With SJW’s nothing is sacred, not even kids

Saw this over at The American Conservative, Rod Dreher writes:

You may recall the recent post here revealing that Highlights For Children, the venerable magazine, had come under fire from SJWs for its policy of not featuring families headed by gay couples in the magazine, out of a willingness to allow parents of the magazine’s young subscribers the opportunity to talk to their children about homosexuality as they considered appropriate.

Well, the SJWs got their scalp. A reader forwarded me the correspondence between herself and the magazine around the issue. She kept writing, trying to get a straightforward answer about whether or not the magazine was going to feature same-sex families. Finally, out of frustration, she cancelled her family’s subscription, and told the magazine, “I think Highlights should continue being what it is and leave conversations about this sort of thing up to families.

This is the e-mail she got back:

Dear [Name],

Thank you for your message, and I’m sorry that we were slow to respond.

Although I see that you have already canceled your subscription, I thought it still important to answer your questions about what Highlights means when we say we plan to be more fully reflective of all families, including families with same-sex parents.

As you know, Highlights publications focus on kids. We are general interest magazines, and we publish fiction and nonfiction of all types, as well as games, puzzles, jokes, and crafts. Our target audience is kids under the age of 12, most under the age of 8 or 9.

The themes we cover in our magazines are broad and universal—relatable to children trying to navigate childhood. Because children are our focus, we rarely show a full family in our illustrations, instead focusing on showing the child the reader relates to. When a parent is shown or integrated in a story, it is frequently just one parent because a good 800-word children’s story cannot support too many different characters.

When we do show families in the magazines, we make it a point to include diversity. We strive to be diverse in every way. The goal, however, is not to specifically call attention to diversity but instead to help kids understand that while differences exist, we are all actually more alike than different. For instance, from time to time we show families headed up by a grandparent or single parents. We show adoptive families, blended families, multi-generational families, and multi-racial families. In the future, we will depict same-sex families in our magazines in a manner consistent to the way all diverse families are depicted. This is in support of our mission to help children become their best selves and understand that all families, including theirs, are important.

We’re sorry to lose you as a subscriber, but I hope this email helps to clarify our position.

Sincerely,

Christine Cully

Sickening… Steaming madSick smile

Jerry Pournelle needs our prayers

It seems that something bad has happened.

See here:

Sunday morning – this morning although it’s after midnight now so maybe I mean yesterday morning – I discovered that Roberta had suffered a stroke during the night. I called 911. The firemen responded almost instantly.

We spent the day first at the St. Joseph’s Emergency Room (where the firemen took me after my stroke), then at the Kaiser Emergency Room where she was taken by ambulance arranged by Kaiser, then finally in the Kaiser main hospital. Alex was with me for essentially the entire time. My second son, Frank, who lives in Palm Springs, drove up as soon as he could. Our youngest son, Richard, flew in from DC and just got here.

Roberta appears to be about where I was after my stroke. She can’t really talk yet, but she’s aware of what’s going on around her. We’re trying to arrange rehab at Holy Cross where I was retaught how to swallow, walk, and do all the other things people do.

I’m trying to be calm, but I’m scared stiff.

and here:

Roberta said several words last night, and I have hopes. She thanks you all for your prayers and good wishes. More later; we’re going to the hospital now.

My thoughts and Prayers go out to Jerry during this time.

Trump leads Clinton by a point in new poll

This is good sign. Open-mouthed smile

Via ABC News:

2016_General_Election_Vote_Preference_10-31-16While vote preferences have held essentially steady, she’s now a slim point behind Donald Trump — a first since May — in the latest ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates.

Forty-six percent of likely voters support Trump in the latest results, with 45 percent for Clinton. With the data taken to a decimal for illustrative purposes, a mere 0.7 of a percentage point divides them. Third-party candidate Gary Johnson has 3 percent, a new low; Jill Stein, 2 percent.

