August 26, 2008
The quite-possibly insulting aspect of all this to males is that women have the assumption that the only way a man won't be willing is if he already has someone better looking and/or younger...and even if he does, he probably is still open for some action on the side.
Show Comments »
Part of the reason women don't work on pick-up lines is because (I think) most women have the assumption going in that men will find them attractive...or at least be willing. The trick for women, then, is how to just signal that one male that she is open to an advance.
Show Comments »
August 25, 2008
Isn't it interesting that (for the most part), women don't ever work on pick-up lines, they work on pick-up (dance) moves?
There's more on this idea, coming soon...
Show Comments »
May 31, 2008
The thought just struck me. We are called a capitalist nation, and Sweden is a socialist nation, and China is stuck somewhere in between, but moving towards becoming a free market nation (while there is a strong sentiment on the Left in the US to move towards becoming a socialist nation).
But reading this article inspired the thought that calling the US a capitalist nation or capitalist economy isn't really correct. At least, it would be more correct to say that we are an Ownership nation. We want to own things, where we stay, what we do. Nearly everyone aspires to ownership. Those who don't aspire to ownership are often shunned or looked down upon by those who do.
That explains some of the social tensions in our nation better than racism, sexism, or other prejudice.
Show Comments »
April 04, 2008
Ummm, here's an article that contains interesting thoughts about poverty causes.
Show Comments »
March 17, 2008
Men like pale women, women like dark men.
The good part of the science is that the researcher substantiated some things about humanity.
But there are several bad science aspects to this.
First, if men prefer light-skinned women, why the tanning craze in the US (and Europe)?
Second, did he really need to substantiate this in the first place? "Tall, dark, and handsome" is a set phrase in English. And we've already shown that men in the US, at least, don't necessarily prefer pale women.
Third, when he gets into "why," he's way beyond science, and way wrong. Science can usually only explain "what happens", but not "why". That's why science is not a good answer to religion. ...and why religion gets into trouble when it tries to explain "what happens" as truth, but that's another story.
Bottom line:
People are attracted to wealth/success most. So whatever the wealthy people are wearing/doing/saying, etc, will be attractive to almost everyone.
"Fat" was attractive for centuries because only the wealthy could get enough food to be fat. When food becomes plentiful, only the rich can afford the chef to make low-fat food taste good, and afford the leisure time to exercise into fitness (and maybe the women are more committed to fitness so they won't get divorced and kicked off the gravy train for a more fit mistress to become the wife). Pale skin is attractive in agricultural societies, because only the rich get to stay inside all day. But in industrial/business-oriented societies, healthy tans are attractive because only the rich can afford the vacations to the tropics in wintertime. But men with dark tans were also attractive even in agrarian societies because it signified that the man would do the back-breaking outdoor labor, allowing the woman to remain pale and unfatigued in doors.
This is not scientific, of course. But if anyone wants to grant me a few million dollars, I'd be more than happy to do the research to substantiate my claims!
Show Comments »
March 06, 2008
Don't come crying to me if you can't find a job you think pays enough for your unskilled effort.
Show Comments »
February 29, 2008
"I never got to go to college..." Said Paris Hilton.
!??!?!!?
I guess she just couldn't scrape up enough cash for a community college class or two, huh?
Show Comments »
Up is Down. Black is white. Speech Codes are Freedom. Pink is the new Black.
Only a black man can portray a half-black, half-white presidential candidate Messiah on SNL.
Maureen Ryan of the Chicago Tribune put the question bluntly: "Call me crazy, but shouldn't 'Saturday Night Live's' fictional Sen. Barack Obama be played by an African-American?" Ryan went on to conclude: "I find 'SNL's' choice inexplicable. Obama's candidacy gives us solid proof of the progress that African-Americans have made in this country. I guess 'SNL' still has further to go on that front."
SNL still has further to go on that front?!?!
I'm flabbergasted.
"Authenticity" is the new "Asshattery".
Show Comments »
February 28, 2008
...and I saw an advertisement for this website.
And I know that many people want to search within their own chosen cultural/demographical affiliation for love and marriage. And I know this is the US, where Muslim legalistic extremism (fully subject only to Sharia) is a rarity...
But I can't help but think that any women, and even some men, who participate are being a little naive about the risks they face.
I'll probably get hate-comments for this post, but it is worth it.
Show Comments »
February 15, 2008
Okay, since I talked about all the reasons men don't marry, I think I should make it clear that I'm not down on marriage. I'm not even down on the negatives of marriage.
To recap the argument: If men really don't marry as much anymore, it's because on paper, marriage has always had a high cost to men with little direct benefit, and liberalism/feminism has raised the cost to men of failed marriages, while reducing the cost to women for said failed marriages. This actually encourages women to allow/cause the marriage to fail and stick the costs to the man.
So with all that, why should a man get married?
Because it's good for him.
In the previous article, I slam "women" pretty hard. I discuss many of the negatives of Woman; by doing so, I'm not attempting to whitewash, ignore, or otherwise downplay all the negatives of Man. In fact, I come not to praise Man, but to bury him. Or something. This post is all about fixing what is wrong with Man. The last post was a little about shocking, a lot about telling women how marriage really looks to men these days...but not necessarily what I think my marriage is, or what marriage has to be.
Here's the thing. All the negatives of being married to a Woman come when she doesn't really love you. And let's be honest, most woman don't love their man. They may think they do. They may depend on their man. But they don't really love him. They are in it for themselves. Women marry in order to have someone who will make their own life easier, who will kill the icky bugs or keep their car running or clean out the gutters and lift heavy things and open jars and take out the garbage. --Yes, there are women who do any or all of these things...but most of those who do are not married. And a married woman won't do any of these things without adding points to her personal ledger of what he owes her.-- So a woman who doesn't really love her man has basically chosen a man who will give her the life she wants and believes she cannot achieve on her own without costs higher than she faces by marrying.
