When I think of Democrats at Christmas, I usually think of Scrooge. The Scrooge before he realized the error of his ways. Greedy, money-hungry, selfish. Bah humbug.
But even Democrats celebrate Christmas. Or whatever version of Christmas they find acceptable. I’m sure there are a bunch of liberal Atheists who think Mary (being young and not needing to be burdened with a child) should have stopped by her local Planned Parenthood (or whatever they called them back then) and taken care of the problem.
A few years ago, I decided to give “Deck the Halls” some new words. Words well suited for our friends of liberal persuasion. A song they can proudly sing at the top of their lungs. With gusto. I usually try to make songs rhyme when doing parodies. However, liberals never like to follow the rules and do the right thing . . . so this doesn’t rhyme.
I thought I’d share.
The list of offensive aspects of the White House Correspondence Dinner (#WHCD) is long. It’s the D.C. version of the Hollywood celebrity award shows. And based upon some of the pictures I saw, it’s just as vapid. Look at the list of invitees and it’s more about celebrities than journalism. It gives important people (or self-important as the case may be) an opportunity to gather together, wear very expensive clothes, and give awards to each other. Give me enough time and a nice cup of coffee and I’ll gladly share my thoughts on what all bugs me about those events.
I had a late dinner at a restaurant last night and I caught snippets of the live coverage on one of their TVs. I originally thought the woman who sat there looking at her cell phone while the National Anthem was being played to be the most patently offensive thing about the event. I’m glad a camera operator focused on her. Then again, he probably lost his job this morning. I hope all of America was as disheartened as I was at the sight of a woman on her phone. If the need to be on her phone wasn’t an emergency, and by that I mean life and limb instead of a hot news lead, her behavior was unacceptable.
I didn’t discover the thing I now find most offensive until after it was over, when I arrived home and stopped to read the Twitter feed for #WHCD and watched the news.
What do I now find to be the most offensive thing? The obsession with Michelle Obama’s hair. I’m no fan of Michelle, but I can’t believe a political party of self-proclaimed “feminists” would go so gaga over a woman’s hair style.
I thought her hair looked nice. Then again, it’s normal to find nice hair on any spouse of a world leader when attending a formal event. A pony tail and a baseball cap just wouldn’t have been appropriate. Even though I thought her hair looked nice, it’s just hair.
But don’t expect the same attitude from liberal women. For a bunch of ladies who demand judgment based upon their insides instead of their outsides, there is a hell of a lot of hubbub and hysteria over her “big and curly” look.
Type “michelle obama hair white house correspondents dinner 2015” into Google and you get over 17 million results. Seriously, folks? Seventeen MILLION?
It’s insane. Liberal women are asking if big curly hair is now back in style since Michelle wore it. Liberal women are saying Michelle was brave to take a risk with her hair. (Seriously? Selecting a hair style is an act of bravery?) Liberal women are wondering if it’s now OK to wear big curls gain. Web sites are saying to expect to see women with Michelle’s hair style at the office by Monday! Where the hell are all the feminists? Articles on web sites are calling her a “wonder woman” and saying she is “utter perfection” – because of her hair. Seriously, where are the feminists shooting down this appearance-based slobbering?
Here’s my response:
Dear liberal women: You do not need to wait for Michelle Obama to wear a certain hair style in order to wear it yourself. You are a woman. You can wear your hair any damn way you please. You do not need permission from an inhabitant of the white house. I can’t believe you’re asking if it’s now ok to wear “big and curly” hair. If you feel you need someone else to approve of hair styles . . . you are pathetic. This is what’s wrong with you liberal women. You say you’re independent then you look to someone in government, fashion, or entertainment to give you permission to look a certain way. Where are your feminists? I’m sure they’re out there, they’re just drowing in a sea of headlines proclaiming things like “Everyone’s in Love With The First Lady’s New Curls!” and “Michelle Obama Dons Curly Hair” and “Michelle Obama Looks Fierce”. What is wrong with you people? A nice hair style is not the final piece of being a real world “wonder woman” and it does not contribute to being “utter perfection”. You liberal women stay on your side of the fence and keep drooling over a hair style I bet was created by a stylist only affordable by the rich and famous. You liberal women stay on your side of the fence and keep asking if you can now wear your hair a certain way because the first lady donned it for an event. You liberal women stay on your side of the fence where you accuse conservatives of waging a war on women when you liberals obsess over what a woman wears on her head. I’ll stay over here on the conservative side of the fence where women don’t need permission or inspiration from politicians and celebrities to decide how to wear our hair. I’ll stay over here on the conservative side of the fence where women can acknowledge Michelle looked nice last night and leave it at that. Love, Me
After watching a few videos of Obama speaking about ISIS/ISIL and their unthinkable acts; it finally struck me. Obama is acting like a battered woman. (Or battered man, as the case may be when it comes to domestic violence.) We most often think in terms of battered women so, and in honor of Obama’s mom jeans, that’s the term I selected.
