One percent of U.S. girls are now growing breasts or pubic hair before age three.
I have no idea how Rutz knows this. And really, I don’t want to know.
By age eight, either of these two abnormalities is appearing among 14.7 percent of white girls and a staggering 48.3 percent of black girls [22]. Why so many black girls? Probably because they are more likely to be given soy infant formula. They are being robbed of their girlhood. Soy formula-fed girls are also more likely to have lifelong menstrual problems (primarily longer and more painful periods), hormonal changes associated with infertility, and other health problems. If this isn’t a national medical emergency, I don’t know what is.
You certainly don’t.
The situation is just as bad for boys. Boy babies fed soy formula may go into puberty late — or not at all. Some of these boys are so feminized that their breasts grow but their penises don’t.
If I had boobs, I’d never leave the house. Just sayin’ it’s not all bad.
The good folks at Renew America are feeling so warm’n’fuzzy about celebrating Jesus’ birth that they’ve decided to publish another column about how happy they’d be if all liberals went away and died. This one’s by Erik Rush, and it’s a good’un:
‘Tis the season to be warring
Erik Rush
December 24, 2006
War: (1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) archaic: soldiers armed and equipped for war (2a): a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism (2b): a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end (a class war).
— Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary
Retarded: (1): characterized by retardation: a retarded child. (2): Anyone who thinks quoting the dictionary is bulletproof debate fodder
When trying to prove that the economy is doing extremely well, it’s important, as Nathan Tabor reminds us, to start off with your best argument. Say, for example, that you wanted to argue this point:
It’s hard to argue with statistics, though, and the statistics this Christmas season indicate that the economy couldn’t possibly be in the dire straits that the liberals would have us believe.
Statistics, Nathan?:
For instance, the National Retail Federation estimates that the average consumer will spend $30 on Christmas cards and postage this year.
Well, no further debate is needed. And now here it is, your moment of Nathan:
While it’s obviously wrong to turn Christmas into some sort of materialistic ritual…
Vernacular English has many counterintuitive expressions, such as the common New York area phrase, ‘I could care less,’ as used to indicate that the speaker doesn’t care about something. (The expression actually implies a disregard on the part of the speaker toward his or her own disregard.)
David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo finds himself stumped by a turn of phrase in the Wingnut idiom:
You may have seen the reports that British officials are on high alert for a possible terrorist attack on the Chunnel during the Christmas holiday. A tempting target, I’m sure, and more power to the Brits if they have obtained good intelligence and are taking action to thwart an attack. But this passage from The Guardian jumped out as a ominous sign that at least some among our friends across the pond have lost all perspective on the terrorism threat, in much the same way as we have here:
Last week Sir Ian Blair, the head of the Metropolitan Police, described ‘the threat of another terrorist attempt’ as ‘ever present’ adding that ‘Christmas is a period when that might happen’.
‘It is a far graver threat in terms of civilians than either the Cold War or the Second World War,’ he said. ‘It’s a much graver threat than that posed by Irish Republican terrorism.’
Is he serious? A greater threat to civilians lives than world war or nuclear annihilation? What happened to the stiff upper lip?
Neither the Second World War nor the Cold War presents a grave threat to British civilians this Christmas season, nor does Irish Republican terrorism. Ergo…
(Yes, I know I didn’t get that stuff added to the store yesterday. It’s because teh elves are working on a certain Christmas-related program activity. Ho to tha ho-ho.)
In the meantime, could there be a better XxXtreeem punchdown matchup than this?
After technical hassles too complicated and boring to describe, my conversation with Ann Althouse is up at BhTV. It got a little heated in the begining and I’ve been trying to figure out why Ann and I had such a problem talking to each other about Frank Meyer, state’s rights etc. Ann’s a nice and reasonable person, after all.
[…]
Morevoer, she thought the people in the room were woefully out of touch with racial reality and therefore need moral tutoring from a liberal who really understands these things. Maybe at a similar conference full of liberals there would be much gnashing of teeth and teary-eyed condemnations about the legacy of Jim Crow. But, if that’s the case, mightn’t that be a sign of how liberals embrace liberalism to feel good about themselves and morally superior to others? There’s a certain Sorkinesque aesthetic to liberalism, full of self-congratulation and righteous grandstanding, that assumes the world needs liberals to tell everyone else what’s right and wrong.
I’m not saying that Ann is one of those liberals, by the way. In fact, she gets a lot of grief from the left for not playing that game. But, I do think she doesn’t know conservatives (or libertarians) very well, and so when we don’t talk like liberals, or when we don’t talk like conservatives at the University of Wisconsin, Madison — who’re forced to dance a “I’m-not-racist” kabuki every time they make a point — she thinks we don’t understand reality and that we really do need liberals to guide us to enlightenment.
It looks like the good Christian folk at Renew America have been bitten by the Christmas bug and are now embracing the creed of peace on Earth and good will toward men.
Well actually, that’s not quite true. In fact, they’re kinda using Christmas as an excuse to attack people they hate. Let’s check ’em out, starting with old friend Nathan Tabor:
The liberal bitterly decries the economy of George W. Bush, lambasting the President as being insensitive to the needs of working families. But let’s check the record. The economy under a Republican President is never good enough for the liberal. He issued the same complaints during the Reagan Years, when a sunny, idealistic leader took us from malaise to Morning in America.
It’s hard to argue with statistics, though, and the statistics this Christmas season indicate that the economy couldn’t possibly be in the dire straits that the liberals would have us believe.
For instance, the National Retail Federation estimates that the average consumer will spend $30 on Christmas cards and postage this year.
Huh. See, I’d always thought that inflation and median household income were better measures of economic well-being. But I guess the new be-all, end-all of economic stats is the HPI (Holiday Postage Index).