Make sense?
Now, in the rare cases (10%? Higher? Lower?) that the woman really does love the man, then it is great. The sex is frequent and extremely enjoyable for both (and not just due to biological clock alarm hormones). The companionship is warm and enjoyable for both. There is trust, and warmth, and mutual caregiving without any sort of resentment or tally of who is doing more, or who owes whom.
The vast majority of us will never experience that.
So the rest of us men face marrying a women who will be, to a varying extent, a shrew.
She will be demanding. She will fulfill the man's sexual needs on her own timeline and agenda (Every Kiss Begins With Kay!). She will take credit for every success he has, and blame every failure or problem in their life completely on his utter incompetence. She will demand he accept and internalize her standards and values while ignoring his. She will demand he do half of the work she considers hers, overestimate her own contributions and underestimate his, and demand he do 100% of the work she considers his, and require he complete his tasks on her agenda...usually during the big game she disdains. She will pressure him to abandon his friends, and raise the cost to him for pursuing his own interests and hobbies. Although she will never admit it, she expects him to plan for her retirement, not his...she is usually happiest if continues to work right up until the time he dies (both for the insurance/pension benefits are greater for the death of a still-productive employee, and because it keeps him from annoying her by being home all day).
And that is good. Because in meeting these demands, in living through these disproportionate requirements, a man truly becomes a Man.
There are few ways for a man to become a Man these days. The original article linked in my previous post about extended adolescence for males is actually right on. You can, to an extent, become a man in law enforcement or the military...but even in these institutions, liberal-think and politically-correct mentalities make it difficult (if not impossible) for men to grow up.
True maturity, true Man, is:
- Responsibility
- Sacrifice
- Effort
- Patience
- Emotional stability
- Dignity
- Honor
- Ruthlessness when necessary to those outside, Tenderness always to those inside
- Competence in every task
- Mastery in some select vital tasks
Our society doesn't teach these things. Our society teaches boys to become Androgynous Drones...emotionally fragile, metrosexual, touchy, eager to hire tasks out to specialists, argumentative and lazy moral cowards.
Marriage is unfair to males. But in learning to live with injustice, men become Men. We can't really charge the machine gun nest. We can't really fight off the savages to protect our family. We don't face poverty if we make the wrong business or employment choice, or if we stand up for our Honor and Dignity.
But we face an equally difficult road by choosing to become real men for our wives. Whether they appreciate it or not.
(and to tell the truth, I think if you grow into the ultra-competent, ultra-stable, successful Man, there is no woman who could help but return the protection and indulgence with anything but love and admiration)
We claim to be willing to climb the highest oceans and swim the most dangerous seas...and then we aren't willing to help do the housework.
That's wrong.
Marry, and give her twice as much as she demands. Expect to never be thanked. Embrace the suck.
Because when you grow up, it doesn't actually suck.
Show Comments »
February 14, 2008
...here is additional proof the American Dream is still alive and well:
Show Comments »
Mr. Reynolds introduces two different comments to questions of men, women, and marriage. The first post (Kim Du Toit's) is a reaction to his wife's piece on the topic. Whereas the second (Rachel Lucas's) is a reaction to the original Lisa Gottlieb article that Dr. Helen was also vamping on. Except that Dr. Helen went ranging wide afar, also reacting to this article
Clear? Good.
Anyway, here's my thoughts. The connections to the above articles might only be tangential at best, sometimes. My thoughts are also pretty dang cynical. Bear with me.
Short answer to why men are marrying less/later: There's conventional wisdom that says: Blowjobs end when the marriage starts. And while that's glib and an insufficient explanation by itself, if you ruthlessly analyze that according to logic, you can begin to understand.
Men marry because they want to have fun for the rest of their life with someone they enjoy having fun with. Period. Women will do what they need to in order to attract a man, and when they feel they have him solidly locked in, they stop making the effort.
Women complain that men are romantic while dating, etc, and then stop once they are married, but in reality, these women are putting the cart before the horse, or are the pot calling the kettle black. Women think they can live off the desirability they demonstrated during courtship...but that their responsibility towards their man ends with "I do". They then shift their sense of responsibility to "the family". They still do things "for him", but it ends up being what they want, with a thin veneer of excuse. I can guarantee you that very, very few men really care about having a tea cozy, or care that the potholders match the kitchen curtains...but these are actual examples of things women supposedly do to show love after marriage.
So what it comes down to is that society is no longer telling a male he must be married and raise/support a family to be a man. Without that pressure, the "honey trap" of female dishonesty loses its attractiveness...and the internet society of free porn makes the honey trap even less enticing. Which, in turn, causes more women to offer more explicit sexual promises with less commitment from men, which then makes it easier for men to get the milk without buying the cow...
But that was just the explanation for the short answer, by the way.
The long answer is:
Our liberal and feminist-leaning society is ruining marriage through several simultaneous developments.
1) The hypocritical differing state attitudes towards abortion and child support free women from responsibility for their actions, while increasing the responsibility for men. It reduces men to a function without a voice or choice, i.e., providing material support to women who want to have kids without a continuing responsibility to a husband. And don't kid yourself that the state is just making sure chidren get what they need; if that were true, child support would be set based on cost of living, not the stipulated father's income. I say "stipulated" because there are hundreds of cases where the woman made false accusations of fatherhood that the state made stick, i.e., refused to release responsibility even after the man was proven to not be the father.
2) The skewing of law against men in child custody and domestic violence. A woman can (and usually does) lie to gain legal advantages. Women often make false accusations of sexual abuse to get custody of kids. It takes no more than a woman's word (sometimes false) to send a man to jail for violence, but clear evidence of violence by women against men rarely gets punished, and requires far, far higher thresholds of proof to get any legal relief.
