Category Archives: children

Hey, Cupcake! Shut Your Hole!

Having had to deal with a similar situation with She Who Must Not Be Named, I understand what these parents are going through. It’s gratifying to know that the judge in this case told the spoiled brat to shut her ignorant yap.

OK… maybe not in those exact words.

But if you’re wondering what I’m talking about, here’s the short of it:

Cupcake lives with parents.

Parents don’t like Cupcake’s boyfriend. Parents insist Cupcake do some chores. Parents also insist Cupcake follow the rules of the house.

Cupcake flips parents the giant bird, leaves their house two days before her 18th birthday and goes to live with BFF, whose parents are apparently much more permissive than the horrible ogres that are Cupcake’s parents. How could they insist that Cupcake follow their rules! How horrible!

So, parents, figuring their spawn has willingly left the nest, stop paying for Cupcake, which includes school tuition, and refuse to pay for Cupcake’s college.

What does Cupcake do?

Bitch sues her parents. Unsuccessfully, so far.

Sues them for $650 in weekly child support, college tuition, tuition at her private school and legal fees.

The AP has more details.

Rachel Canning had sought immediate relief in the form of $650 in weekly child support and the payment of the remainder of her tuition at Morris Catholic High School, as well as attorney’s fees.

State Superior Court Judge Peter Bogaard denied those motions but ordered the parties to return to court on April 22, when they will present evidence and testimony on the over-arching question of whether the Cannings are obligated to financially support their daughter. Rachel Canning, a high school senior, has already been accepted by at least one college and is seeking to have her parents pay some or all of her tuition, attorney Tanya Helfand told Bogaard Tuesday.

So Cupcake refuses to follow the rules of the house in which she’s living, dates an unacceptable to her parents guy, refuses to help out around the house, gets suspended from school for truancy, moves out and then expects her parents to continue paying for her?

Bitch, please!

And I’m sure BFF’s daddy is only too happy to foot the bill for the lawsuit, since the child support would be going into his pockets.

As an aside… $650 PER WEEK??? That’s child support in New Jersey nowadays? I’m in the wrong damn state, because I get WAY less than that amount PER MONTH here in Virginia!

But back to our story.

The judge in the case basically told the sniveling hemorrhoid to suck it.

In legal parlance, Rachel Canning was seeking an emergency order. But the judge, Morristown Superior Court Judge Peter Bogaard, seemed to sense that the real emergency was the disintegration of the American family and the erosion of parental rights.

“Do we want to establish a precedent where parents live in basic fear of establishing rules of the house?” Bogaard asked, according to published reports.

Now, the details in this story are all in the links I’ve provided above. Cupcake also accuses her father, a retired police chief, of “inappropriate affection,” although the only thing an independent investigator found was that Cupcake is an entitled, spoiled, rotten little twunt. And she accuses her mother of making comments about her weight, causing her to develop bulimia.

Oh poor baby! I admit it. I was doing musical theater in college, and I had to maintain a certain weight. Yeah, I was bulimic for several years. But you know what? I blame no one but myself. It wasn’t the overly critical directors, or my mommy constantly harping on my weight. It was me. I did stupid things, and I take full responsibility. I also had the good sense and the will power to stop. And I certainly didn’t sue those who were critical of me for making me that way!

Let me say this. If there was real abuse on the part of the parents, it needed to be handed over to law enforcement for investigation. But as it stands, Rachel Canning was a spoiled rotten little brat who didn’t want to abide by the rules of her parents’ house. She essentially emancipated herself and left their home, and only when she decided she was entitled to some of her parents’ money, did she all of a sudden begin claiming some kind of “inappropriate affection” on the part of her father. Sounds suspicious, to say the least.

But further than that…

I’ve been there and done that.

