Breaking down Societal Taboos, one magazine cover at a time..

Time Magazine's controversial cover showing a woman breastfeeding her son was meant to do more than just sell magazines.  That in itself is not controversial, but what made it so was the subtle sexual undertones in the layout.  The mother, a beautiful woman, dressed scantily, baring her breast with a boy who looks to be six (though apparently three) latched on, both looking at the camera.
We've seen too much of the relentless attacks on Judeo-Christian values by the media and those they service to not see right through this.
It is a clear attempt to break down the strong taboo against incest.  Now, I'm not saying this is incestuous.  What I'm saying is that they wanted to make regular people uncomfortable--they wanted them to feel bad about the feelings they have at the image, chastising themselves for being 'judgmental'.

'This is just another choice.  Breastfeeding is natural.  We shouldn't judge'.  Well, I'm a mother who breastfed my three children, though I stopped when they were between a year and a year and a half.  I don't have any problems with breastfeeding and I feel that most mothers know when it's time to stop or it could cause unhealthy attachment issues.  I also know that in some cultures children are breastfed a lot longer than in our culture with no problems.  I don't have a problem with any of those things.  I don't even care if the woman on Time's cover wants to breastfeed her three year old, though I seriously question her judgment in setting her son up for ridicule by peers as he gets older.
But I really am annoyed when I see I'm being manipulated by a magazine cover to make me associate breastfeeding with sexuality and I see it as an effort to break down the strong revulsions society carries toward incest.  The media may have been able to break down many long held taboos in this society--and they're efforts seem to be working, but in this case, I think they will find it a harder sell. I sure hope so.

A very 'transparent' President

Pres. Obama claimed that his administration was going to be the most transparent. Well, he's right about one thing--his motives are pretty transparent with his 'evolved' position on Gay Marriage.

The Pres. came out in support of Gay Marriage--after years of claiming he was not for it.  Why now?  Simple; He needs money and the LGBT groups have the money.  Once again he's exploiting a hot-button, emotionally charged issue to get people to open their wallets for him, at a time when his fundraising is worrisomely down. He couldn't come out in support during the first election because Blacks and Hispanics are consistently against redefining marriage and he didn't want to alienate those voters, but now, he'll take that chance for a short while in order to fill his coffers with much needed campaign funds as well as tie those voters to him.

And using his new 'enlightened' position in the future, we can be sure he'll try and polarize voters by pointing out Mitt Romney's support of Prop 8 and his support of marriage being between a man and a woman, which in turn, will bring the LGBT group firmly under his control.

I'm just hoping it backfires on him and he'll find it may give him the money he craves, but it won't bring him the votes--which is what actually counts come November.

Liberal Insanity Here and Abroad

Insanity has sometimes been defined as 'continuing to do the same thing, yet expect a different outcome'.  If we use this definition then Europe is insane and so are all Liberals who think that Socialism is the answer to creating prosperity and security for all.

If one looks at history, you'll find that when Socialism/Communism has been tried, it has failed and those countries who haven't failed yet are mired in misery.  Socialism does not work, yet we just witnessed Europeans throw a tantrum at facing the reality that their system will soon collapse and vote Socialist parties in to allow them to continue on their road to disaster.  I feel sorry for the people because I understand why they did it, but I also shake my head at their ignorance and the grief they are bringing upon themselves.

Let's hope Americans will not fall for the 'pie in the sky' fantasy that Socialism is and has always been.  Sooner or later reality sets in and the bottom falls out. I hope Europe's 'bottom' will fall out before America follows their same foolish path.

Santorum at a crossroads;

Now that Mitt Romney has won Wisconsin, Maryland and D.C., the momentum will most likely propel him to win the GOP nomination. Who will be his running mate? I can tell you who it won't be; Rick Santorum. Up until a couple of weeks ago, he was still under consideration but not now. He took himself out of the running when he made that unfortunate remark about Romney being the 'worst republican' in America anyone could vote for. I've heard his explanations and I understand and accept them but the damage is insurmountable. Romney could never put him on the ticket because that ONE soundbite would be replayed over and over and thrown up in his face at every turn. There is absolutely no way he can walk that one back and be able to stand by Romney's side as his running mate.