After graduating from law school, prior to my decision to get the hell out of the profession as a full time job, I strongly considered working as an attorney for groups providing services for battered women. One of the organizations put me through several interviews. For the final interview, I was to meet with the person who ran the program. As I entered her office, she greeted me and told me she had heard great things about me from my previous interviews with her staff. After a while, I figured the job was a done deal. Then, she asked me one more question.
Now, I don’t remember the specific words she used so I can’t give an exact quote; however, I can give you a version of the question that is very close to the original. Here’s what she said to me: “Imagine you are working with a women who has been the victim of domestic abuse several times. You have assisted her in obtaining a PFA order and she is now living in a secure shelter with her two kids. Several times, her injuries were so bad, she was in the ICU for several days. Every time she was injured, she returned home to her abuser. Except for the last time. She is now safe at a location where her abuser can not find her. Her children are safe and are comfortable in their temporary home where they play with other children of abuse victims. The organization has helped the woman get a job and she is saving her money to move into an apartment on her own.”
The question isn’t finished, but as she’s talking I’m listening intently and nodding my understanding. I’m waiting patiently for the actual question. Here’s the actual question she finally poses: “The woman calls you, after all of the help you have provided, and tells you she wants to return to her abuser. What do you do?”
My independent, individual-responsibility, make smart decisions, don’t be a fool mind knew just what I’d do. My answer was that I’d ask her why she wanted to return and then try to give her reasons as to why she might want to change her mind. I didn’t get the job. The woman stopped me right there and told me my answer was unacceptable. The correct answer was to give her 100% support for her decision to return. My jaw dropped. I asked for an explanation as to why. Her response was, it was more important to keep the woman’s trust by providing non-judgmental, 100% support for her decision than to try to save her life.
The woman then went on to explain that these women are so damaged, they can’t see their abuser for what they are. They think their abusers love them. They think things will be different this time. They think their abuser’s actions are because of something they (the victim) did wrong. They blame themselves for their abuser’s actions. In other words, they can’t think rationally. They can’t begin to fathom that something might actually be wrong with their abuser. They don’t see how people find fault with what their abusers do.
That’s not to say every victim of domestic abuse thinks that way, but my interviewer said it was seen often enough to be the default assumption on their part. The woman made her point and I respected it. She had more experience than I did; but, I still couldn’t see it her way. I could completely understand how repeated abuse could change a person and how they perceive their world and create their own reality. It was one of the reasons I wanted to help women regain their independence. However, it still didn’t change my mind about how I’d respond. Obviously, it wasn’t the job for me. I couldn’t, in good conscience, encourage a woman to return to that environment and take her children with her.
The more I think about it, the more I think Obama is acting like one of those victims of abuse. He can’t see ISIS for what they are. He thinks ISIS loves him. He thinks ISIS will act differently this time. He thinks ISIS’s actions are because of something the USA did wrong. Obama blames us for how ISIS is acting. He can’t think rationally. He can’t appreciate that the problem is with ISIS. Not with us.
One thing you see with many abuse victims is how they blame themselves and their imperfections for the actions of their abuser. The victim rationalizes things. The victim makes excuses for their abuser. The victim grow to believe their own imperfections are the reason for the abuse. But just as with abuse victims, even if we Americans aren’t perfect, that’s no excuse for ISIS to do the things it does.
If you haven’t heard, Columbus Day is no longer politically correct. Instead of schools using the holiday to teach kids about EXPLORATION, they are using it to teach kids about EXPLOITATION. According to the video my daughter was assigned to watch at home, Columbus was a selfish, greedy, money-driven, privileged, white-skinned killer who only wanted to make a fast buck by abusing his connections to European power and murdering dark-skinned indigenous American peoples. Being of both European and Indigenous American descent, I am not taking sides on this. I can see it from both directions. Personally, I don’t have a problem with Columbus Day.