She Who Must Not Be Named pulled that shit with some regularity when she was living with me and her father. When she didn’t get her way, she wasn’t above screeching, “ABUSE!” When she was told to help out around the house and abide by the rules, she refused, and when she was told to leave (she was a legal adult at the time), she refused not only to unass the AO, but also to relinquish the keys to the vehicle she was borrowing from her father and me after she had wrecked the one we were helping her finance. She threatened to call the police and report supposed abuse when I took her arm to escort her out of my home, and when I grabbed the phone and dialed 9-1-1 for her, she all of a sudden grew shy and decided she didn’t want to report us after all. The police arrived anyway (because that’s what happens when you call 9-1-1), and she proceeded to accuse me and her father of being abusive, drunken drug users – a claim that was so ludicrous and downright hysterical, that the officers who arrived at the scene offered to take her to the local nuthouse for observation.

Later, after She Who Must Not Be Named left the house, met a guy at a stripper joint where she was working and shat out a kid by him, I gave her another chance and allowed her to come back and stay with me temporarily, because she claimed the boyfriend was abusive, and she wanted to find a job and become independent. After a month of sitting on her ass in my house, eating me out of house and home, taking advantage of my hospitality and doing little more than watching TV, I demanded she find a job. The plan was that she would save some money (since she had no expenses), get a place of her own for her and the kid, and get on her feet. Things deteriorated quickly, as entitled princess got a job in a restaurant, began working late (and buying drugs with the tips she made) and informed me and the kids one night that we just weren’t doing enough to help her, and that we all should be grateful for being allowed to watch her offspring until after midnight (when the kids had school, and I had to get up at 0400 for my two hour commute to work the next day). And that if she was such a burden to us, she was just going to go back and live with her oh-so-abusive boyfriend (note the threat in that tone) and it would be all. our. fault.

Needless to say my reply was to boot her the hell out of my house.

So should parents be forced to pay their adult children’s way, while their adult children do whatever the hell they want?

Fuck no!

Much like any investor, parents should expect anyone for whom they pay to abide by their rules. If the leech lives in their house, eats their food and takes advantage of their good graces, the leech must do as its benefactors say as long as said leech lives under their roof. It’s called being accountable to people who support you.

If not, get the fuck out, Cupcake! No one owes you a living. No one owes you college tuition. No one owes you anything. You are an adult. You made your choices.

Now shoo!

As far as I’m concerned, this little twit should be forced to pay her parents’ court costs as well!

As for BFF’s parents… it’s quite obvious they were looking for a payoff. After all $650 per week doesn’t grow on trees!

Asking for Trouble

Remember my last blog post about the warped mommy with the breastfeeding exhibitionist kink?

Yeah, that’s what I’m thinking.

Just say NO

What IS it with this society? How did we go from a self-sufficient, independent, strong people to a bunch of mamby-pamby nanny statist asshats who are too insipidly weak to assert themselves and would prefer the nanny state to do it for them?

Case in point: Mother of two from California (where else?) who is too pathetically weak to tell her precious little punkins “NO!” when they begin to whine for the grease and salt offered by McDonalds.  She can’t stand listening to them beg and plead for Happy Meals, so what does she do? She brings a lawsuit!

A mother of two from Sacramento, Calif., says that McDonald’s uses toys as bait to induce her kids to clamor to go to McDonald’s and to develop a preference for nutritionally poor Happy Meals. With the help of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, today the mom, Monet Parham, is filing a class action lawsuit aimed at stopping McDonald’s use of toys to market directly to young children. The suit will be filed in California Superior Court in San Francisco shortly after the court opens for business Wednesday morning.

According to Parham, the main reason her six-year-old daughter, Maya, asks to go to McDonald’s is to get toys based on Barbie, i-Carly, Shrek, or Strawberry Shortcake. The food seems almost beside the point to the kids, says Parham, because the toy monopolizes the attention of Maya and her two-year-old sister Lauryn.


Seriously. What the hell have we become? This is a society of parents who sit their kids in front of the TV, pay no attention to what they watch, don’t spend any actual quality time with their children, and then wonder why they clamor for every stupid thing they see in commercials on the idiot box!