My own feeling is that Santorum is at a crossroads. He's a young man and if he bows out now, gracefully(as Romney did four years ago when he ran against McCain), and puts the Republican party and the desire to defeat Obama in November first, he stands a good chance of being the Party's pick in four or eight years. But...if he continues this campaign by double teaming Romney with Gingrich's help (which will end badly to be sure) both will lose their power within the party as well as any reputation they enjoy at this time.

And if Santorum chooses to stay in the race till the Pennsylvania primary, He MUST win it, because if he loses, I predict he loses his political career as well. Santorum has managed to make voters forget that he had that huge, devastating and historic loss in Pennsylvania and if he loses again, this time, it will damage him beyond repair.

It's up to him; does he let his ego and pride be his downfall or does he humble himself and accept the 'will of the people'? We'll see.

Rising Gas prices fueled by inflation

Gas prices are skyrocketing and I've heard too many say that Pres. Obama is not responsible and has no control over the rising prices. I've even heard the President claim this himself. But he is wrong. He is responsible because the gas prices are rising partly because of inflation--inflation which he is directly responsible for because his governing is what caused it!

The President and his administration were warned repeatedly that if we continued to spend and print money (as they did with the stimulus packages) it would bring on inflation. That's exactly what is happening now. We are seeing the price of Gas go up much more than it should have because the dollar is weak. We are also seeing prices of energy and food go up.

The President thinks the solution is for us to drive electric cars, but once again he is out of touch. Most of us drive gasoline cars and old ones at that--we don't have 40,000.00 to spend on a car and there are no charging stations to 'gas' these cars at anyway. By forcing the issue rather than helping us ease slowly into alternate forms of energy, he's causing a crisis.

Voters need to realize that if they vote the President back into office, they will get more of the same--at an even fast rate of loss. I sure hope they will think very carefully about that.

'Romneycare' would be a moot argument if Romney is the Nominee

The Republican debates spend a lot of time on Obamacare and Romneycare, but this isn't even going to be a topic of discussion if Romney gets the nomination.

In order for Pres. Obama to attack Romney about Romneycare, he has to attack from the standpoint that Obamacare is BAD, which is how all the Republicans see it. Unlike the other candidates, Pres. Obama LOVES his healthcare program, he's even claimed they used Romneycare as the model for it, so how can he use criticism of 'Romneycare' against Romney in an ad, a debate or anything else?

Fact is, he can't. If he did, he'd only be hurting his own plan, which hasn't even been implemented and needs to be propped up by his administration, not questioned or criticized.

One more 'negative' against Romney as the GOP nominee fizzles.

2012 Iowa caucus result

Iowa reversed itself and 'officially' declared Rick Santorum the winner. Sooo, did they find those lost ballots from those precincts that they LOST? I'm not sure how one actually goes about certifying a winner when the ballots are lost and there's no way to re-count them. A minor detail to Iowa election officials, I guess.
So, we are supposed to believe that with the recount, THIS TIME, they got it right and Santorum really is the winner...by 34 votes. Okaayyy.
Maybe I'm being hard on them, but it seems to me if you are going to take on the responsibility of an election, you ought to try really hard to count the votes correctly and not lose or misplace them until at least AFTER the election is over and certified. And, if the election is really close, it might be a good idea to actually EXPECT to do a recount--just to make sure, before you tell everyone the outcome. If Iowa had done that, they wouldn't look so incompetent, or worse, fraudulent.
Has Iowa gotten too complacent, thinking they will always get to go first? After botching the results this way, I think the rest of the 49 states should seriously rethink allowing Iowa to keep the first place position in the primaries. Maybe we should let a more responsible state have a shot at it. We can hold a vote...but we'll let someone else count the ballots:)