Mug Shot Theme

The following are actual police mug shots. See if you notice a common theme here.





click to enlarge

There MUST be a message here, but I can't quite grasp it, or possibly I'm simply just afraid to.


And now for something COMPLETELY different ....






Why is it called a 'Uro Club'?

Misandric Monday - What a Mom Wants

** I copied this article from the Wall Street Journal. I didn't see the need to add anything to it. The author says it well enough **


By MEGAN BASHAM

Around this time every year, we begin seeing state-of-motherhood reports that analyze how moms are faring. In our prosperous past, feel-good angles, like how much a mom's housework is worth, took center stage. But thanks to the struggling economy, this Mother's Day has seen a rise in more serious stories. Take, for example, the case of Eleanor Hemmert.

In a recent segment on how the country's rising unemployment is affecting moms, "Good Morning America" gave viewers a glimpse into the life of Mrs. Hemmert. Because male-dominated industries like finance, construction and manufacturing have been the hardest hit by the economic meltdown, men have experienced nearly 80% of the layoffs in the current recession. Mrs. Hemmert's husband, Rick, is among them. To compensate for his lack of income, she has started spending as many as 14 hours a day at the office trying to close deals. In contrast, Rick, now the at-home parent, has taken up most of the tasks that used to belong to his wife -- cooking dinner, doing the laundry, and caring for the couple's 7-year-old daughter.

The role reversal caused by men's job losses is one byproduct of the economic downturn that has many news outlets, if not outright cheering, at least tentatively applauding. In her online column for Forbes, Elisabeth Eaves likened stay-at-home mothers re-entering the workforce to more-permanent Rosie the Riveters, commenting, "thanks to the recession, we may be at just such another socio-sexual inflection point." New York Times contributor Lisa Belkin wondered if women might finally become the majority of American workers, suggesting that such a development would be a "silver lining" in these dark times. One Salon writer celebrated the possibility that the "long-awaited redistribution of domestic labor might prove crucial in finally evening the professional playing field," while another wondered whether the financial crisis could turn out to be "accidentally feminist."

It isn't just the media promoting the idea that increasing numbers of mothers putting in more hours in paid work represents progress for women. Left-leaning think tanks, as well as the Obama administration, are also undertaking efforts to further the trend the recession began.

In mid-April, the Center for American Progress announced that it is teaming with the University of Southern California and Time Magazine to explore the impact the recession has had on women. While acknowledging that being the family breadwinner may be a burden to some mothers, Heather Boushey, a senior economist at the center and project co-editor, said that it can also be "an opportunity." On April 22 she informed Congress that the rising unemployment of men has provided many working moms much-needed domestic help.

That may seem a rather callous perspective to out-of-work men, but Miss. Boushey's take is perfectly appropriate to "A Woman's Nation," a venture that John Podesta, the CEO of the Center for American Progress, promises will consider "the central question of the role government, business, and faith organizations, as well as individual women and men should play in supporting women's role now in the workforce…. " Given how many of the center's former employees work for the Obama administration, it's little surprise how closely the project dovetails with a March 11 executive order forming a White House Council on Women and Girls that aims to increase women's employment in various male-dominated industries.

There's only one problem with all these efforts to support mom in her new financial-provider role, and Mrs. Hemmert presents a stark picture of it. However empowered the media, the think tanks and the White House tell her she should be, she is profoundly unhappy to have changed places with her spouse. "I don't like coming home and seeing him in my apron," Mrs. Hemmert says while watching her husband make dinner. She reacts with outright revulsion to the phrase "Mr. Mom," and her mouth hardens into a thin line when her husband explains that it isn't necessarily a man's job to earn a living for his family, that a man can also be "the person who handles children and sets up play dates."

Mrs. Hemmert admits that she sees her own parental job as something separate and different from her husband's, and she not only resents him for usurping her role but has lost some respect for him. "I'm a woman, and I want to be a mother first," she states simply.

To be fair, many women who found themselves in Mrs. Hemmert's position wouldn't experience the same level of displeasure and disappointment in their husbands that she expresses. But research indicates that most do share her desire to be a mother first and an earner second. And they, too, prefer a husband who's more interested in bringing home the bacon than in cooking it.

Virtually every reputable poll taken on mothers and work reveals that a strong majority of moms prefer to work part time or fewer hours. Reflecting the results of many other polling organizations, the Pew Research Center's most recent survey found that only 21% of mothers with children under the age of 18 say full-time employment is the ideal situation for them. The rest prefer either part-time work or not working at all. In contrast, fully 72% of fathers say a full-time job is the best option for them.