The 1 point Clinton-Trump race is well within the survey’s margin of sampling error. Combining the last seven nights — across which results have been very stable — the results flip to 46 percent Clinton, 45 percent Trump, with a 0.4 point gap. Again, it is not a significant difference.

strong-enthusiasmEither way, the results are exceedingly close. Trump’s 1 point lead is a noteworthy result; he has led Clinton just once before, up 2 points in late May (among registered voters in a two-way test), after he clinched the GOP nomination while Clinton was still in a duel with Bernie Sanders in the Democratic race.

Although the election is close at this point, vote preference results a week out are not necessarily predictive of the final result. Mitt Romney was up 1 versus Barack Obama in comparable tracking poll results in 2012, for example, and John Kerry was ahead by 1 versus George Bush a week out in 2004.

I guess people are finally waking up to the fact the Hillary Clinton simply not trustworthy enough to be in the White House. I mean, could you just imagine, that woman being President? Surprised smile

Pat Buchanan gives an image of what might just happen, should Hillary Clinton Win:

If Hillary Clinton is elected, the email scandal, the pay-for-play scandal involving the Clinton Foundation, “Bill Clinton, Inc.,” the truthfulness of her testimony, and reports of Clinton-paid dirty tricksters engaging in brownshirt tactics at Trump rallies, are all going to be investigated more thoroughly by the FBI.

And if Clinton is president, there is no way her Justice Department can investigate the Clinton scandals, any more than this city in the early 1970s would entrust an investigation into Watergate to the Nixon Justice Department.

If Clinton wins this election, and Republicans hold onto one or both houses of Congress, investigations of the Clinton scandals will start soon after her inaugural and will go on for years. And the clamor for a special prosecutor, who will, as Archibald Cox did with Nixon, build a huge staff and spend years investigating, will become irresistible.

Realizing that this is the near-certain fate and future of any Hillary Clinton presidency, and would be disastrous for the country, Sunday night, Doug Schoen, who worked for President Clinton for six years, said he has changed his mind and will not be voting for Hillary.

Donald Trump says this is worse than Watergate. As of now, it is only potentially so.

But if Hillary Clinton, this distrusted and disbelieved woman, does take the oath of office on Jan. 20, there is a real possibility that, like Nixon, down the road a year or two, she could be forced from office.

Do we really want to go through this again?

Pat Buchanan is correct, this would a disaster for the Country. This woman needs to be defeated and I mean badly. I really do not understand why the Democratic Party even took this woman seriously. I guess it is name recognition or pedigree. But, it is and will be a disaster.

Others:  Politico, The Jawa Report, Talking Points Memo, Post On Politics, Business Insider, Althouse, Fox News Insider, AOL, Mediaite, Hot Air, The Week, The New Civil Rights Movement and Washington Free Beacon

Clean up on the blog aisle!

Looks like the WordPress theme that I was checking out and thought was a good one, decided to wink the dashboard on me. I logged into the back end of the blog here and seen that my theme, which was called Fluida, was needing an upgrade.

So, I did the upgrade.

…and that my friends is when it all went to dogs, in a big hurry! The theme started tossing errors, many errors! Disappointed smile This is when I knew that I needed to go back to the old theme. Which I did.

So, we’re back here again. Smile

This makes me grin

Looks like I’ve been doing it right after all. Smile with tongue out

Via the Telegraph:

Pudgy older fathers live longer, are more attractive to the opposite sex and are better at passing on their genes than their leaner counterparts, scientists have claimed.

Becoming fatter after fatherhood due to decreasing testosterone levels may not fit the “macho” ideal, but it actually prolongs lives and strengthens immune systems, according to Richard Bribiescas, professor of anthropology and deputy provost at Yale University.

There is evidence that these men are less likely to suffer from heart attacks and prostate cancer, while a study in 2008 found that men with high metabolisms were around 50 per cent more likely to die in a given year than those whose bodies burned up less energy at rest.

I’m not a Father, but I am kind of pudgy. I guess I am halfway there! Laughing out loud