That said, in order to facilitate the eventual departure from all politically incorrect holidays, I suggest we just get on with it and change everything immediately. Here are my recommendations:
New Year’s Day: This is politically incorrect because not all cultures consider January 1 to be the first of the new year. In fact, the entire 12-month calendar we use is politically incorrect because not all cultures use it. I suggest we just end this holiday entirely and return all peoples to to the use of myriad calendars. There are lots to pick from so let’s not pick any one calendar over any other because that would be offensive to some subset of the human race. Let the Jews use their own calendar. Let the Chinese use their own calendar. Let the Muslims use their own calendar. And in the interest of reparations for past calendar discrimination, I vote we resurrect the use of all obsolete calendars. I’m sure there are people just itching to use an Egyptian, Aztec, or Roman calendar.
And don’t worry if a particular calendar isn’t accurate by modern standards. If I’ve learned anything from my children’s new Common Core-based homework, it’s that things no longer need to be correct. They just need to be “reasonable”. I’m sure all of the 75 or so current, obsolete, and proposed calendars I was able to find through Google have something “reasonable” to offer. If nothing else, I’m sure the people at Microsoft are looking for a challenge. I can’t wait to see how they modify their Outlook product to handle all of these calendars. Scheduling meetings will be half-day adventure. Woo hoo! Viva political correctness.
Martin Luther King, Day: I don’t have a problem with this day because the guy was a Republican and that pisses off liberals when they learn of that little tidbit of information. Wait, I do have a problem with this holiday. While he did do things lots of people appreciate, he was just another American fighting for what he thought was right. We can’t go around giving holidays to all the people who fight for what they think is right. We can’t go around giving holidays to all the people who did great things. We’d run out of days on the calendar and nobody would ever go to work. What about Ben Franklin, Rosa Parks, Thomas Paine, Susan B Anthony, Thomas Edison, General Patton, Elvis Presley, etc. I think you get my point. There are too many people to recognize. Let’s outlaw all holidays designed to honor and celebrate any single American. It’s offensive to the ones who don’t get their own holiday or to the people for whom their favorite person does not get a holiday. I think I’m pretty special. I want my own holiday. See? I just offended someone with that idea.
Groundhog Day: Let’s just end this blatant display of materialism and chicanery. This is nothing but a ploy to bring tourists and media to a small town in western Pennsylvania. Who in their right mind believes the groundhog “sees” a shadow? Besides, the whole thing is oppressive. The “Inner Circle” is a bunch of old white MALE “dignitaries” standing around in top hats exploiting a rodent for their own personal profit. I seriously don’t see how this can be allowed to go on for one more year. It’s despicable. Where is the feminist and environmentalist outrage?
Valentine’s Day: What can I say here? It’s offensive on so many levels. For starters, it celebrates Christianity. This was originally the Feast of Saint Valentine. That’s a deal breaker right there. Christianity is inherently politically incorrect. I could stop right here. But let’s continue. A historical symbol of Valentine’s Day is Cupid, the Roman god of desire, erotic love, attraction and affection. Surely that offends Christians to know a Roman god is a key figure for their feast day. Plus, let’s be honest here, a winged infant is definitely indicative of some form child abuse. Someone better call Child Protective Services. Also, this holiday is offensive to all single people and people not in a romantic relationship. Whether they are single by choice or single because they are annoying or single because they just haven’t met their true love . . . it’s detrimental to their self esteem to be excluded by a holiday. Last, but not least, the pro-capitalism, materialism is offensive. All that money spent on cards, flowers, dinners, and jewelry should be given to the government so they can spend it on important things like giving it to our enemies in foreign countries.
Presidents’ Day: This is an easy one to end. I find the idea of celebrating a holiday that celebrates the likes of Obama to be offensive. I know liberals find the idea of celebrating a holiday that celebrates the likes of Bush to be offensive. Done. Remember all those mentally frail individuals who suffer mental anguish after Presidential elections? Some of whom actually seek medical treatment and/or sue? Let’s just save them the agony and not have them relive those moments.
Mardi Gras: It’s related to Christianity. It’s politically incorrect. Let’s move on.
St. Patrick’s Day: Yet another holiday linked to Christianity. Ergo, politically incorrect by default. Plus, it appears to celebrate a single pale-skinned ,European group of peoples. That’s also politically incorrect and offensive to everyone who is not Irish. Additionally, many individuals who celebrate do so with drinking beer. Too much drink can lead to questionable behavior and someone might be offended by what someone says or does. Because someone might be offended, we might as well cancel this holiday right now. No need to take risks.
April Fool’s Day: I suggest we keep this one. It’s a great day for Obama supporters to celebrate themselves.
Easter: Considered by many to be the most holy of Christian holidays. Totally offensive just because of that. As the Atheists ask, “why do you people insist on celebrating a fairy tale?” Plus, the pagans are still pissed off because Christians stole the Oester name from the Norse peoples. I’m sure Michelle Obama would love to see an end of all the chocolate bunnies, sugary peeps, and jelly beans (if for no reason other than Ronald Reagan liked them). It doesn’t take a village to raise a child these days, it takes an oppressive and intrusive government. I’m sure the artificial grass pisses off the environmentalists, too. I bet it takes forever to degrade.
Earth Day: We need to keep this one because how can saving the earth possibly be offensive to anyone? Oh, yeah, it offends me when they take away my incandescent bulbs and want them replaced with toxic fluorescent bulbs that make my eyes feel wonky. It also offends me when they take my hard earned tax dollars and give them to some fly by night “green” energy company with friends in high places. However, my opinion doesn’t matter because I’m a fiscally conservative, social libertarian. I’m not a progressive or a socialist or a communist so I’m not allowed to have an opinion on environmental issues. In fact, because I am a “climate change denier”; many liberals think I need to be put in jail or at least sent to a reeducation camp. (I’m not kidding.)
Mother’s Day: There are people with crappy mothers. This day makes them feel depressed. This day offends them. Time to outlaw it.
Memorial Day: This day celebrates people who died fighting to further the western ideals of freedom. So, it’s totally offensive to so many people. This day celebrates people who died fighting against the exact type of socialism and communism our current day liberals are fighting so hard to expand in the USA. So, it’s totally offensive to so many people. Definitely needs to be ended. Liberals consider this a celebration of pure oppression and exploitation and hatred for other peoples. I know several liberals who use this day to berate the “US war machine”. I can’t believe liberals still allow this to be considered a holiday.
Father’s Day: See, Mother’s Day, above. This is even more offensive due to the large number of kids growing up without a father. Instead of fixing that problem, let’s just outlaw this holiday because we don’t want so many kids feeling excluded.
Independence Day: Perhaps the most offensive non-Christian holiday on the calendar. A holiday that celebrates exceptionalism, patriotism, and freedom. Liberals would rather this be changed to “Dependence Day” in honor of all the entitlement programs, multi-generation welfare families, and government employee unions. Instead of “God Bless America” the tag line will now be “God Damn America” in honor of Obama’s pastor. American flags are now considered offensive and politically incorrect. Better to change it to a hammer and sickle before someone’s feelings get hurt.
Labor Day: Liberals love this celebration of socialism, communism, and unions. We’ll never get rid of this day. Ever.
Halloween: I know a lot of Christians who have already outlawed this celebration at their houses. They consider it a gateway to the occult. Personally, I love Halloween. Then again, this holiday has links to Christianity. It is the start of Allhallowtide. We better outlaw it, just to be safe. We don’t want to offend anyone. Christianity is totally politically incorrect.
Veteran’s Day: This day conjures up similar complaints as Memorial day. This celebrates our military. Many liberals consider our military to be a male-dominated, war machine that takes money from the mouths of welfare babies. It needs to be outlawed.
Thanksgiving: This makes a lot of liberals mad for the same reasons they don’t like Columbus Day. Liberals consider Thanksgiving to be a celebration of pale-skin fueled genocide. Sit down with a hard core liberal feminist and they’ll tell you John Smith was a child molester when it came to Pocahontas. Don’t forget the mental anguish PETA people experience when all of those turkeys are slaughtered so oppressed women around the country can slave all day while their oppressor husbands watch politically incorrect sports with exploited cheerleaders. Some liberals insist we rename it “National Ethnic Cleansing Day”. Not kidding. Let’s end this before someone gets hurt. As a final note, the whole “Black Friday” pisses off liberals because a) it uses the word “black” in an arguably negative way and b) it celebrates materialism and capitalism.
Christmas: I don’t even need to go there. It’s so patently politically incorrect. It goes without saying. It needs to be outlawed. Immediately. Reparations should probably be paid to to all peoples who do not celebrate this holiday.
So, there you go. Every holiday needs to be outlawed because somewhere there is at least one thin-skinned, mentally fragile individual who will find a reason to find it offensive. Let’s do it by Executive Order. Yeah. That’s the answer.
Would someone please tell Michelle Obama to stop talking about school lunches until her kids eat like the kids at government run schools?
I am so tired of Michelle Obama’s school lunch preaching. All across this country kids and parents are complaining. Federal food standards for government run schools are a horrible disaster. When her kids eat the same lousy foods my kids get served, then I might care to listen to what she has to say. I decided to compare five days of lunches at A) my kids’ government run school where I pay a ton in school taxes and that doesn’t even cover their lunch and B) the swanky, posh private school where the Obama girls go to get educated (when they’re not traipsing with their mom on swanky, posh vacations). On a side note, I can’t have my kids out of school more than five days per school year w/out being threatened with legal action; how do they get away with all those vacations? Never mind. Liberals play by different rules than the rest of us. If nothing more, my kids’ Common Core-based curriculum has reconfirmed to me that everything is relative in their world. But I digress . . . here, for your comparison, are the lunch menus. Talk about inequality!
A FB friend posted the following status:
Universal access to healthcare, education, water and food are essential human rights. Agree or disagree? Those who disagree please tell me which of your children will serve as tribute in the next hunger games?
Here is my response:
A right is something that is inherent in being a human being. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights. Healthcare and education are not human rights because they cannot be obtained w/out demanding them from another. If I have to force someone (wither the provider or the taxpayer) to give me those things/services without paying for them myself they can’t be rights. I can’t force a doctor to fix me nor can I can’t force a person to teach me. The last two are not human rights, however, the right to access to those things are human rights. I have no right to demand someone give me water nor can I demand someone give me food. However, I should have every right to obtain them whether I shop at a store or hunt in the woods. Healthcare, education, water, and food are not human rights in and of themselves. They are goods and services to be exchanged, quid pro quo for something of value. Don’t get me wrong, I support a lot of charities because I think people need help obtaining these goods and services. But, they are not rights. To make them rights would be to allow others to be forced/coerced to provide them at the expense of others or by having the goods or services paid for by people not in receipt of the goods or services. That is tantamount to slavery and is why every institution of communism has eventually failed.
In case you haven’t been listening or paying attention, liberals are proudly boasting their insistence that they have taken over the USA, a conservative will NEVER again be elected to POTUS, and they are now empowered to continue (unabated and uncontested) the “fundamental” transformation of our country. While liberals dream of a third term for their savior, Obama; I can’t help but wonder how the Christmas holiday will change if (God forbid) those “in your face” liberals are correct. Here’s what I envision.
- Santa will be shutdown for myriad reasons. First, he’s a rich, old, white, male. According to most liberal stereotypes, that means he’s probably a Republican. Second, he lives in an area where they think global warming is making an impact. They must control that land so he’ll need to be ousted by eminent domain. Third, if he can’t be ousted due his mere presence in that part of the world, he’ll be ousted for his carbon footprint. Those elf-run factories must have one hell of a carbon footprint. Fourth, speaking of carbon footprints, Santa is known to leave coal for bad kids. Obama wants the coal industry decimated. What better way than to shut down one of the big coal users? Fifth, Santa is notorious for his flabby, “bowl full of jelly” physique. I’m sure Michelle Obama will shut him down as a poor role model for today’s youth. Sixth, I’m pretty certain Santa’s workshops are not regulated by OSHA. Seventh, I like to believe Santa’s workshops are not yet unionized. I’m sure the liberals can make that happen. Resulting in unsustainable Santa-funded pensions and benefits leaving nothing left to make toys for the good little boys and girls. Leading to an eventual shut-down. Eighth, I have proof Santa has, for many years, given toy and real firearms to people as gifts. That will be unacceptable. I could go on and on . . . but you get the point.
- Rudolph will be jailed for using an incandescent bulb.
- Lights on houses will be outlawed because they waste electricity. If not completely outlawed, the government will require them to be attached to a Smart Grid so they can decide when the lights are allowed to be turned on and off.
- Christmas as a government-endorsed holiday will end because the holiday has a basis in the Christian religion. No more day’s off of work. You’ll need to take vacation.
- Gift shopping will become regulated. Only local, fair-trade, green, organic, and/or sustainable items will be available for purchase. Shopping at Wal-Mart will become strictly prohibited (unless, of course, they unionize).
- People who celebrate Christmas will be taxed. Probably to off-set the union contracted triple overtime or something like that for government personnel who have to work that day.
- Fresh cut Christmas trees will be outlawed because of the impact to the ozone. Regardless of how sustainably they are farmed and harvested.
- The trend towards outlawing red and green in public schools will become a national mandate (probably by an executive order Obama passes). I’m not making this one up. It’s already happening. Google it.
- Stockings will no longer be allowed to hang by the chimney. That presents a fire hazard.
- Candy canes will be outlawed because sucking on them can result in a viciously sharp point. That point can be used to harm someone. Schools will hang up “Candy Cane Free Zone” signs to make sure they don’t make it onto school grounds.
- All old family heirloom decorations will be confiscated. They might have lead or other dangerous chemicals if they were produced before the government started to meddle in everything.
- Five-pointed stars will be outlawed because they discriminate against Jewish people who embrace the six-pointed star. Unless, of course, it is a red star which is a communist-embraced symbol.
- All Christmas carols and songs will be rewritten by Obama speech writers. “God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen” will become “Goddess Rest Ye Merry Gentle Folk”, “Good King Wenceslas” will become “Bad Oppressor Republican”, “Frosty the Snowman” will become “Frosty the Snowperson”, “I’m Dreaming of a White Christmas” will become “I’m Dreaming of a Multi-ethnic Holiday”, “We Three Kings” will become “We Three Union Bosses”, “Little Drummer Boy” will become “Vertically Challenged Drummer Youth”, “I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus”, will become “I Saw Daddy Kissing Santa Claus”, you get the point.
- Snowmen will be outlawed for two reasons. First, the term SnowMEN is offensive to feminists. Second, the existence of snowmen brings into question the existence of global warming and we wouldn’t want anyone to question that “settled science”.
- Use of the words peace and peaceful will be restricted so they can only be uttered publicly when describing the thugs (sorry, the wonderful humanitarians) at the UN or the Occupy Wall Street people.
- Hot cocoa will be outlawed because the cocoa beans might come from countries where they oppress their workers.
- Children will no longer be able to leave cookies and milk out for Santa (assuming he hasn’t already been outlawed). Home baked cookies are not subject to government regulation and the milk might be raw milk. Also, these might accidentally be seen and consumed by a robber who would then be able to sue the homeowners for creating an attractive nuisance.
- Gingerbread houses will be outlawed unless they meet all building codes, are union built, and are eligible for Section 8.
- All of the “Elf on the Self” elves must approved by the NSA and join a public employee union because only the government is allowed to spy on you and your family.
- Letters to Santa (assuming he hasn’t already been outlawed) will be prohibited because of the unnecessary burden on the US Postal Service.
There. That’s twenty. I know there are more. Fee free to add your own ideas in the comments.
P.S. Ho ho ho . . . and Merry Christmas a little early.
I AM FURIOUS WITH THE NEW COMMON CORE BASED MATH WORKBOOKS
In my daughter’s homework a few weeks ago, she had to do addition and subtraction of four-digit numbers. Part of her assignment (per the workbook) was to CHECK her work. The workbook said it was OK to use rounding to determine if her answers were REASONABLE. The workbook did not say to check to make sure her answers were CORRECT.
Here’s an example: If you add 1,111 and 7,777 you get 8,8888. According to the workbook, to check your work, you round to the thousands. So, you add 1,000 and 8,000 to get 9,000. Since 8,888 rounds to 9,000 it’s good enough. Any answer from 8,500 to 9,499 would be considered reasonable according to the workbook.
I told my daughter, in our house we check our work the old fashioned way. We make sure the answer is CORRECT. I made her go back and check her work using the real method to make sure her answers were CORRECT. Making sure your answer is REASONABLE is what will get you fired in the real world. I can’t wait until we get bridge engineers doing truss calculations and being happy when the calculations are REASONABLE instead of CORRECT.
I am perfectly fine with kids being taught how to estimate by rounding. I am not OK with my daughter being told rounding is an acceptable way to check your work. REASONABLE IS NOT OK. This “feel good” math is a disaster.
Here’s a photo of the same crap in my son’s math workbook.
P.S. Let me reiterate. I am 100% in favor of teaching kids to round numbers (preferably the common way most of us learned and not they way they taught my daughter to do it for checking her work). I just don’t think rounding to check your work is acceptable. I’m sorry, but “reasonable” is not correct and that doesn’t constitute a check in my world. Rounding is a great way to estimate mow much money you need to take to the grocery store. Rounding is not a great way to make sure your answer is correct.