3) As opposed to the above assertion that men marry to have fun with their best friend, women marry for one over-arching reason: to lessen the burden of achieving the life they want (or think they deserve). This shows up all over the place:
- in child support and alimony demands and laws
- in complaints that men don't help women keep the house clean to the level the woman demands (as if her standards are automatically correct), while she feels no responsibility to help with what she considers "men's work"
- with the hypocrisy of women complaining about men stopping courtship behavior without recognizing (or caring) that such stoppage is a direct result of women stopping their courtship behavior first
- the establishment of sexual harassment rules that pretty much only benefit women, and are clearly subjective, i.e., it's only harassment if she doesn't like you...and she doesn't even have to tell you first
- the typical hypocrisy that a wife hates infidelity by her husband greater than anything else...while refusing to even try to meet his sexual needs/desires
- the social hypocrisy that it is wrong for a man to divorce his wife for getting old/fat, but perfectly acceptable for a woman to divorce a man for failing at work or business
All this adds up to a simple fact:
Marriage has always been for the benefit of the woman. Society strengthened the institution of marriage so that a woman could be gatekeeper to the fulfillment of man's physical needs, and receive protection. Liberalism and Feminism have weakened the institution of marriage by raising the cost of a failed marriage to the man, while reducing the cost of a failed marriage to the woman. To attract men into this riskier proposition, women offer more of what men want for free.
Bottom line:
Thus, marrying is more dangerous to men than it used to be, and a man getting what he wants/needs without marrying is easier than every before.
Next (tomorrow?) I'll talk about why men should marry anyway...and how.
Show Comments »
January 18, 2008
Blather from "Reason" magazine, to be specific.
The puzzle is what happened next. In the 1990s, the pattern changed again, but the surprise involved men. The wage premium for a college degree continued to rise smartly. Women responded just as economic theory predicts that rational actors would: Their college attendance rates kept climbing because the more they learned, the more they earned.Men, however, ignored what the market was telling them: Their college attendance and completion rates barely rose. Why? "That's the big mystery," says Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution.
Are you serious? Or, rather, are they serious?!?
Big mystery?
Not at all. Affirmative action is absolutely a good part of the answer. Females were encouraged to apply to college. Males, not so much. When applying females are given preference to start with. Aside from actual preference, college admission standards were changed away from SAT scores toward things like essays on life experiences, goals, dreams, and your favorite color for a pony. And then once in college, males are castigated in pretty much every field except Engineering and Music, teaching styles are shifted toward those females prefer, speech codes and sexual harassment rules are biased against males, and the whole college experience is generally hostile to men across the board.
The article says men "ignored the market". Not so. The "market" included a much higher social cost for men to attend college than women. Men have responded by staying away in droves.
Big mystery?!?
Not for anyone with eyes and a brain.
Show Comments »
January 16, 2008
Karol at Alarming News is asking (in reaction to an LA Times article).
My response:
$100k. I could care less what anoyone else makes. I don't need gadgets, houses, cars just because others have 'em. I've $45k in the bank and could buy just about any nice car I wanted, cash, to include BMW 3 series or Audi A4 or Lexus IS350...but I choose to drive a '99 Corolla because it cost me $6k, insurance is low, it doesn't bother me when someone dings the door, and it gets me there just as capably as a car worth 8x its price. So as long as all the other prices/costs are the same, I absolutely want 2x as much money to buy guitars, books, food, vacations, and save for retirement.
Show Comments »
January 14, 2008
I saw a commercial the other day about a guy who comes home after a late night out with his friends, at 5:30 AM. His wife wakes up as he's undressing and asks if he's just getting home. He says, "No, I'm heading into work early to prepare an important presentation!" and she smiles in happiness at his future work prospects. He saunters off, happy that he got away with it.
Is America's character declining that far that our commercials celebrate someone who would lie so easily to avoid a little trouble?
Show Comments »
January 11, 2008
Let me say it again: wah.
Money quote:
But in the end all the cashmere in the world cannot insulate you from the cold truth that such men will always love their money and their jobs more than you.
By "more than you", she means, "loves their money/jobs more than you do", because the article is about women who marry for money alone.
Show Comments »
January 03, 2008
Is being attracted someone for their money any worse than being attracted to them for their looks? (I changed the title slightly to be more in line with the article's main thrust)
The moral of this story? Guys, you aren't as handsome as you think you are. She wants what's in your pants, true enough...but it's the wallet, not the body part.
UPDATE:
Okay, maybe that's too harsh. But if a woman suddenly starts coming on to you without having much time to know who you really are...the above warning applies.
Show Comments »
December 06, 2007
But the the person who put the little girl into that situation should be publically castigated.
And I'm not talking about the gunman.
There are four principles in the story. Woman, daughter, friend, boyfriend. And guess what? Four different last names! Where is the daughter's father? And the boyfriend? 4 felony convictions. Yeah, that's good step-father material. This woman apparently has a history of making bad choices.
I hope her daughter doesn't repeat those mistakes when she grows up. At least the little girl shows courage; that should help.
Show Comments »
October 19, 2007
Glenn Reynolds approvingly quotes Bill Gates for one of Mr. Gates' new projects.
I have to believe that one of the reasons Bill Gates (and Glenn Reynolds) care about this is because of the human toll, as Mr. Gates explains:
This week in Seattle, an extraordinary group of people – scientists, policymakers, and advocates – came together for three days to discuss what can be done to stop malaria. Melinda and I issued a challenge to those attending the meeting. We asked them to begin charting a course to eradicate malaria – not just to control or reduce it, but to work toward a time when no one on earth is infected with malaria, and no mosquitoes carry the disease.Today, malaria kills more than one million people every year, most of them children in Africa. That’s the equivalent of losing every student in the New York City public school system in one year.
