But what does it all prove? That someone, somewhere, made a post, probably in good faith and with good intent, but used the wrong names? I don't think it's really front page news.
They didn't use the wrong names. They simply did not use the woman's name at all. She is credited as "and his wife" - that's it.
And who said it was front page news? Maybe it should be, so that dinosaurs don't keep on glossing over work, effort and very identify of women.
Who here was saying something about "Oooooohhh I bet it was Stephen's money so why is she whining?"
Cripes - she's published 8 novels and 2 non-fiction books. Her estimated net worth is 20 million US dollarettes. Why would anyone persist in refusing to allow that she has earned the right to be pissed that the couple's donation of 1.25 million is credited to Stephen King "and his wife"?
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Why would anyone persist in refusing to allow that she has earned the right to be pissed that the couple's donation of 1.25 million is credited to Stephen King "and his wife"?
Nobody has denied her the right surely?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Just because the idiots on the right did it doesn’t make the idiots on the left ok for doing the same.
Not the point - she’s pointing out the hypocrisy.
The whole “cancel culture” thing is bullshit regardless of which “side” claims it. Consumers have made decisions about purchases based on their own ethical choices for decades, or even longer.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Tucker Carlson is in the same class as Ted Cruz. He is a political whore who has no balls and appeals strongly to gullible retards..excuse me...malleable mentally challenged people. Unfortunately, there's a lot of them and many probably vote.
Fortunately, the democratic party knows how to win presidential elections because they figured out how to tamper with voting machines by using lasers from satellites in outer space (they learned that from the Jews) and they've also figured out how to change mail-in ballots. I know this because I've read it on the internet.
And Amy McGrath, can you give more details about delivering kids while on active duty? Since pregnancy is not an illness, I know you did not report on sick call.
45 years ago, when it was probably legal to discriminate on the basis of sex, I distinctly remember the local school board refusing to buy health insurance that would cover pregnancy. They stated that pregnancy was a "self inflicted illness". That's exactly how the local paper phrased it. They backed down during the next year's contract negotiations when threatened with a lawsuit.
My contract paid $7800 that year, and could easily have had a pregnant wife. No wonder I quit.
A friend of Doc's, one of only two B-29 bombers still flying.
I come out of a military experience that would court-martial you for getting a bad sunburn. If the Army wanted you to have a child, you would be issued one.
But pregnancy is not an illness. It is a medical condition, which if not monitored carefully, can produce serious harmful medical consequences.
If you regard it as an illness, please inform me of any other 'illness' which is joyfully announced after diagnosis.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but women are no longer discharged from the military because they get pregnant. There are deferrals of deployment, other modifications to duty and provisions for leave, but they remain active service members. See, for example, this amended deferment policy which makes obvious that women remain in service all the way up to, through and after delivery.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."
Just noting here that employment discrimination on the basis of pregnancy has been specifically illegal under federal law since 1978 and as a result pregnancy is essentially treated as a temporary disability.
Just noting here that employment discrimination on the basis of pregnancy has been specifically illegal under federal law since 1978 and as a result pregnancy is essentially treated as a temporary disability.
If my memory is correct, the school board's edict was for the 1976-77 school year. The fact that it was legal back then doesn't mean it was right.
A friend of Doc's, one of only two B-29 bombers still flying.
Just noting here that employment discrimination on the basis of pregnancy has been specifically illegal under federal law since 1978 and as a result pregnancy is essentially treated as a temporary disability.
If my memory is correct, the school board's edict was for the 1976-77 school year. The fact that it was legal back then doesn't mean it was right.
It was at least arguably illegal as discrimination "on the basis of sex" under then-existing (since 1964) federal civil rights law (see, e.g., Ruth Bader Ginsburg's life's work), but as of 1978 it was specifically outlawed by the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
Sorry, I didn't really mean to get all pedantic in a largely humorous thread. So here's a joke:
