Mom's unemployed, but Eagan agency makes sure kids get birthday...

Mendota Heights resident Valarie Nemen, far right, was one of about a dozen volunteers from St.

[Geeeeeeeeee]

Where is dad??????????

[Jack n Jill]

Welcome to Obamas world-soon we will all be unemployed.

Get this radical moozlim out in 4 yrs like Carter

[Meltin Michael Jackson]

She should have went back to Chicago for her keeyids birfdays.

Keep feeding them and they will keep multiplying.

[Meltin Michael Jackson]

Geeeeeeeeee wrote:

Where is dad??????????

You mean 'babies daddies'.(sperm donors then abandonists)

[Mrs R]

Geeeeeeeeee wrote:

Where is dad??????????

There was just an article in the PP a couple of days ago stating how great single parenthood is. How can these two articles be reconciled?

[Baby Daddy]

Will breed 4 feed.

[Baby Daddy]

Jerry springer has a hippo mama fighting a monkey mama.

[TaxTaxTax]

We have become a "Dadless" society. Men are relegated to disrespectful terms like "Sperm Donoe" and "Bio Dad" which is demeaning, demasculating (satisfies the feminist agenda) and minimizes or eliminates the role men play in the lives of their kids. That is, until Mom wants child support. Then we are called defendant.
There's two sets of rules. One is the pro-feminist view that places all values on Moms and turns them into victims and the Dads into perpetrators. The other is the Holy Mommie syndrome which diefies females (especially if single) who have kids and are then entitled to wear the victim title of "single Mom". What about single Dads.
Have you ever seen an article in a paper or story on the news about Deadbeat Moms?
Oh well.

[TaxTaxTax]

Mrs R wrote:

<quoted text>
There was just an article in the PP a couple of days ago stating how great single parenthood is. How can these two articles be reconciled?

It's pretty simple. Newspapers do things for their reasons, not ours. Right now, the two compelling reasons I see that are obvious are:

1. Furthering the liberal agenda
2. Printing inflamatory or "fluff" pieces (in this case) to sell newspapers.

It's really all about money.

Having worked in newspapers for over 30 years I can
an assure you journalists have fooled themselves into believeing they have some sacred duty to make sure we readers "hear the truth". It's not about truth. In fact, it's about what their liberal trainning has brainwashed them into thinking is the "truth". Case in point, global warming.

If any journalist had to survive by writing stuff people were willing to pay to read, they would vanish quickly. Money to pay journalists doesn't come from subscription sales. It comes from ad sales. The journalists see themselves as scribe virgins who don't want to go anywhere near the "whore ad sales" department. It's really a crock.

I am glad the public, internet take-over and other market forces have finally evolved to the place where journalists will either have to write what people want to read, not what they want to print, r die economically.

It's about time.

[JP - St Paul]

TaxTaxTax wrote:

<quoted text>
It's pretty simple. Newspapers do things for their reasons, not ours. Right now, the two compelling reasons I see that are obvious are:
1. Furthering the liberal agenda
2. Printing inflamatory or "fluff" pieces (in this case) to sell newspapers.
It's really all about money.
Having worked in newspapers for over 30 years I can
an assure you journalists have fooled themselves into believeing they have some sacred duty to make sure we readers "hear the truth". It's not about truth. In fact, it's about what their liberal trainning has brainwashed them into thinking is the "truth".

Naturally any private enterprise will do what they can to make money, newspapers are mostly privately run and have investors to answer to and payrolls to sustain. I suspect you are or were not a journalist when working in the newspaper business. One of the ways I always recommend to others when they suspect a media bias is to bypass the media entirely and find the facts yourself. This requires more work and discipline but it often gives you a much clearer picture of what is going on. In my experience, learning the facts often agrees with many (not all) news organizations. What many people refer to as a "liberal bias" is often some reported facts that conflict with their political or social beliefs. Some have accused news organizations of a "conservative bias". Often in this case, the facts were not wrong, but key facts were omitted from the story and the news report was framed in a way to support the political and social beliefs of their readers. But I must reiterate that it is a good, healthy exercise to do the research on your own and see how the facts you find agree or disagree with the news coverage around you.

[GOPlease]

It is a good program. After all, it isn't the kids fault who their parents are. If you can give one kid a little glimmer of hope when they are young, maybe, just maybe they will find their own way to a better life, and not one of crime and poverty. It can't hurt to try anyway.....

[End of an era]

It's a recession, folks. Plenty of people are down on their luck. Why not help out a kid on her birthday? It's not her fault her family hit tough times.

Look at the face of this little cutie-patootie below... oh man....

http://www.cheerfulgivers.org/

[TaxTaxTax]

JP - St Paul wrote:

<quoted text>
Naturally any private enterprise will do what they can to make money, newspapers are mostly privately run and have investors to answer to and payrolls to sustain. I suspect you are or were not a journalist when working in the newspaper business. One of the ways I always recommend to others when they suspect a media bias is to bypass the media entirely and find the facts yourself. This requires more work and discipline but it often gives you a much clearer picture of what is going on. In my experience, learning the facts often agrees with many (not all) news organizations. What many people refer to as a "liberal bias" is often some reported facts that conflict with their political or social beliefs. Some have accused news organizations of a "conservative bias". Often in this case, the facts were not wrong, but key facts were omitted from the story and the news report was framed in a way to support the political and social beliefs of their readers. But I must reiterate that it is a good, healthy exercise to do the research on your own and see how the facts you find agree or disagree with the news coverage around you.