1 million per year. That really struck me. It's a big number.
I thought of that in a different way: A few years back, I was thinking of how to better understand that number of people dying every year, and at the time, San Antonion had a population of about 1 million people. So I thought of it as: what would the reaction be if a city the size of San Antonion were destroyed every single year, all the people dead.
It was a different toll I was thinking about, not the number of malaria-caused deaths per year.
Bill Gates could have used the number I was thinking of, instead of the number of kids in the New York School system.
1 million dead a year.
That's the number of abortions in the US every year since Roe V. Wade.
Hmm...I wonder why Bill Gates didn't use that as a way to help people understand how many people die of malaria every year?
Show Comments »
August 30, 2007
All non-voluntary behavior is conditioned to a greater or lesser degree.
Show Comments »
You know what's cool?
Seeing a blog-worthy topic, being too lethargic to post it yourself, then seeing it covered quite nicely somewhere else, so that you can just put a link and consider your point covered.
GMan states my view rather well, as does Erica. I don't agree with Mr. Martinez. I particularly dislike how he assumes that those who don't agree with him must have blinders on. I'd say that's typical of the liberal/left, but in truth it is merely typical of those who don't like to consider the opposite view may have some good points. I think it is more a function of youth and immaturity than anything else. And youth/immaturity certainly has a high correlation with liberal/left populations, but that's another issue right there.
Show Comments »
August 29, 2007
Then there's this one:
A boy asked his dad, "How much does it cost to get married?"
The dad looked perplexed and didn't answer.
The boy said, "Dad?"
The dad said, "I don't know..."
The son said, "Well, how much did it cost to marry Mommy?"
The dad said...
Read More "The Cost of Weddings" »Show Comments »
August 28, 2007
Well, either [Republicans are] more likely to do [the things that create sex scandals], or more likely to get caught in ways that become public. Which is it?
Professor Reynolds is talking about this.
Well, the obvious answer might be that the left-leaning media tends to play up Republican scandals much more, in word count and story-framing devices. The media can still act as gatekeepers on some issues and storied.
But I truly wouldn't be surprised if there is a self-designated "suicide squadron" of ideologues who makes it their mission in life to entice Republican leaders into embarassing positions, then expose and discredit them. Please note: I'm not speaking of the Craig incident, which involved a police officer...just discussing the trend of news reports in general.
If this is true, it wouldn't change the fact that if the Republicans acted in a moral manner, there would be nothing to expose and discredit.
But the glee in which the supposedly homosexual- and sexual freedom-supporting left castigates Republicans engaging in extra-marital sexual relations is disturbing.
I'm not claiming there is such a deliberate activity. I just wouldn't be surprised if there is.
Show Comments »
August 24, 2007
No bathing or washing for 6 weeks!!!
And she was apparently very honest about the results, including being jealous of others getting to take showers, and gross teeth.
But there are some benefits, however. Good reading.
Show Comments »
August 23, 2007
Oh, well, since you apologized, that makes the gaping hole in my chest okay, then.
Show Comments »
August 20, 2007
I'll just bet that many of the people who think teens shouldn't be taught driving crisis skills because they might try to use them are the same who think that sexual education in the 4th grade is a necessity.
And vice versa.
Food for thought, anyway.
Show Comments »
August 10, 2007
Make a woman feel inferior to you, and she'll cling to you for self-esteem.
Show Comments »
August 08, 2007
Check out a "Shotgun Divorce".
Man, I wish I'd thought of that when it was current...
Show Comments »
July 30, 2007
Personally, I think I agree. Being raised rich doesn't require the development of the sorts of habits that allow one to retain wealth.
That's the thesis offered for your reactions.
What do you think?
Show Comments »
July 05, 2007
The number of women living with a husband is not equal to the number of men living with a wife, even though by definition the numbers should be equal. The gap is more than 100,000 in the New York metro area, well outside the statistical margin of error.
Explanation:
Census demographer Martin OConnell explained that the survey results are weighted by age, race and gender. If a 26-year-old black man is married to a 35-year-old white woman, and if 26-year-olds and blacks are underrepresented in the survey sample, then his interview may be weighted more heavily than hers. Theres no final step to make sure the number of husbands and wives is exactly equal, Mr. OConnell told me. If we did that, we would have to reweight the data again, and the data would endlessly spin around. Nonetheless, he says of the American Community Survey numbers, They are the best numbers you will ever get, any place.
That last line is the scariest, isn't it?
It all makes sense, but numbers/polls/statistics are misused more often than they are used correctly, it seems.
Show Comments »
As she says, her question was based on Heinlein's statement:
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
Looking at the statement again, I'm fairly sure Heinlein meant it to be random listing of abilities, celebrating the diverse skills any single individual could attain within one lifetime. I don't think he really meant it to be what every adult should be able to do, because why know how to butcher a hog rather than a deer? Why should every human be able to plan an invasion or design a building? That's just silly.
And for what purpose should a human be able to do these things? Dr. Helen's additions (understand/use a gun, swim a reasonable distance, drive a stickshift, use internet/email, give a good backrub) seem to focus in on both social and literal survival. Heinlein does focus on survival somewhat, but the inclusion of being able to write a sonnet and comfort the dying emphasize that survival of the spirit is as important as survival of the body.
So I'll see Dr. Helen's bet, and raise it with a few of my own.
Here are the things I think every adult should be able to do, in no particular order:
1) Play guitar
Guitars are the most flexible, useful, easy-to-learn instruments there are. You can play all styles of music on a guitar. Being relatively light and sturdy, you can take one with you to the top of a mountain, to a party, on a plane, in your car. You can sing along easily while playing. You can play melodies, harmonize with other instruments, or play chordal accompaniment with anyting or anyone. Being able to play provides you an outlet for musical/emotional expression, even if you choose not to use it.
