Cleavage Wars or How Deep Is the Valley?

Here we have another age–old conflict with no end in sight. Combatants are dug in and take no prisoners. The justifications behind the conflict have been heard repeatedly. The grievances and provocations are ancient. The danger of collateral damage is very real. And there’s already evidence of crossing a red–line border.

Dave Grandlund

And I’m not even talking about Syria — unless your local high school is named Bashar al-Assad High. This grinding, Ypres–like conflict is over what girls wear to school and it’s chewed up generations with no end in sight.

It’s such a fact of life, one wonders why the WoePost even bothers?

Yet there it was on the front page of the murder section: “Is a crop top empowering for girls? How parents navigate what’s ‘appropriate’ for high school.”

Notice how Little Miss StuffIt isn’t even in the picture. It’s the parent’s job to “navigate” what the school will tolerate. What the parents will tolerate isn’t part of the equation.

That wasn’t how it worked at the Shannon household. Clothes that didn’t make our daughter look like a slut were fine with us and we never had any complaints from school.

That’s not the situation at the Bloomer’s. “‘I’m not letting you leave the house looking like that,’ said her mother, Tara Bloomer, telling her daughter that she looked like an ‘easy girl.’ A ‘prostitute.’ Seeing his daughter walk down the driveway, Sky’s father, Bryan Bloomer, tried asking her to change. But the teenager didn’t budge. She got into her friend’s car and left for school.”

Parents who raise their children, instead of living in an uneasy truce, will notice a number of problems immediately. Clothing choice isn’t the main one, it’s only the most recent one.

The first was naming your daughter ‘Sky.’ The second was creating a discipline structure at home that persuades your daughter she can leave the house wearing something you forbid and not suffer consequences. And finally, who’s buying the Cleavage Collection?

Our daughter, went through a brief cardio workout before leaving for school. She raised her hands over her head and then reached down to touch her toes. If no belly buttons or bloomers were visible, she was good to go. The rules were followed because following the rules was enforced from a very early age.

I get the feeling at the Bloomer household parents tried to encourage Sky to “make good choices.”

The really sad part of the daughter’s defiance is she thinks she’s being empowered. Dad tries to reason with her, “Truly powerful and intelligent women don’t have to show off everything they have.” “Okay, misogynist,” she replies. Then Sky proceeds to dress to please every mouth–breathing misogynist waiting at school for that day’s performance.

The equally dizzy Post reporter claims, “Teenage girls today are using the language of female empowerment to defend their outfit choices to the adults around them, claiming autonomy over their bodies and calling out clothing restrictions they see as sexist.” Only teens have been “calling out restrictions” since the ‘60s and it has not proved persuasive with anyone besides reporters and professors.

High school boys don’t look at a girl dressed like a hoochie–mama and think, “Wow, does that girl look empowered!”

Instead they look at her and hope she drops her pencil.

Another airhead decided to really punish the leering guys by not leaving anything to the imagination. “A 17-year-old senior at Blair High School, started wearing more revealing clothes last school year after a breakup with a boyfriend who was ‘very controlling and very manipulative,’ she said. ‘I wanted to rebel against him. That was one way I did it.’

She stopped wearing bras and started wearing ‘a lot of semi-see-through tops, a lot of camisoles,’ ‘My midriff is almost always showing to some extent.’”

It’s no surprise she misses the point that her “rebellion” is defined by someone else’s standards.

She also knows her outfits are tacky. “Even if we’re dressed completely respectably, we still face the same stuff we would face if we’re dressed half-naked. We still get assaulted, we still get belittled, and we have our intelligence knocked.”

Maybe, but respectability lowers the odds.

I have a question for weakling parents and their daughters: How many successful business women — outside of Stormy Daniels — dress like that in the workplace?

All the teenage exhibitionists fall back on that old chestnut “creativity” and “self–expression” to justify dressing like they’re going to a trafficking audition. But why does “creativity” always involve subtracting clothes and never adding?