Your response is typical of many journalists and it smacks of the standard "schpeel" one would expect from a jo grad.

As for your suspicion that I was not a journalist you are wrong. I have 30 years experience in newspaper and magazine publishing but am presently in electronic media.

I was born into a newspaper family, worked for weeklies, dailies (Strib) and consumer magazines with over one million circulation. I worked on the news side and the publishing side.

It is my opinion that journalists just don't get it. Many see themselves as part of a dying breed of truth seekers and truth tellers. In fact, if any of them had to write to make a living (without protection of the guild) they would go hungry.

I hope publishers across America switch to a mostly electronic model where readers pay per inch of material read. That would assure that readers would only have to pay for what they consume and it would totally remove the advertiser model from the formula.

When journslists still had admirable ethics in decades gone by, there was an appreciable amount of respect that america's newspaper's commanded.

Since the whole "we all want to be Watergate reporters" thing has come about, journalists have been graduating with degrees having been brainwashed, hoodwinked and incorrectly told and sold that spewing liberal viewpoints, disguised as reporting, is correct.

I say remove the guild, let writers receive a "percentage per inch purchased" by the public and let's let the marketplace dictate how writers are paid.

[End of an era]

Geez. Fine. Don't buy a kid a birthday present.

Is your argument that the "evil liberal media" strikes again writing about a poor / homeless child?

It's not like the article was asking for taxpayer funding from the government or something. It's just a birthday gift bag.

Sheesh.

[TaxTaxTax]

End of an era wrote:

Geez. Fine. Don't buy a kid a birthday present.
Is your argument that the "evil liberal media" strikes again writing about a poor / homeless child?
It's not like the article was asking for taxpayer funding from the government or something. It's just a birthday gift bag.
Sheesh.

No, no one is coming from the "scrooge" bah humbug point. There was an initial objection to the total focus on the "Wounded Mommie" victimization writing slant that the newspaper chose. Also, what about Dads? No information about poor Dads who are out of work and have birthdays to buy for that are also a concern.

I think the comments just tried to point out how modern-day journalists always rush to pour ptinters ink into more sterotypical "poor female" articles and anything that portrays females as victime. Thus the example of the use of term "DEADBEAT DAD" vs the one you never see which is "DEADBEAT MOMS". Another example is how the liberal press always refers to the poor, wounded, victim "single Mom" but how often do you see the "single Dad" headlines, story angles or references?

In the media, generally speaking, it's commonplace to see females protrayed as victims, men as perpetrators and of course, the holier than thou, white knight journalist comes riding into the picture to scribe the real liberal story and set the record straight.

Most females I know could whoop most men I know. I think the time for journalists to keep riding in and rescuing or "glamorizing" single Mommiehood is over. Many of these strong women are single by choice.

Most certainly don't need the help of spineless, gender-neutered journailsts to come to their aid and de-masculate the reader for their benefit.

Heck. most females have hair on their legs. Why can't the press quit squatting to pee for these women and let the women pee for themselves without the help of altruistic misguided journalists?

[DO SOMETHING]

What are you people complaining about?
This is a well written article about a fabulous non-profit that is doing something nice for families that might not ever get any nice treatment.
Please stop whining anonymously online until you volunteer at this nonprofit yourself and can speak from experience.

[Mornin Mama]

DO SOMETHING wrote:

What are you people complaining about?

BHO and 10% unemployment and climbing.

"Change we can believe in"

[TaxTaxTax]

DO SOMETHING wrote:

What are you people complaining about?
This is a well written article about a fabulous non-profit that is doing something nice for families that might not ever get any nice treatment.
Please stop whining anonymously online until you volunteer at this nonprofit yourself and can speak from experience.

If the non-profit is so "fabulous" then why did they discriminate aganist Dads and not include unemployed males to receive this gift?

Are you saying too that because they are a "nonprofit" they have some saintly status?

Just curious...have you seen what some of the directors of so-called "nonprofits" make in salary each year?

I appreciate your rushing tp the defense of your beloved non-profit.

Once again, my example fits the mold. Criticize a nonprofit and you are viewed as the perpetrator, the non-profit is the victim and the writer (in this case you) are the rescuer.

[TaxTaxTax]

Geeeeeeeeee wrote:

Where is dad??????????

Satire:

Congrats! You opened a can of worms. Why did you have to break up this perfectly fine estrogenic gathering of commenters by bringing up the Daddy thing?

Are you aware that your introduction of the toxic "Daddy" thought has tainted and permanently disfigured this other wise "beautiful" story?

Plus, are you aware that the fabulous organization that is doing this is nonprofit? Why, that makes their intentions 100% pure and not subject to reviewal, especially by anyone mentioning anything naughty like you.

They are the victims now. You are the perp and the commenting writers below are the rescuers.

Please go home, take your toys with you and leave us here in our feminine-friendly, feminist-loving sandbox.

I encourage you to get neutered, demasculated, liberalized, and find your own non-profit to have your own party!

However, one warning, don't even think of doing a male-only slant on the article, because that would be politically incorrect and subject to vicous attack!

tee hee

[TaxTaxTax]

Jack n Jill wrote:

Welcome to Obamas world-soon we will all be unemployed.
Get this radical moozlim out in 4 yrs like Carter

Stupid.