But Mrs. Hemmert isn't just an everywoman in wanting to work fewer hours; she's also an everywoman in wanting her husband to take the lead in providing. In 2006, a University of Virginia study found that contrary to many feminists' preoccupation with equal division of household tasks, dishwashing men do not happy women make. Along with a spouse who offers affection, attention and empathy, what really makes women happy is one who earns at least two-thirds of the family income.

The study's authors, W. Bradford Wilcox and Steven L. Nock, expressed surprise at finding that even self-described feminist women are happiest when their husbands do most of the breadwinning. Though the study resulted in a great deal of clamor among commentators who objected to its seemingly outdated conclusions, it differs little from the work of many evolutionary psychologists. David Buss, one of the founders of the field, conducted the largest investigation to date into the subject of human mating. After studying more than 10,000 subjects in 37 countries in the late 1980s, Mr. Buss and his team found that "women more than men in all 37 cultures valued mates with good financial prospects…."

Of course, this is one of those observations likely to elicit a "well, no kidding" from average people. The idea that most moms would rather not work full time and that most wives want their husbands to provide for their families is news only in the news business. Yet Capitol Hill continues to focus on women's employment. The House added a section to the Troubled Asset Relief Program that creates an "Office of Minority and Women Inclusion" to, among other things, ensure that companies receiving TARP money maintain an adequate (though unspecified) percentage of female workers.

If our media and our government really want to show support to mothers, they might consider actually listening to them. What they're saying is quite clear: If you want to help us, help the men we're married to.



Megan Basham is the author of "Beside Every Successful Man: Getting the Life You Want by Helping Your Husband Get Ahead."

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page W13

Wednesday Words

The Welfare State is back, bigger than before

I listened to most of President Obama's speech/sermon last night and I have quite a bit to say about it. I was up late writing my reactions and noting the reactions of others. I started to post what I'd written, only to pull it back. I've done this several times now, starting to post, then pulling it back. I don't know why. I have a lot of thoughts about it, yet don't feel much like sharing any of them.

It was interesting to note the reactions of the people on the internet while he was speaking. People on Twitter were talking nonstop about it. People on Facebook were arguing, with Obama supporters telling those with differing views to "shut the hell up." I myself offered only a few opinions, hardly any that I would consider particularly controversial. I just didn't feel it.

Thomas Sowell has an article out this week about the feeling of utter despair he senses among the non-Leftists, and especially among the Conservatives. He says it is unlike anything he has seen before and that he himself is fighting it, as he watches a once-free nation being transformed into the biggest Welfare State in history. He finds it hard to maintain hope.

I'm in a bit of a strange position. I feel detached. I want to go live in Australia. I'm aware that Australia is already socialist to a large degree, and I don't like socialism at all. Regardless of how I feel about it, I haven't yet been to Australia. I haven't found a job there or even applied. I mean, there's the Hamilton Island thing, but my chances with that aren't great considering the professional level competition. And it's only a 6-month, temporary work visa thing anyway. The point is, in realistic terms, I haven't done much of anything necessary to actually move myself to Australia. Yet I feel virtually no connection to the United States at all at this point.

I feel like a man in a dream, watching a fire burning higher and higher all around him, oddly untouched by the flames or heat. Rather than being frozen with fear at the sight of this horrific fascist monster rising up, or crushed with despair at the well-deserved losses of the Republican Party, I feel .... nothing at all.

When I heard that Melbourne was burning, I was upset and wanted to go fight the fires. When I hear that L.A. is burning, I feel almost nothing. It burns all the time. Sometimes its terrible, most times not so much. We get over it.

When I heard that Queensland was flooding and entire towns were underwater, I felt bad for them and wanted to help. When I hear about Louisiana blaming Bush because the mayor of New Orleans failed to do his job and the governor failed to do her job, I feel disgusted. Oh sure, I gave money. Some of my friends took time off from work to go down and try to help. I considered it, but couldn't go. I didn't feel horrible. And when refugees from New Orleans came to Memphis and began robbing everyone, including our criminals, sympathy dropped off pretty dramatically. It's a shame, I know, because there are a lot of good people who have been devastated, but the bad ones, there are so many. And they have soured the nation to the whole thing.

I'm noticing blogs fading. I know this comes and goes in cycles, but this one is pretty dramatic and I can't escape the feeling that Facebook and Twitter and others are stealing voices from here on a permanent basis. Facebook is fun, but you can't just wander by and make a new friend at random the way you can on The Blog. It's a private party, not an open bar. Miss Smack wrote about it. Fingers commented on it. Everyone is seeing it. It may be temporary. It may not. Who can say?


No straight girls allowed on my team, dammit!

Recently a girl filed a lawsuit against Central Michigan University because the new lesbian basketball coach is openly harassing and discriminating against heterosexual players, costing them their scholarships. The News Media, quite predictably, isn't interested in this story. You certainly won't see any crime shows on CBS about any evil lesbian coaches harassing their straight female players, that's for damn sure. This is exactly the sort of story I'd normally spend a whole week writing about. It's tailor-made for me. I don't know what's wrong with me lately. I just don't feel it. I hope the girl wins. What the coach is doing is wrong. I doubt she will, though. We all know who the powerful hate-groups are and who has no power. The outcome of this lawsuit is predictable. The powerless never win.


Misandric sexual assault is politically correct

Just the other night on CBS, the most racist and sexist network in the United States, a character named Ziva on the popular show NCIS, completely out of nowhere, sexually assaulted a white male who had pointed a handgun at her. It was at the end of the show. There wasn't any reason for it. They just threw it in there to make sure everyone knows how much CBS hates white males. It was interesting for several reasons. First, because there wasn't even an attempt made to justify it. She just did it for no reason. And second, she did NOT sexually assault the black male who was in charge, and who had just been shooting at her for over 10 minutes with a machine gun while telling her that he was going to rape her once he finally got her. No, sexually assaulting a black male is not politically correct. Only white males are to be sexually assaulted in the hate-motivated world of the PC Police State. This is why you won't ever see a black male be hit in the groin in any movie or TV show unless it was made by black people themselves, and usually only if it was made by one of the Wayan brothers.

Normally I would be all over this shit. But not this week. This week I'm numb. Or tired. Or maybe I'm numb and tired? I don't know. I'm just not myself. I didn't even yell at the TV when it happened. I just sat there and very slowly realized what had just occurred - black guy tries to murder woman with machine gun, black guy threatens to rape woman, white guy shows up with handgun, white guy is sexually assaulted and arrested, black guy isn't even handcuffed. Huh? That's fucking weird. Hey, wait a minute, that's Saul Alinsky PC sexist, racist bullshit! How did I miss that?


Sumner 'sociopath' Redstone says,
I love violent sex offenders. They're some of my favorite people.

So, what's most interesting this week, and this month, is not what Obama says in his many, many fucking speeches. It's what he's doing, but not so much talking about despite being on the TV every fucking night. Are you paying attention? Some bloggers are. Many are not, preferring instead to bask in the warm Oprah-like glow of empty rhetoric and promises that will not be kept. That's fine. I have so much I want to say. But for some reason I can't quite get it out. Perhaps tomorrow?


Oh, by the way, I've only just heard, but the Supreme Court has just ruled that despite our Constitution, legislators and prosecutors can now retroactively apply laws and charge people for things that weren't illegal when they did them, just so long as the new law is very, very politically correct. I shit you not. It passed 7-2, which is really disturbing. Someone was passing around some serious drugs on this day, clearly. So much for 'criminal intent' and all that.

'Outdated Criteria' and the current redistribution of your wealth

If you've been wondering where all your money went, why the markets are crashing and burning, and how this happened, here is something you might find interesting from an article I just read ....



"Under Clinton, the entire federal government put massive pressure on banks to grant more mortgages to the poor and minorities. Clinton's secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Cuomo, investigated Fannie Mae for racial discrimination and proposed that 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low- to moderate-income borrowers by the year 2001.

Instead of looking at "outdated criteria," such as the mortgage applicant's credit history and ability to make a down payment, banks were encouraged to consider nontraditional measures of credit-worthiness, such as having a good jump shot or having a missing child named "Caylee."

Threatening lawsuits, Clinton's Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage. That isn't a joke -- it's a fact.

When Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches, political correctness was given a veto over sound business practices.

In 1999, liberals were bragging about extending affirmative action to the financial sector. Los Angeles Times reporter Ron Brownstein hailed the Clinton administration's affirmative action lending policies as one of the "hidden success stories" of the Clinton administration, saying that "black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded."

Meanwhile, economists were screaming from the rooftops that the Democrats were forcing mortgage lenders to issue loans that would fail the moment the housing market slowed and deadbeat borrowers couldn't get out of their loans by selling their houses.

A decade later, the housing bubble burst and, as predicted, food-stamp-backed mortgages collapsed. Democrats set an affirmative action time-bomb and now it's gone off.

In Bush's first year in office, the White House chief economist, N. Gregory Mankiw, warned that the government's "implicit subsidy" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, combined with loans to unqualified borrowers, was creating a huge risk for the entire financial system.

Rep. Barney Frank denounced Mankiw, saying he had no "concern about housing." How dare you oppose suicidal loans to people who can't repay them! The New York Times reported that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "under heavy assault by the Republicans," but these entities still had "important political allies" in the Democrats.

Now, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, middle-class taxpayers are going to be forced to bail out the Democrats' two most important constituent groups: rich Wall Street bankers and welfare recipients.

Political correctness had already ruined education, sports, science and entertainment. But it took a Democratic president with a Democratic congress for political correctness to wreck the financial industry."