Parents who allow their daughters to leave the house wearing an ‘Ask Me About My Boobs’ top aren’t doing their child any favors. In these situations when the chicken finally comes home to roost it’s often accompanied by a little chick.

Subsidized Diners Demand We Pay Mandatory Tips

Nate Beeler, The Columbus Dispatch

I may have discovered the real reason people living in blue states don’t contribute as much to charity as those living in red states. It’s not that they are hypocrites whose ‘compassion’ doesn’t extend to their own wallets.

It’s because all their discretionary giving is going to restaurant tips.

Getting woke is getting expensive. A recent headline in the WoePost issues an order with all the grace of the director of a Chinese organ–harvesting plant telling you to lie down and do your duty.

“Poor service? You still have to tip 20 percent, no matter what.”

Before we explore the astonishing ‘reasoning’ behind that edict from our social superiors, let’s digress into tipping history.

Up until the early ‘70s the standard tip for good service was 10 percent. Generations finished their career satisfied with 10 percent, content in the knowledge they were getting exactly the same percentage as God Almighty.

Then inflation hit the country. In 1973 inflation jumped to 8.7 percent and peaked at 13.3 percent in 1979. I remember groceries being so expensive I ate hamburger with my eggs because I couldn’t afford bacon.

Mathematically illiterate reporters decided inflation was harming wait staff. They decreed the 10 percent tip was no longer enough in inflationary times and it must be boosted to 15 percent.

Management was behind the idea because it was no skin off their nose and food service employees weren’t letting this bandwagon get away.

Unfortunately, like so many bright ideas brought to you by the media, the theory was both wrong and had no basis in fact.

Let’s say a restaurant check in 1972 totaled $10.00. By 1979 inflation boosted the check for the same dinner (maybe it included bacon) to $20.00. That’s an increase of 100 percent! By comparison, the tip in 1972, at the standard 10 percent, was $1.00. In 1979 the tip had increased to $2.00.

By Jove that’s an increase of 100 percent, too, a fact that escaped reporters and etiquette ‘experts’ because they can’t grasp that the size of the tip increases in lockstep with the size of the check.

Today we enjoy a stretch of historically low inflation rates, but that doesn’t matter to the Hospitality–Journalism Misinformation Complex. Now they’ve decided 20 percent is the minimum and they’ve tripled the responsibilities of the diner.

If this keeps up, it won’t be just Long John Silver that wants us to bus the tables.

This new edict comes from the food critic for the WoePost, an individual who not only eats on the company dime, he tips on the company dime, too. That benevolence by proxy insulates him from the cost of his bright idea and transfers the expense to readers.

That’s bad enough, but he can’t even grasp the theory behind tipping in the first place. From atop Mt. Olympus he explains, “I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about tipping in America. Diners have been led to believe that tipping should be based on the quality of the service. But this is not the reason we tip. We tip because restaurateurs in America have shifted the burden of paying for some of their labor costs to diners. So when you don’t tip, it affects the wages of servers.”

Affecting “the wages of servers” is precisely what the tip is supposed to do! A gratuity is not a participation trophy for being part of my dining experience. It is an acknowledgement of the quality of the service.

My wife works part-time as a server so she has an excuse to get out of the house and away from me. She averages $30.00 an hour in tips alone. No “burden–shifting” restaurateur is going to pay her that kind of wage and stay in business. Even lobbyists couldn’t afford to eat out at those rates.

Subsidizing career choices doesn’t end the diner’s responsibility. Besides payroll, customers are also drafted into Human Resources. With tips being prix fixe the options for responding to poor service are limited to personally explaining job duties to your server or contacting the manager and asking for a new server.

Somehow publicly asking your waiter be fired is an improvement over simply reducing the tip.

Meanwhile your dinner is getting cold.

When I go out to eat it’s not because I always wanted to manage a one–table restaurant. The idea is to take time off from responsibilities, not assume new ones.

The article concludes with this stern admonition: “Like it or not, tipping isn’t about me — or you. It’s simply a responsibility placed on all diners in this country. And you need to factor that in as the full cost of dining out.”

