Anyway, the more I read about gun violence in America, the more horrified I am about all the accidental shootings, particularly the ones that involve kids. Stopping crime, stopping mass shootings, stopping the basic urge of man to harm man is a giant problem and one that requires a multi-faceted approach. But stopping incidents where a child gains access to a family member’s gun and discharges it, killing another child? We should be able to stop that. As I’m saying about it at Babble today:

That there are children who can gain access to unsecured weapons and kill or injure themselves or other children is unacceptable. Not only should adults know better than to leave guns loaded and accessible to kids, you would think that in an era where your phone can activate your home security system while you’re 30,000 above the planet on a plane, we should have guns that don’t accidentally fire.

As it turns out, that technology is emerging. According to the Huffington Post:

The new Yardarm Technologies LLC system would trigger an alarm on an owner’s cellphone if a gun is moved, and the owner could then hit a button to activate the safety and disable the weapon. New guns would come with a microchip on the body and antennas winding around the grip. It would add about $50 to the cost of a gun, and about $12 a year for the service.

I don’t know a lot about guns but it seems to me that the additional cost for that is worth it if it means that the owner can lock down a gun with a swipe of a touch screen. If a kid were to show a friend a gun, a parent could know and prevent tragedy no matter where they were. It also lets a gun owner shut down a stolen weapon so that it can’t be used in a crime.

Of course, the NRA is spewing some derp about the cost od smart guns amounting to a “luxury tax” on self defense but honestly? I don’t give a shit about them anymore. We’ve let them do it their way for a few decades and the result is daily gun deaths. So they can take their itchy-trigger-finger concern trolling and stick it up the muzzle of a trigger-lcoked gun, thank you very much. Anyway, read the whole piece over on Babble!

Photo credit: phtoo stock

The post New on Babble: Could “Smart Guns” Protect Kids? appeared first on Stay At Home Pundit.

The first figure they cited wasn’t too upsetting. They said 47% of Americans own stock. OK. Yeah. They makes sense. That’s probably representative of people with 401(K) plans or mutual funds as well as hard core market traders. That’s a lot of people. Not enough people, since being among the 53% who don’t own sock probably means you have little or no personal retirement savings and that’s no good. People in that situation will be relying entirely on Social Security for retirement income – if they can retire at all.

From there, things become alarming – 2/3 of American households only have $5000 or less in the market. That means even more people than it appears are really up a creek when it comes to retirement.

So, if most Americans have miniscule stock portfolios or no stock portfolios at all, who owns all the stock? You guessed it. The top 10% of earners. In all, the top 10% own 81% of all stock. And the top 1% own 38%. You read that right. 1% of Americans own over a third of all stock in our country.

Why does it matter than 80% or stock is already held by people who will probably never go hungry? Well, stock is a finitie resource. If these folks are hoarding it and using it to accumulate yet more wealth for themselves, the rest of us can’t have it. 90% of Americans, most of whom do not have pensions or significant cash savings, are competing to save for retirement with only 20% of public stock holdings.

Because that seems fair.

Obviously, I can’t sit here and holler “Hey! Rich People! Share!” and expect anything to happen. But I feel like I can legitimately say “Hey! Rich People! Quit voting for people who want to gut Social Security! Unlike y’all, it’s all 2/3 of Americans will have to retire on. And while we’re at it, let’s take Robert Reich’s approach to ensuring its solvencey and raise the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes from $106,800 to $180,000. You’ll barely notice the difference and it will keep Social Security afloat while you roll around in dividend checks for all your golden years. Kthnxbai!”

Photo credit: photo stock

The post Wealth Hoarders: Which Americans Own Stock appeared first on Stay At Home Pundit.

Photo from KFOR in Oklahoma

I told my son that there was a storm that ruined houses and I needed to a minute to do something to give money to people who could help. He said “I can give money! I have too much pennies and quarters!” and scrambled off to bring me some. This morning he asked if there had been kids in the failies who lost their houses and he offered to send those kids toys.

This spirit of givng is the American way and I’m bursting with pride to see my son carrying on a proud tradition.

I’ve compiled a list of relief organizations at Babble today. Please click over to see the whole thing. Or text REDCROSS to 90999 to make a $10 donation right now. Thank you.

The post Relief for Moore, Oklahoma appeared first on Stay At Home Pundit.

The babysitter was my husband’s idea. I was losing my mind while he was away on a business trip and the result was a flurry of angry text messages to him at 5:30am. The gist of it was, my baby had refused to leave my side for the entire duration of his trip. I’d been in the presence of one or both of my kids for 15 hours per day and my patience was coming to its end. (Before anyone jumps down my throat about not being tolerant enough of my children, ask yourself if there’s anyone you would like to be in the same room with for 15 unbroken hours. I bet the list is pretty short. I bet it gets shorter if you have to do it for 5 days in a row and that person can’t control their own bowels. Just saying.) During the spate of angry texts, my husband told me I should hire a sitter to give me a break. I recoiled from the idea initially. For one thing, it seemed like an unjustified expense. For another, I don’t want to be that mom. The stay at home mom with a nanny.

Then I remembered something. I’m not just a stay at home mom. I’m a professional blogger. I have goals and deadlines every week and I get cash in exchange for my work. When I worked full time at an office, I had professional child care. Why is it wrong to hire a sitter to watch the kids while I do this kind of work, even if I’m doing it in my house?

Read the whole post over at Babble!

The post New At Babble: Hiring A Babysitter Made Me A Better Mom appeared first on Stay At Home Pundit.

Here’s what I mean: this guy fully denied the work of geologists, paleontologists and climatologists on the grounds that their methods were flawed. Their methods being, of course, the standard scientific method of observation, inquiry, hypothesis, experimentation and finally acceptance of rejection of the hypothesis. Never mind that those exact steps resulted in the very computer system he was using to type his rejection of the scientific method. He accepts some science, apparently, just not the ones he doesn’t like.

Here’s the deal. Either science works or it doesn’t. Either the standard approach of empirical research to explain the world around us and make advances in improving our lives is accurate and functional or it is not. You can’t say that the scientific method works for developing treatment for diabetes but not for geology.

Moreover, the reasoning of “god wants it this way” drives me around the bend. God wants the planet to get hotter so we should not avail ourselves of the science to reverse the trend? By that reasoning a cancer diagnosis should mean God also want you to have cancer so you should not avail yourself of treatment to halt the disease. Chemistry and biology are fields as legitimate as geology or climatology, are they not? Why would God approve of medical treatment but not environmental technology? I just don’t understand the reasoning.

This is the same frustration I feel with deeply religious people who argue against birth control because conception is up to God. But as soon as the baby is conceived they hand over their trust to science. Like when Michelle Duggar had to deliver so early because of preeclampsia. The consistent position would have been for her to say “God wanted me to get pregnant, therefore he wants me to have preeclampsia, and if I die or the baby dies, it’s what God wants.”. But that’s not what she did. She chose to interpret God’s will as one in favor of science and sought very high level medical treatments.

I’m in a bad position to discuss all of this because I’m, on my best day, a Deist. I’m willing to consider the “finger of God” igniting the spark of the universe and setting all of this in motion. But in that model, all things since that moment must be part of God’s will. I don’t understand this pickiness of saying God approves of some parts of the results of the ultimate creation but not others. Which is a short way of saying I’m no fan of dogma. Any dogma. Give me evidenced based reasoning any day.

The post On Science and Faith appeared first on Stay At Home Pundit.

My oldest goes to public school for half days, mainly for socialization and so I have a legitimate platform for my opposition to standardized tests and comprehensive sex ed. Sex ed should be taught by ministers or by observing the mating habits of our backyard hens.  I homeschool him in the afternoons. We do lots of great science projects like growing organic foods and those Sea Monkey kits we order from the back of his comic books.

I’m teaching my baby sign language and Spanish. I prefer that no one address the baby in any English at all, unless is educational television like Jeopardy. We haven’t told anyone the baby’s gender. The sexism in our society is epic and we don’t want our kids to fall victim to gender stereotypes. We made the mistake of telling our oldest he was a boy but we’re trying to make up for it by making sure his wardrobe is 50% dresses and skirts. I am making all of his clothes and plan to start an Etsy shop of BoySkirts before the holidays.

Click on over for the rest. It has it all from homemade vaccines to unmedicated c-sections!

The post New on Babble: The Most Controversial Mom(my) Blog Post Ever appeared first on Stay At Home Pundit.

You know how we get a little crazy with our Give it Up projects? Well guess what we’re doing now? We partnered up with Naughty Betty (the world’s most awesome gift and greeting card company) to make a series of Mother’s Day eCards for the Real World. Remember the Valentines for the Real World? These are like those only a million times more awesome.

Because for every time you share these eCards get on Facebook, Pinterest and Twitter, our buddies at Sweet Relish.com will donate money to Shelter House  – up to $10,000. Shelter House provides safe haven and services for families struggling with homelessness and domestic violence. If you want to find out more about the project, you can also read the back story here.

Bad. Ass. All it takes is some clicking, which you’re already doing if you’re reading blogs right now, and some women who need the help get a big fat check. So click! CLICK!

Here are some of the best cards:

The post Mother’s Day At Mommyland! appeared first on Stay At Home Pundit.

God, wouldn’t it be awesome if “target” in the title referred to the store and I was going to share a story about a surly employee doing something anti-social but hilarious? Sadly, that is not the case.

No, what I’m yammering on about is the NRA convention held last week. The speakers list was a veritable Who’s Who of big name Republicans without day jobs: Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Ted Nugent. I had a little fun with that on Twitter where I fantasized about Ted Nugent and Todd Palin being caught having an affair. I also speculated that Sarah Palin could rehabilitate her image by starting a line of cosmetics (Pitbull brand lipstick, perhaps?) and hosting a show on QVC. I joke about all of this to escape the cognitive dissonance of the idea of a convention center full of people who are drawn together to celebrate in owning deadly weapons. “We can shoot people! Yay!” Owning guns should be a more grave endeavor, if you ask me. There should be lectures on safety and responsibility, not pep rallies.

Nor should there be overt homages to rape and abuse. There’s a retail component to this convention, apparently, and there’s no Palin branded lipstick in sight. Instead, there are shooting accessories. Like targets for practicing your shooting. Realistic targets. Realistic, human shaped targets. Realistic, human shaped targets THAT LOOK LIKE HALF DRESSED, BLEEDING WOMEN AND ARE CALLED “THE EX”.

I’m not going to post a picture because the realism is a bit much and I don’t want to set off any triggers but here’s a link to the Zombie Industries monstrosity. I frankly want to storm their headquarters and beat the ever-living shit out of them for suborning domestic violence. You can’t tell me that people who think this is funny or clever shoot guns for sport or food or self-defense. They shoot guns to feel powerful and they are sick and disgusting. Yeah. I said it. Anyone who gets a chuckle out of this is sick and needs help and should probably not have guns. Because KILLING PEOPLE IS NOT FUNNY.

Targets like these is why domestic violence and sexual violence against women continues unabated in this country. We are expect to react to stuff like this with a mischevious grin and take it for the “joke” it’s meant to be. Wrong. It’s not funny. It’s not cute. Finding it funny or cute is a symptom of advanced moral decay and should require therapy.

This sort of thing is unacceptable. It promotes violence against women. I will be sending a link to this post to the company that makes these targets along with a letter explaining why glorifying violence against women is so fucking wrong. You can contact Zombie Industries to share your feelings here.

Also, watch this space today. Later, I’ll be posting something that is actually funny and also helps women.

The post The Week In WTF: Target Practice appeared first on Stay At Home Pundit.

But looking beyond the horror of a child killed in such a way, I’m drawn to the fact that the boy had his own hunting rifle. Not a rifle meant for adults, either. This is a rifle scaled and marketed for children. I had no idea such a thing existed and, frankly, I find it very, very upsetting. I have a 5 year old and he is in no way ready to handle lethal weapons, even if he took one of the much touted safety classes the NRA and local gun ranges offer. Hell, he lacks the coordination and attention to caution to carry a full bowl of cereal across the kitchen without sloshing it over the edge. He cannot and should not be given access to firearms. Yes, I know that some kids start hunting that early and it’s part of beloved family traditions but I look at it askance. I’d feel different about a 12 year old on a deer hunting excursion. A 5 year old is, in my opinion, too young.

But there’s more to marketing guns for kids that worries me. It’s part of something bigger and I don’t like the general trend, not just because I’m basically opposed to guns.

What’s my beef? Adult toys made smaller for kids. I don’t like Power Wheels. Or professional mani-pedis for little girls. Kids are kids, not little adults. They need kid things for kid minds. They’re not ready to be grown up and it’s up to us to make sure they have something left to aspire to by keeping them kids for as long as they need to be. That means keeping their toys and activities, you know, kid like.

Read the whole post over at Babble!

The post New At Babble: Guns For Kids? appeared first on Stay At Home Pundit.

If you really want to be an agent of change,  you need to get off the Internet and get in the room. What room am I talking about? Any room with a decision maker in it. It might be an office on Capitol Hill, it might be community forum, it might be a fundraiser that you pay to get into. And decision makers can be legislators, corporate leaders, staff of a government agency, or the principal of your local school. These are people who are supposed to give ear to the voices of the people they serve.

They are not required to go trolling Twitter to find what those voices have to say. You have to break through the static of internet noise and get your message across clearly and individually.

What I don’t say over there, and I probably should have, is that as an internet presence, you’re unverifiable. Yeah, your cause FB page could have 1200 “likers” but how it is a lawmaker to know that it’s not the same person clicking like using 1200 fake FB accounts? And signatures on online petitions are just as sketchy. But showing up and showing your face is hard to argue with. That’s why I’m such a proponent of face to face activism.

Read the whole post at The Broad Side!

The post New At The Broad Side: Is Social Media Really Activism? appeared first on Stay At Home Pundit.