2) Speak a foreign language
This is vital. We are a global community now. Speaking a foreign language not only helps you understand others, but helps you to understand your own language better, as well.
3) change a diaper
4) butcher a large animal
5) sail a ship
I think learning to sail is a skill that may not be necessary to life, but makes life better. And who knows if you might need to sail a homemade raft after civilization collapses? (which is one of the reasons for many of the things on the list. You don't want life to be over just because your society's supports get knocked down)
6)
7) Be able to use both rifle and handgun with reasonable accuracy and safety
8) Drive a stick shift
9) Swim a reasonable distance
10) Plan and balance a budget
11) Build a wall
Understand this deceptively difficult task, and you understand much about safe construction
12) Set a bone, stop the bleeding, clear the airway
13) Comfort both the dying and the family of the dying
14) Take orders, give orders, cooperate, and act alone
15) Analyze a new problem
Logical thinking and analysis is vital to having a successful life.
16) Perform manual labor
Everyone needs to know how to work.
17) Be familiar with all mainstream technologies
18) Cook several complete (tasty) meals
No one should rely on restaurants for nutrition. What's holding me back is I'm not good with vegetable dishes. I can do a few casseroles, and lots of meat dishes, several potato dishes...but not too much on veggies. Usually I just open a can, or bag of frozen stuff and heat 'em up. I don't really count that. Nor do I really count a "Meal in a box" convenience product.
19) Defend yourself from physical, verbal, and emotional attack
20) Take responsibility for bad decisions
Too many people don't, seemingly to the point of pathological inability.
21) Finish a house (I can do many finishing steps, but not all)
Not necessarily vital, but it makes life much easier if you can accomplish various minor repairs around the house. Being able to finish (flooring, minor wiring, painting, trim, etc) gives you most of those skills. Which can save you lots of money.
22) Use needle and thread
From darning socks, to replacing buttons to repairing small holes in clothes, this is a necessary skill; knitting is a good sub-skill.
23) Backpack for at least 6 miles/day for at least 4 days
You have to enjoy wilderness to really understand and enjoy your place on the planet.
24) Navigate through maps, stars, etc
People get lost, and not only end up dying, but put their loved ones through unnecessary anguish. Being able to navigate is a simple fix that prevents that problem.
25) Find water, food, and shelter in the wilderness
Pt II of #24, pretty much.
26) Make mechanical repairs to your car, including changing a tire, changing spark plugs, changing door handles, etc
27) Build a campfire that can be started with only one match
28) Know how to keep things to yourself
29) Keep all promises (corollary: don't promise what you can't deliver)
30) Forgive
Show Comments »
June 20, 2007
I often see (like in this lead paragraph) a distinction between homosexuals and lesbians.
Why is that? Are lesbians not homosexuals?
Show Comments »
April 23, 2007
Check out this:
I just got an eyewitness account of the Karl Rove-Laurie David-Sheryl Crow encounter at the White House Correspondents Dinner Saturday night, and it suggests that David and Crow were a bit more confrontational than they portrayed themselves in their own account of the incident, published in the Huffington Post. In their story, David and Crow write, "The 'highlight' of the evening had to be when we were introduced to Karl Rove. How excited were we to have our first opportunity ever to talk directly to the Bush Administration about global warming."The eyewitness says the person who introduced David to Rove was the New York Times' Maureen Dowd. I want you to meet Laurie David, Dowd said to Rove. (These are all approximate recollections, so no quotation marks.) Dowd said David would like to say hello.
According to David and Crow, the encounter began with a polite request. "We asked Mr. Rove if he would consider taking a fresh look at the science of global warming," they write. "Much to our dismay, he immediately got combative. And it went downhill from there."
The eyewitness remembers it a bit differently. Immediately after Dowd's introduction, the witness says, David began lecturing Rove about global warming. This administration has done nothing on the issue, she told Rove. We face a crisis. The time to act is now. This administration has done nothing
At that point, Rove broke in to say, Well, actually we have done something. Rove mentioned global climate research, at which point David broke in herself to say, You just don't understand. All these questions have been answered. That's worthless. That's useless.
In their account, David and Crow write, "We reminded the senior White House advisor that the U.S. leads the world in global warming pollution and we are doing the least about it. Anger flaring, Mr. Rove immediately regurgitated the official Administration position on global warming which is that the US spends more on researching the causes than any other country."
The eyewitness says Rove asked David if she had read the IPCC report, referring to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which, while confirming a human role in climate change, substantially undermines some of the most catastrophic charges made in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," which David produced. David said she had read the report. "We felt compelled to remind him that the research is done and the results [the IPCC report] are in," David and Crow write. "Mr. Rove exploded with even more venom. Like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum, Mr. Rove launched into a series of illogical arguments regarding China not doing enough thus neither should we. (Since when do we follow China's lead?)"
In the eyewitness' version, again, David and Crow are a bit more aggressive than their own story suggests. The eyewitness says David told Rove, You need to bring in new people to tell you the truth. Rove mentioned Dr. John Marburger, the White House science advisor. At that point, according to the eyewitness, Crow began poking Rove's chest with her finger, demanding to know what corporations were underwriting Marburger's work. Rove said Marburger had been in academia most of his career.
With Crow jabbing him in the chest, Rove turned to take his seat. Then, the witness says, Crow grabbed his arm. A few more words were exchanged, and it was over. At the Huffington Post, David and Crow described the ending this way: "In his attempt to dismiss us, Mr. Rove turned to head toward his table, but as soon as he did so, Sheryl reached out to touch his arm. Karl swung around and spat, 'Don't touch me.' How hardened and removed from reality must a person be to refuse to be touched by Sheryl Crow? Unfazed, Sheryl abruptly responded, 'You can't speak to us like that, you work for us.' Karl then quipped, 'I don't work for you, I work for the American people.' To which Sheryl promptly reminded him, 'We are the American people.'"