And then, instead of taking a little responsibility for their kids (because God and Goddess forbid they actually act like parents, instead of third-grade buddies), they bring suit against perfectly legitimate businesses for taking advantage of a marketing opportunity!

McDonald’s, while not healthy, is a viable alternative to a lot of working parents who don’t always have the time or money to afford more expensive, quick options.  Not saying it’s terrific food – it’s not. Last time I had it, I remember a distinct styrofoam-like taste. I don’t like it, and neither do my kids. As a matter of fact, the last time the Redhead had anything from McDonald’s he projectile hurled spectacularly into the kitchen sink!  But hey – many kids like it, and the toys are an added incentive for them to ask. It’s not poisonous. It’s not a killer. It’s food. Not great food, but food!  So why is it that this company should be prevented from marketing it to its primary demographic?

Because drooling crotchmonkeys like Monet Parham want their kids to eat right and be healthy without the inconvenience of having to do anything difficult about it, such as… you know… force the kids away from the boob tube and respond in the negative when they begin to whine for fast food.

“I am concerned about the health of my children and feel that McDonald’s should be a very limited part of their diet and their childhood experience,” Parham said. “But as other busy, working moms and dads know, we have to say ‘no’ to our young children so many times, and McDonald’s makes that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald’s is getting into my kids’ heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.”

So get this… she wants her kids to eat healthy, but she doesn’t want to say “No,” to them, because it’s HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARD!

Guess what, bitch!  Parenting is hard. It’s not an easy job that just anyone can do, even though the world’s biggest dipshits are currently spreading their seed and producing fuck trophies like it’s going out of style!  Parenting is difficult. It means taking responsibility for your children and telling them “NO,” when you feel their demands aren’t in their best interest. You’re their parent, not their goddamn friend!  Accept and deal with it!

You know, I’d be willing to bet that if this dildo ever actually bothered to turn off the TV, and spend a little time with her children, instead of allowing the commercials to dictate her kids’ wants and needs, it would make it a lot easier to resist fast food ads!  McDonald’s isn’t getting into her kids’ heads without permission. She’s GIVING them permission by allowing them to continuously watch television!

Get them out of the house. Buy them bikes, roller blades, a trampoline or simply go for a hike with them, or even play a game in the house, and I’ll bet their little faces won’t light up as much when they see a McDonald’s!


Could you please, for once, practice some journalistic standards of integrity and objectivity, instead of feeding your drooling viewers the usual, tainted pabulum that appears extracted from your collective asses after a particularly rancid meal of rotten eggs and month-old oysters?

Yes, I mean YOU, Dylan Ratigan!  You appear completely incapable of not only objective, but rational thought, as demonstrated by your condemnation of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s decision to keep biased, politically tainted, hysterical gun safety banning agenda out of Virginia’s classrooms.

Apparently Ratigan was pissing his frilly panties over the decision to keep the National Crime Prevention Council’s (NCPC) histrionics about gun safety out of our schools.  This is the kind of indoctrination Ratigan would like to see Virginia’s children undergo.


  • To
    explore the impact on society when a person dies prematurely from gun
  • To develop research and critical-thinking skills


  • Discuss with students the dangers of guns.
    Review what they should do if they find a gun.
  • Share
    with them that when people die from being shot, they can no longer do
    good things for their families or for society.
  • Assign
    students to groups of four or five, and have them select a
    historical figure who was killed by gun violence.
    include Martin Luther King, Jr.; John F. Kennedy; Abraham Lincoln; and
    Mahatma Gandhi. Have each group research the person they chose and list
    the positive contributions he or she made to society.
  • Ask
    students to predict how these individuals might have continued their
    work if they hadn’t been killed by gun violence.
  • Have
    each group present a biography of the individual they researched and
    their ideas of what the individual could have done if he or she had
    not died from gun violence.
  • Have each member of
    the group write a diary entry that takes place five years after the
    person died and shares what the person could have done if the person
    had lived. The students may choose to write the entry from the point of
    view of the individual or of a third party who had been influenced by
    the individual’s work (e.g., someone who heard Martin Luther King, Jr.
    give a speech).
  • Extend this into a service project by
    having students design a memorial for people killed by gun violence.
    They may choose to plant a tree or design a peace quilt to display in
    the school’s lobby.

