Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to miranda7's blog Subscribe


Special Features


Funny as in ironic that the Democratic Party likes to hold itself up as the party of Diversity, but most blue states are not very diverse at all. They don't have high levels of gun violence because they are full of affluent white people. It has little or nothing to do with whether the occupants voted for Biden or Trump. Comparisons at the State level are also irrelevant, and these types of articles that play the red state blue state rivalry are stupidly, deliberately divisive. States are not homogenous. Data that compares one state to another is rarely meaningful.

If you take a look at the county/city level you will see a VERY different result. Homicides mostly occur in densely populated urban areas.

I will agree that gun ownership rates can play a part, but again, the data points jump all over the place and are not consistent enough to be statistically significant. There are places with high gun ownership where crime rates are very low, and places where gun ownership is very low and crime rates are very high.

It is a much more relevant fact that gun violence disproportionately impacts communities of color, and homicide rates closely correlate with poverty and Black populations, at the community, county, city and state levels. That is a very real and urgent problem but the article completely ignores that correlation. The fact that the authors completely omit that shows they don't really care about murders in the Black community or the root causes of gun violence. Their intent is to make this a wedge issue to divide the states.

Like I said, this is a repeat thread. The author of the root article is a recent college graduate with a degree in something irrelevant, I can't remember what. My recollection is that both she and the other author have been employed as political operatives for Democratic candidates. The publisher of the article is a political think tank with a mandate to get Democrats elected. There is nothing objective about this article whatsoever, it is paid political messaging pretending to be journalism.

Maybe if I feel like it I will search out my posts on the old thread, which was a bit more comprehensive.

Not this tired only story, where they try to create political division between the states with a meaningless correlation......so they tried manipulating the data by deleting the major cities, now try controlling for race.....

So, here are the 10 states with the highest percentage of black residents:

District of Columbia - 46.53%
Mississippi - 38.83%
Louisiana - 33.24%
Georgia - 31.76%
Maryland - 30.76%
South Carolina - 27.02%
Alabama - 26.47%
Delaware - 23.03%
North Carolina - 22.34%
Virginia - 20.41%

Isn't that something how they line right up with the states with highest murder rates? (Except the article didn't count DC)


Folks, Homicide rates are almost entirely dominated by Black on Black Crime, and Black populations are much higher in Southeastern states. It is that simple. The silly idea that there are a bunch of white MAGA white rednecks in red hats running around shooting each other is just goofy.

Next is the part where a couple of you will call me a racist, when it is you who is ignoring this very important and relevant factor to marginalized communities. That says a lot about much Black Lives Matter to you.

One of the reasons that book struck a chord with me is because of a truly heartbreaking case I worked many years ago. It involved a little girl who was molested by an uncle. The grooming was gradual and he never touched her against her will or caused her physical pain. As difficult as it is for me to type these words....she enjoyed it, it felt good to her. That is not that unusual. I don't want to be graphic, but most of the time molestation of young kids does not involve penetration, and some abusers are quite gentle. It went on for years until one day another relative walked in on them. The police were called, the uncle was arrested and by the time I arrived she was truly traumatized. Not by what her uncle had done, but by the yelling, the screaming, the adult conversations, the arrest of her beloved uncle and the fear of being removed from her neglectful mothers care. Suddenly she was realizing that their "secret love" was very wrong, but instead of blaming the uncle that she adored, she internalized that it was SHE who had done something very bad and shameful, and felt responsible for his arrest (because he had warned her repeatedly that if anyone found out they would take her away from him). My involvement was limited to evidence collection, so I didn't get to follow the case further, but it stuck with me for a long time. In the eyes of this child, the abuse was love and ending it left her alone and terrified. I wondered how she would heal and work through the emotions of that, and grow up to have healthy relationships.

So when the book goes into detail and talks about a variety of sexual acts and how good they feel, I thought about that case and how easy it would be for a groomer to use that book to convince a young child that sexual activity with an adult (as long as is consensual) is perfectly normal and feels good. I'm not sure what the right answer is, as far as how to teach kids healthy attitudes about sexuality, and when to introduce these concepts, but I'm not sure teaching young children this level of detail and emphasizing how good it feels is a great idea. We had "Health" class in 5th grade, and learned all about reproduction. We really didn't make mcuh of a connection because we didn't know much about our own parts, let alone the opposite sex. There were lots of giggles, and "ew gross" remarks, We wondered why anyone would "do it". There was no discussion of pleasure, and I don't think there was a reason to have one at that age. Maybe my case with the little girl proves that conversation is needed, but then how to you tell kids about how much fun it is without encouraging them to try it?

I think most people would agree with that. I certainly do, but I guess where we differ is that I imagine most teachers would respond by discussing same sex marriage in very broad terms that don't include "specific descriptions of how they express their love in the bedroom". In fact, I imagine most teachers wouldn't mention the bedroom in their descriptions at all.

#145 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-01-29 08:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

No, we don't disagree on that point, I agree that MOST teachers would limit that discussion to broad terms and the law allows them to do that. What the law does not allow them to do is turn it into an unauthorized lesson plan. Remember, the law specifically refers to CURRICULUM and CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION.

MOST parents will talk to their kids about sexuality. MOST parents LOVE their children, would sooner DIE than see their children hurt and will support their kids in their gender identification journey, even if they are conservative, religious wackos.

Laws aren't written to cover "MOST" people. They are written to cover the exceptions. Teachers who groom students, or even just do a piss poor job of guiding them on their journey are the exception, not the rule. But the same could be said for parents. If I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the person who has the best interest of the child at heart, I'm going to side with the parent, every single time, the mother who gave birth to the child, stayed up by their bedside when they were sick, held them when they cried. She is inherantly better equipped to decide what is best for the child than the "cool" teacher who may have graduated from college 2 years prior and hasn't yet figured out his/her/their own sexuality. Trust parents. Their are safeguards in the statute to help kids who show indications of abuse or are in need of intervention. In absence of these sorts of signs, trust parents.

religious, or

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2023 World Readable