In light of the eyewitness' account, another way of saying it might be, How hardened and removed from reality must a person be to refuse to be jabbed in the chest by Sheryl Crow?
Now, the Corner has a vested interest in disagreeing with Liberals and supporting Republicans and Conservatives. But considering all the people involved, the level of heated rhetoric and action that the Global Warming cause engenders, and the general disrespect and disdain Liberals harbor toward Republican/Conservative leaders, I think the above account is probably more accurate than the one give over at Huffington Post.
And this is why I don't think you can take a woman at her word for accusations of sexual harassment, domestic violence, rape, and division of labor in housework: they feel self-righteous, and spin things in a way that makes their point of view look the best. That doesn't mean that accusations of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and lazy husbands are wrong. But since the women absoutely stands to gain if her accusations are believed, there needs to be clear evidence of the accusations before any legal or societal action is taken.
Too often, such evidence is not present.
[shrug]
Not a popular view, perhaps; I expect to be castigated, if any females or liberal males actually read this post (not a certain thing at all, unfortunately), but it is my view, and I have my reasons. I'd be happy to share those reasons with anyone who asks politely.
Show Comments »
April 13, 2007
I'm actually surprised Kos dislikes 'em.
Taking control of the common person's life, ruining their enjoyment, and making even partial solutions suck worse than the original problem, all for the purpose of helping rich elites continue raking in the cash.
Yep, that's both the RIAA and the Democratic Party.
Via Glenn Reynolds.
Show Comments »
April 03, 2007
Good conversation going on here.
It is a response, in a way, to this post. Also worth reading.
I may share my thoughts later, but it won't be pretty.
Show Comments »
March 21, 2007
Peace activists try to insist we can have a world without war. They rightfully point out the damage that war causes on people, the economy, the environment. They rightfully point out that war is Hell, that no one wants war, that the politicians who make the decisions to go to war are protected from most of the negative effects (barring a complete surrender/loss, of course, in which the politicians are often executed).
But although war often results in killed, maimed, dislocated, and discomfited citizens, war is the last resort to protect citizens from even greater depredations of dictators, despots, tyrants, megalomaniacs, etc.
Sure, it is fun to imagine "No More War" scenarios. But humans are violent. Humans often encounter situations in which they cannot fully control their emotional responses, and such emotional responses create tension and crisis that lead directly to violence.
The best examples of violence that seemingly can't be fully avoided is (you guessed it):
Self-awareness and self-understanding are important, yanno?
Show Comments »
...it is clear to me that women should know going in:
Any elastic hair ornament will, at some point, be a wrist ornament.
Make sure it looks good as both.
Show Comments »
November 22, 2006
It's wiping out islands as fast as the earth can form them!
Check this out:
Images obtained on 12 and 14 November from NASA's Terra satellite, for instance, suggest that the island has shrunk in surface area by about a third since early October. Small volcanic lakes on the island have also disappeared.Home Reef last erupted in 1984, when it created an island of roughly the same dimension which also later vanished beneath the waves. Alain Bernard of the Free University in Brussels says he expects the new island to be gone within a month.
Show Comments »
July 29, 2005
If you aren't familiar with the Who's rock opera Tommy, you might want to get familiar with it now.
Cuz while this video-game whiz isn't deaf or mute, he is blind.
Show Comments »
July 28, 2005
[A]uthorities said she abandoned her 4-year-old son on the Capital Beltway, then struck him with her car when he tried to get back in.
Show Comments »
July 20, 2005
First: Good!*
The rest was DELETED after thinking about it a little bit. Feel free to hold on to your Google cache, if you will. And it is still seared (seared!) into your memories, I'm sure.
Read More "Show Comments »
July 18, 2005
See, nothing I've seen in the previews for Willy Wonka makes me think they improved anything over the original other than maybe (...maybe) the special effects.
Same thing for The Bad News Bears.
In fact, it seems like the main thing they are pushing in Willy Wonka is "Johnny Depp acting like a little kid." And this version of The Bad News Bears seems like Billy Bob Thornton is channeling Nicholas Cage from Leaving Las Vegas.
Does Billy Bob not understand that "drunken woodenness" does not do Walter Mathau's crotchety grumpiness any justice?!?!??
Luckily (and this is where Hollywood doesn't get it), the magic of Netflix, Blockbuster, and/or various cable company's Movies on Demand means that if I want to see The Bad News Bears or Willy Wonka, I am not dependent on spending $5-10 per person to see their sub-par crap in the movie theather.
Heck, I'd even say, if I want to see a decent movie, the catalog of the above-mentioned movie services dwarfs any of the garbage coming out of Hollywood these days.
Changes are a-comin', people. Technology will make it possible for people to make good movies, and make money from it, by bypassing Hollywood.
Show Comments »
July 12, 2005
1) The name. "DC Comics", but the "DC" stands for "Detective Comics", so they are calling themselves "Detective Comics Comics" on their own official website.
2) Superman being so superpowerful that only kryptonite and red suns can hurt him.
3) Superman's lame "no one can recognize me if I put on my glasses" secret identity.
4) Aquaman.
5) Anytime they hit upon a semi-popular hero, they run it into the ground with minor variations: Superman, Superboy (A younger Superman...in the future???), Supergirl, SuperDog???!?; Batman, Batgirl, Robin (an obvious "Batboy"); Hawkman, Hawkgirl; Aquaman, Aqualad.
6) Nearly every superhero has a significant villain that is nothing more than an "opposite but equal", including the amazingly lame "Bizarro" treatment.
7) Why would it matter if Superman can leap over a tall building in a single bound if he can fly?
8) If Lex Luther (or whomever) can make our sun red so as to inconvenience Superman, everyone on earth would be burned to a crisp and life on earth would end. Somehow, that never seems to be an issue with DC
9) The Teen Titans may have had a short stretch of decency when they hired away Marvel writers, but for the most part, this was their best "supergroup", and it was still pretty lame for most of its existence. DC has nothing even half so cool as the Fantastic Four, much less the Avengers, S.H.I.E.L.D., the X-Men, the Defenders...
10) Compare "rich, gadget-men": DC has Batman: weenie who suffers his parents' death, and so broods and beats up on villains; he comes up with gadgets only for himself. As if no one else has had his parents die tragically. Marvel has Tony Stark: an alcoholic with a bad heart, and comes up with Iron Man as a possible weapon for the defense industry. Which is more interesting, more relevant, more inspiring, cooler? If you say "DC's", there's no help for you.
There's more, but there's no reason to go any further. DC never figured out how to consistently incorporate real-life elements like the Thing's problems with his appearance, Spiderman's realization that his moment of selfish detachment indirectly caused his beloved uncle's death, Doc Ock's friendship with Aunt May, Dr. Doom's kindness to children, etc. Which is why DC isn't worth reading. I'll throw you DC fans a bone by admitting that for short stretches, specific comic lines/threads might have been worth following. But by and large, DC is far inferior to Marvel.
Oh, John Byrne was the worst artist, but he worked for both sides at various times. I hated his minimalist style. His facial proportions were often wrong, his lines were too thick and eliminated subtle shading, and strong heroes usually just looked like skinny stick figures. I have no idea how he ever got to be considered top talent.
Show Comments »
» ResurrectionSong links with: I Link Because I Have To...
July 11, 2005
Freedom should have a purpose. It should bring peace and happiness to the largest number of people possible. Meaning, Freedom shouldn't be enjoyed on the backs of the non-Free, however, there are people who will not be happy or at peace regardless of the level of Freedom attained. Furthermore, I do think that the intersection of Freedom and Happiness/Peace is at the center of two poles. Meaning, too little Freedom causes great unhappiness. But too much Freedom often (usually? invariably?) has the same result.
Consider just a few of the court's accomplishments: The justices have weakened the authority of other institutions, public and private, such as schools, businesses and churches; assisted in sapping the vitality of religion through a transparently false interpretation of the establishment clause; denigrated marriage and family; destroyed taboos about vile language in public; protected as free speech the basest pornography, including computer-simulated child pornography; weakened political parties and permitted prior restraints on political speech, violating the core of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech; created a right to abortion virtually on demand, invalidating the laws of all 50 states; whittled down capital punishment, on the path, apparently, to abolishing it entirely; mounted a campaign to normalize homosexuality, culminating soon, it seems obvious, in a right to homosexual marriage; permitted discrimination on the basis of race and sex at the expense of white males; and made the criminal justice system needlessly slow and complex, tipping the balance in favor of criminals.
Show Comments »
July 09, 2005
Freedom.
...for Freedom's sake alone? If so, to what extent?
Or does Freedom have a utility? If so, what should the desired outcome of Freedom be?
I have my thoughts on this, but I'd rather hear some of your thoughts first.
Show Comments »
July 04, 2005
Mickey Kaus puts together a strong Pro-Choice argument for the reversal of Roe v. Wade. He's said it before, I've said it before, other people have said it before. It still strikes me as good sense:
... Would it really be so terrible if Roe goes? Abortion would become a legislative decision again. Pro-choice forces would mainly win, with Democrats who wanted to preserve the option of abortion clobbering Republicans (and maybe retaking legislatures) all across the country. But Americans who oppose abortion would win a few points, and become part of the democratic dialogue--instead of being left to nurture resentment at the judges who exclude them and tell them there's nothing they can do about it. Good for democracy, good for Democrats, good for the rule of law--and OK for "choice." Would someone "engaged with real-world facts" have such a big problem with that outcome? Even if it meant they'd be accused of having a coherent judicial philosophy.
The people who get it will continue to get it. The people who don't get it will continue to not get it. Sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers.
Show Comments »
Happy 4th of July!
Read More "Happy 4th of July!" »Show Comments »
June 27, 2005
My sympathies and prayers go out to their families.
Show Comments »
June 23, 2005
Remember my gut reaction to the report that "religious intolerance" had been discovered at the USAF Academy?
When I read the report, I kept thinking: "Isn't preventing students from proselytizing their faith a violation of Freedom of Religious Expression?"
Even someone on 'Team Heretic' agrees with me.
The report found evidence of the "perception" of religious intolerance, though no real religious intolerance. It found "perceived bias" but no real bias.
The Usual Suspects act like, well, they usually do:
Last week, a group of Democrats in Congress tried to pass a measure condemning the Air Force Academy for allowing religious proselytizing at the school before the report was released.(emphasis mine)
This is just getting ridiculous.
Expect more breathless reports, since this allows liberals to attack two things they hate: the military and Christianity.*
Read More "Religious Intolerance" »Show Comments »
There's a
great deal of
hyperbole right now
afloat around the
blogosphere in
regards to
It's all justified. Well-justified.
The people responsible for this travesty? I'm glad you asked:
John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
Not a conservative, out-of-the-mainstream extremist in the bunch. No sign that freeing women to "control their bodies" has any impact on controlling their homes and lives.
UPDATE: More, and even more.
Show Comments »
June 21, 2005
Long-time readers know I'm interested in China and have traveled there several times. I go to a Chinese church and have contact with people from another culture there every week. I've deployed overseas with the Air Force several times as well.