To which the only conceivable reply is: Can I get a side of fries with my Social Justice?

Maryland Church Washed Away by Watered–Down Theology

Twinbrook Baptist Church in Rockville, MD recently had a going–out–of–business–sale. The church had been spiritually bankrupt for decades, but the members finally had enough and decided to sell the physical plant, too.

The Twinbrook Baptist started out on solid Christian footing. Founded in 1956, the church was notable for following the Apostle Paul’s doctrine in Galatians 3:27 – 29 “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.”

This meant that while many Southern Baptist Churches — to their enduring shame — supported segregation, Twinbrook made it a point to welcome blacks. It was a courageous stance at that time and worthy of praise.

Paul’s theology is a strong brew. In 1987 Twinbrook decided Paul was no longer its cup of tea and joined the Alliance of Baptists, a group that split from the Southern Baptist Convention when the SBC decided it was time to take Paul and the rest of the Bible seriously.

Twinbrook’s entire theology changed. It went from going against the culture and embracing blacks in the congregation, to slavishly following the culture and feverishly jettisoning any Christian doctrine that made sinners feel uncomfortable. When a church dumps doctrine that makes sinners guilty — which is the point of following Christ — it’s no longer a church. Instead it’s a social club that collects dues every week.

Naturally, Twinbrook was “welcoming” church. This meant any heretic or consonant crusader was automatically a valued member of the congregation. As the WoePost put it, “Twinbrook and its pastor have been on the front lines of local and national LGBTQ advocacy …helping to form the outreach group Montgomery County Pride Center and joining an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to rule that federal law prohibits job discrimination against gay and transgender employees.”

And the church didn’t confine itself to fighting for more variety in sex and sexual partners. No “marginalized” sparrow’s fall was too small to escape the notice of these social justice warriors. “Students with lunch money debt” had a friend in their secularized Jesus.

In spite of Twinbrook’s efforts to soften the hearts of lunch ladies, the congregation was down to about 50 members when it gave up the ghost. Their excuses sounded like those of mainline Protestant churches that trod the path to irrelevancy before them.

Once social justice crowded out the Cross, Twinbrook’s theology had scant appeal for Christians, which further limited any possibility for growth. Even the congregation wasn’t that sold on their message. Rather than downsize to fit the eroding congregation and continue the ministry, Twinbrook signed a congregational Do Not Resuscitate pledge and sold out.

“Two years ago, church leaders said, Twinbrook’s congregation realized its numbers were falling and its days as a full-time ministry were probably limited. People were moving out of the area, and older members were dying, making it hard to afford the maintenance on the decades-old church building.”

That makes it sound like Rockville, MD is about to suffer the same fate as Dogpatch, AR. That’s misleading. Rockville is Maryland’s fourth largest city and population has increased 10 percent in the last ten years.

Unfortunately for these Baptists the alphabet apostates and their supporters just weren’t that into them. One can be card–carrying consonant crusader and social justice warrior par excellence by putting a rainbow flag on your Twitter profile and going to the polls just once a year.

Why bother with getting up early on Sunday and being potentially embarrassed when the usher hands you the collection plate? There were plenty of other SJW organizations volunteers could join. And none require a prayer before going for the coffee and donuts.

Proceeds from the sale of the building will be used to contribute over $1 million to local organizations that “share its values.”

The favored groups include “medical clinics, school lunch programs, hospice care, emergency housing funds, Habitat for Humanity builds, LGBTQ youth programs and other community support services.” The only Christian organization in that group is Habitat for Humanity. One of the larger grants will go to Community Ministries of Rockville, which is a nonsectarian religious healthcare organization.

What’s telling about the list of published donations is not a single dime is going to religious organizations working to protect the unborn.

This is remarkable. Our nation has confronted two great moral questions in its history. Twinbrook was on the right side of slavery and segregation when it still believed in the Bible. Today it’s watered–down Christianity has washed away most of the congregation and reduced the remnant to pacifism on the question of life for the unborn.