Wow… there’s a difference.  And even police officers deem the NRA’s gun safety program very effective.

That, of course, doesn’t matter to Ratigan, whose primary mission is not the education of children about gun safety, but rather the indoctrination and brainwashing of our children into hysterical hatred of a tool, a leftard political agenda and an avoidance of personal responsibility.

Really, (P)MSNBC!  Could you please put on your big girl panties and stop with the quivering vagina ache because some big, bad Republican has derailed your political goals! 

It’s getting old.  I’m not even sure anyone actually considers you a real news source any longer!

h/t: Jeff Soyer

Combating childhood obesity

I’ve always considered myself very lucky to have the wonderful kids I do.  They love sports. They love being active. It’s rare that you’ll find them vegetating in front of the TV, unless it’s too cold, rainy or dark to play outside.  Junk food in our house is a rare occurrence.  Soda and other gross, sugary drinks do not exist in my fridge.  When I make them their school lunch, I put a small snack of cookies or trail mix, yogurt, juice and a sandwich – generally with whole wheat or other healthy type of bread.  My kids are generally busy dancing, cheerleading or taking walks with friends or with the dog (for Teeny) and wrestling, biking, skateboarding and baseball (for the Redhead).  We have a gym downstairs in the basement. Weights, treadmill, body bag and other stuff, and we work out together.  We run together on occasion (although the little monsters outrun my sorry ass every time).  I insist we eat dinner together most days, and I tend to make food from scratch rather than feed them fast food.  We do go out every two weeks, eat at a local restaurant and catch a movie.  That’s our mom-munchkin thing.

My kids are healthy, happy and fit.

My kids are an anomaly.

I’m amazed at the number of lazy, fat, unhealthy kids I see! I wonder how parents can stand watching their offspring drool in front of the idiot box day after day, while they guzzle sodas and shove junk food down their throats!  I’m amazed how many parents think that a McDonalds hamburger and a trough of greasy fries is an appropriate regular meal.

Parents don’t want to take the time to take care of their children, so they allow them to purchase greasy, unhealthy food served at school, grab some fast food for dinner and never bother actually doing anything with their kids that requires physical activity.

Is it any wonder that our society is spitting out fat, apathetic, indolent adults, who demand special rights for the obese instead of taking control of their lives, their eating habits and their physical activity.

Michelle Obama wants to put a stop to childhood obesity.

While that’s a noble goal, how is it the purview of government? Why should the First Lady of the United States put pressure on food makers and junk food marketers?

“The truth is, our kids didn’t do this to themselves,” Mrs. Obama said.“Our kids didn’t choose to make food products with tons of fat and sugar and supersize portions, and then to have those foods marketed to them wherever they turn.”

No, the children didn’t do it to themselves.  The parents did this.  Parents who refuse to take responsibility for the kids they’re raising.  The makers of junk food are merely responding to market demand.  If there was no demand, the junk food companies wouldn’t be as profitable as they are. 

And yet, in the Obama administration’s typical way, Michelle Obama seems to be blaming the fast food companies and, consequently, the free market.

Trust me, it’s less expensive to make your children lunch to take to school every day than it is to have them buy the nasty food the school peddles.  It takes 10 minutes, two slices of bread, a packet of juice, a piece of fruit or yogurt and a slice of meat and cheese, or even peanut butter and jelly. 

But most parents prefer to just let their children buy crap and then wonder why they’re getting fat.

I see pressuring businesses to alter their marketing strategies or to change the kinds of meals they provide to schools as catering to the continued lack of responsibility on the part of this country’s parents.  If they’re too lazy or “busy” to take care of their children, just make it easier for them to continue shirking their parental responsibility.

No thanks.

%d bloggers like this: