saying, “People want to know what we stand for, but they don’t want an 80-page tome” .  No, Chuck.  People just don’t agree with what you are saying.  A quick comparison of DNC.org and GOP.com shows that brevity is irrelevant.  Under the DNC’s agenda tag, there is a list of major issues.  Under each issue, a brief paragraph outlining the party’s position and then a page full of articles enumerating the various reasons to hate President Bush.  By contrast, the GOP page has a tag marked “party platform” under the “About Us” heading.  It’s a 92 page document.  And believe it or not, Chuck, the GOP still won in ‘04.

When are these morons going to get it?  No matter how well you package manure, it still stinks.

I’ve created my own list:
The DNC’s Top 6 in ‘06

1.  Foreign Policy:  Appease everyone.

2.  Fiscal Policy: Move as close to Communism as we can while pretending to take care of senior citizens, children, trees and Alaskan wildlife.

3.  Environmental Policy:  Buy into every scientific horror story no matter how unsupported or anectdotal the evidence and pass the cost on to the taxpayer.

4.  Social Policy:  Encourage unfettered personal freedom without responsibility to create the need for an elephantine government (i.e. Big Brother) to save people from their own stupidity. Undermine religion – if people find a Savior in their faith, they might not need us! (And of course, there’s that whole personal accountability thing that most organized religions emphasize{shudder}…)

5.  Social-Equality Policy:  Create victims out of everyone and form a coalition of ‘victimized’ groups to maintain a voting bloc.

6.  Education, Social Security, Health Care etc…:  Keep on pretending to give a damn while undermining any efforts made toward progress by our opponents.

Note to DNC:  Feel free to use any of these talking points.  Among most intelligent Americans they would be considered public domain anyway.

Beyond Marriage?

Have you seen this yet?  If not, it is a must examine for traditional family values supporters.

Beyond Marriage would better be named Beyond Decency. In their own words: (my comments are in red)

Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and Relationships Executive Summary (click here to read the full statement) The time has come to reframe the narrow terms of the marriage debate in the United States. Conservatives are seeking to enshrine discrimination in the U.S. Constitution through the Federal Marriage Amendment. But their opposition to same-sex marriage is only one part of a broader pro-marriage, “family values” agenda that includes abstinence-only sex education, stringent divorce laws, coercive marriage promotion policies directed toward women on welfare, and attacks on reproductive freedom. Moreover, a thirty-year political assault on the social safety net has left households with more burdens and constraints and fewer resources. Meanwhile, the LGBT movement has recently focused on marriage equality as a stand-alone issue. While this strategy may secure rights and benefits for some LGBT families, it has left us isolated and vulnerable to a virulent backlash. We must respond to the full scope of the conservative marriage agenda by building alliances across issues and constituencies. Our strategies must be visionary, creative, and practical to counter the right’s powerful and effective use of marriage as a “wedge” issue that pits one group against another. The struggle for marriage rights should be part of a larger effort to strengthen the stability and security of diverse households and families. To that end, we advocate:  Ø   Legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households and families – regardless of kinship or conjugal status. Ø   Access for all, regardless of marital or citizenship status, to vital government support programs including but not limited to health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans, disaster recovery assistance, unemployment insurance and welfare assistance. (First of all, when is this not the case already? A few pen strokes in front of a lawyer and notary can create legal relationships WRT health care and financial matters.  Notice that these people want all government programs extended to all regardless of citizenship – so you and I bear the financial burden for supporting the world.  Think redistribution of wealth – Think communism!) Ø   Separation of church and state in all matters, including regulation and recognition of relationships, households and families.  (i.e. churches would no longer marry people – marriage would be defined strictly by the new anything goes government policy.  This is a strike at the heart of most religions.) Ø   Freedom from state regulation of our sexual lives and gender choices, identities and expression.(Keep in mind that they already won freedom – remember the sodomy laws case?  They want legitimization and acceptance not “freedom”.) Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. A majority of people – whatever their sexual and gender identities – do not live in traditional nuclear families. They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage. For example: (This is a blatant attempt at confusing the real issue – there are plenty of legal exceptions made for most of these groups.) ·     Single parent households ·     Senior citizens living together and serving as each other’s caregivers (think Golden Girls) (Wills, Living Wills, and Powers of Attorney would cover most of the needs in a case like this.) ·     Blended and extended families (Hello, McFly!  A blended family is a marriage.) ·     Children being raised in multiple households (huh???)  or by unmarried parents (Biology is the law!  Ever tried to take a child out of an abusive family? Parent relationships aren’t established by “marriage”.  Again this is an attempt to confuse the issues and blur the cause – they don’t want you to know that all they want is the complete and utter acceptance and dominance of homosexuality and sexually deviant lifestyles.) ·     Adult children living with and caring for their parents (A few pen strokes…) ·     Senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives (see last comment…) ·     Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers (They want college roommates to be “married” under the law?  How do you divide the mutual property upon graduation? A divorce?) ·     Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner (Read this closely: POLYGAMY! The next step will be pedophilia because all marriage definitions will be considered arbitrary and all sexual limitations will also be considered a gray area.) ·     Care-giving relationships that provide support to those living with extended illness such as HIV/AIDS. (Again, a few pen strokes…) The current debate over marriage, same-sex and otherwise, ignores the needs and desires of so many in a nation where household diversity is the demographic norm. (Dishonesty seems to be the norm do we legitimize it?  You know, mistreatment of trees is the norm – we actually cut them down to build houses and buildings – even such trivialities as paper! Gasp!  Perhaps we should all move into caves… Right and wrong isn’t defined by popular vote.  If we want the deviant to define the norm, we’ll review the Kinsey report.) We seek to reframe this debate. Our call speaks to the widespread hunger for authentic and just community in ways that are both pragmatic and visionary. It follows in the best tradition of the progressive LGBT movement, which invented alternative legal statuses such as domestic partnership and reciprocal beneficiary. We seek to build on these historic accomplishments by continuing to diversify and democratize partnership and household recognition. We advocate the expansion of existing legal statuses, social services and benefits to support the needs of all our households. We call on colleagues working in various social justice movements and campaigns to read the full-text of our statement “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision,” and to join us in our call for government support of all our households.

There you have it.  They want to change the world. Now, they are really out of the closet.  If you needed proof of an agenda – here it is.  Visit the site and read it for yourself.

The fence gets funded

Today, the Senate voted to allocate nearly $2 billion to begin building a 370 mile fence and 500 miles of ‘vehicle barriers’ along our Southern border.  According to the article in the Washington Times , Senators have been hearing from constituents about the issue. I guess all those threats on conservative talk radio paid off.  I can’t count how many times in the past 8 months I have heard pundits and talk show hosts hold their votes hostage to this issue.

Personally, I still think that the better option is to turn off spigot that is draining tax-payers while offering a free ride to illegals.  No more free education.  No more nautalization if you are born to and illegal on our soil.  No more free medical (other than emergency care).  No more handouts without citizenship or legal residency. Nothing. Zip. Nada. You’d see more people get into line to enter through the system if they knew the grass weren’t quite so green over here.  But, I suppose the fence is a start. 

Here’s a question:  If a Mexican can save enough money to pay a “coyote” to smuggle him across the border,  why can’t he save enough money to convince immigration that he can buy a bus ticket back home when his visa expires?  You hear all these sob stories about people waiting in line for months only to be refused entry because they can’t show they have the money to return home after their “trip to Disneyland” (I believe that’s the lie would-be Mexican immigrants were using in the Newsweek article I read). Just wondering…   Cate

The Other Iraq

If you haven’t seen this commercial (click picture below), you should. 

And then check out the website www.theotheriraq.com 

The United States has never wavered in its quest to help Iraqis build a democracy that rewards compromise and consensus. The ever generous American people have paid a tragic price, the lives of their finest men and women, to advance the banner of freedom and democracy, a sacrifice for which we are profoundly grateful.

H.E. Masoud Barzani, President, Kurdistan Region in Iraq