Democrats Hoist on Their Own Transcript

Heard it from a friend who

Heard it from a friend who

Heard it from another you been messin’ around

               REO Speedwagon 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s call for formal impeachment proceedings is not the first time this has happened in Congress. It’s not even the first time President Trump has been threatened with impeachment. It is, however, the first time impeachment has been based on the results of a game of ‘Telephone’ gone wrong.

Al Hunter Washington Times

This spurious ‘whistleblower complaint’ is the brainchild of a leftist CIA operative who was not part of the telephone conversation between Trump and Ukraine President Zelenskyy. This CIA tool had not even seen a transcript of the conversation. The complaint that finally jump–started impeachment was based solely on a rumor that was distorted in an effort to cause maximum damage to the president.

Initially I was worried. Not because the Opposition Media had finally gotten a negative Trump story right. I was worried because Trump may have finally gotten it wrong. As I’ve written before, for a man who talks as much as the president does, he is famously inarticulate. Trump wanders around a topic, brings in unrelated information, loses his train of thought and then concludes. And that’s just in a single sentence. If his teeth started to fall out he’d be Joe Biden.

My concern was in an effort to be chummy or topical or through sheer impulsiveness Trump had finally knotted a word noose that would hang him.

And then to everyone’s consternation, Trump released the transcript. The left expected him to hold out for months so the mystery transcript could be a central topic of 2020 attacks. Since no one had seen the document the left was free to lie without fear of being contradicted. Like ‘Russia Collusion’ until Ahab Mueller stepped in the Schiff.

Instead Trump destroyed the timeline and the issue.

I’m not one of the die–hard supporters convinced Trump plays Nine–Dimensional Chess while the rest of us are futzing around on a checkboard. I do believe Trump knows how to exploit an opportunity when the enemy hands him one.

While the Clown Caucus that comprises the House under Democrat rule was busy negotiating book advances for its inside account of the Impeachment That Brought Trump Down — Melania was finding it impossible to get to sleep Tuesday night because Trump kept doing the Pennywise Victory Dance.

Why? Trump KNEW WHAT WAS IN THE TRANSCRIPT!

To say the transcript didn’t even rise to the level of Magic Beans insults supernatural legumes. The ‘whistleblower’ transcript doesn’t even have the substance of the gas produced from consuming Magic Beans.

Trump asks for two ‘favors’ from Zelenskyy. First look into Crowdstrike, the firm Hillary Clinton’s DNC hired to investigate the party’s data breach. The FBI was never allowed to examine the ‘breached’ servers. If they still exist in the Ukraine it could shed important light on the largest voter suppression effort in the history of the USA: The left’s attempt to nullify the 2016 presidential election.

Second is reopening the investigation into Hunter Biden. Here we have evidence of obstruction of justice, using the diplomatic power of the United States for personal gain and urging another nation to meddle in our affairs.

We even have a confession from Joe Biden.

In an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations Biden boasted, “I got a commitment that [Ukraine] would take action against the state prosecutor and they didn’t. [I told them] you’re not getting the billion [in US loan guarantees]. I’m leaving in six hours if the prosecutor isn’t fired you’re not getting the money. Well son of a bitch he got fired and they put in place someone who was solid.” By “solid” Biden means a stooge who would drop the investigation into his son.

The investigation Shotgun Joe obstructed was looking into Hunter Biden’s qualifications to serve on the board of a Ukrainian energy company to the tune of $1 million a year.

Hunter doesn’t speak Ukrainian. He knows bupkis about energy. He might be useful if the company decided to expand into cocaine, but that’s it. Hunter’s only real qualification for the job was his father, who was also in charge of aid for the Ukraine. It’s nepotistic crony capitalism and it reeks.

That’s the real scandal and it’s going to be a prominent part of any impeachment process involving the transcript. Democrats are going to be forced to make the case that obstructing Ukraine justice for Hunter Biden was perfectly legal, while Trump wanting to end the influence–peddling and nepotism cover-up by the Bidens is an impeachable offense.

That’s a crock of Schiff only the left could swallow.