One thing is very clear to me in every interaction with foreign nationals: everything I say and do will be taken as a reflection of America, white males, Chiristians, and US military (not necessarily in that order). And maybe a few other things as well.
I can't control their assumptions.
I can't cause them to take my words/actions as just a white Christian male from the US, and ignore the military part. Or a Christian servicemember from the US, ignoring the white male part. Not only can I not control it, I usually cannot even know what they are seeing and assuming.
When overseas, or when interacting with a foreign national, it is very clear to me that the future repercussions and impacts of the meeting are impossible to know. An inadvertant mistake could leave an bad impression that makes things worse for all Americans, and American strategic interest.
And so at the back of my mind, always present, I remember that there is something more important than me: my family back home, and the nation they live in, including the economy, their employment, their energy needs, their security...my faith...my unit, which might someday be fighting a battle and need every advantage to win support from the civilian foreign nationals in the area.
It is very clear to me that my loyalty to my nation is greater than to myself. It is very clear to me that my own likes, dislikes, annoyances, needs, etc, aren't all that important, to an extent. And yet, despite all these restrictions, I still have expansive freedom.
I have the freedom to be pleasant. I have the freedom to be friendly. I have the freedom to return insults with smiles. I have the freedom to be flexible, and to try and understand other cultures and their point of view.
That's why I find "The Ugly American" so irritating. That's why I find the military officer who decided she wasn't going to wear a burqa to be so infuriating. That's why I find Dick Durbin to be such an unmitigated jerk.
When you are in another country, you are in someone's home. You may not like the food they eat, or their customs, but you are in their home, and you should learn to fit in. You shouldn't demand others change to meet your assumptions and demands. And even more importantly, you should be friendly, flexible, patient, kind, generous, and slow to anger. Wait until you get home, close the door, and rant about the idiocy of the foreigners if you must, but don't take it out on an actual person. Not only is that an excellent lesson in patience, but you spread good will with every encounter.
When you are in the military, you have signed on to be a warrior for the US' interests. Complaining about something being "demeaning to women" is placing your own culture on such a high level of importance that it must be imposed on others in their own home...that's more than a little selfish. I hate wearing some of the uniforms, particularly dress uniforms. They are uncomfortable, and I'm since I have to "set them up" (Put on all the ribbons in the right location, right order, even and square) so rarely, I'm scared to death of not doing it right and bringing some minor measure of dishonor to my service. But when I have to, I do it. I don't care if I had to wear a bear suit every day to work to please some third-world nation's sense of morality; if the military requires it, I do it. If I can't do it, I am obligated to resign my commission and get out. Or, if it is a legal order, I am required to comply and then take action after the fact. Refusing to wear the burqa is selfishness, pettiness, and placing an agenda above the needs of the military and the US' strategic interests.
And the negative comments about our military by Democrat leaders...[shakes head]. Dick Durbin is getting the attention more recently, but it started long ago. Remember Patty Murray's argument that Osama bin Laden was loved for the good he did in Afghanistan and we should try to be like Osama (and then when given a chance to back that up, she voted against funding to help build schools, roads, and daycares in Afghanistan in a fit of typical Democrat hypocrisy)?
Leaders should lead. As such, they should consider who they are leading, and to where. As has been pointed out, there are ways Sen. Durbin could have criticized the Bush Administration's policies without giving aid and support to our enemies' propaganda system. Howard Dean should be able to find a way to say "Democrats Good" without having to resort to insulting (and wholly inaccurate) stereotypes of Republicans.
Do you ever think of who you represent? Do you ever suppress your natural reaction because of awareness of your status as a representative? Do the groups to which you belong get any of your loyalty, or do you consider your personal right to be a jerk to trump all other considerations?
...here endeth the sermon. Heh.
Show Comments »
» Mark in Mexico links with: 10,000 Angels will swear you were wrong
June 20, 2005
It's good to see Seattle Police are serious about terrorism, even if the city's Senate* and Congressional representation aren't.
Lead paragraph:
Police shot a man who had a large backpack strapped to his chest and was carrying what looked like a grenade in a federal courthouse in downtown Seattle on Monday after he tried to get through security.
UPDATE: Suicide by Police?
Read More "Feel-Good Story of the Day (UPDATED)" »Show Comments »
June 15, 2005
So the information has now been released.
No signs of abuse, massive brain damage, therapy wouldn't have worked, brain deterioration...
Okay.
But did she really have to be dehydrated to death to find these things out?
And why couldn't two more experts (one chosen by Terri's family, and one chosen by a separate court) participate? All these assessments were made by an expert hand-picked by Michael Schiavo and/or his attorneys...isn't there a good chance of conflict of interest in that?
Final point: while the reports say the autopsy "report" was released, all I've seen are the autopsy "conclusions". That can be considered a "report", yes...but will other doctors be allowed to see and investigate the actual photos and samples? Somehow, I doubt it. Somehow, I doubt the MSM will mention that aspect.
UPDATE: Someone smarter than me (which leaves out pretty much no one) says:
Terri Schiavo, a profoundly disabled woman who was not terminally ill and who had an army of family members ready to care for her for the rest of her natural life, succumbed to forced dehydration at the hands of her spouse-in-name-only.
Show Comments »
This article makes me suspect that Taiwan hasn't even become a truly democratic nation even since martial law was lifted and the native Taiwanese were nominally allowed to participate in politics.
A question: if a people don't really have a voice in their governance, but think they do, is it still democracy? Even more importantly, does it matter if it's not?*
Which, I must say, is why I'm not only not overly concerned about a Congressional attempt to amend the US Constitution to ban flag-desecration, I'm also somewhat encouraged by it.
See, I won't support the amendment, and I'll let my state legislature know about it.
But it is time to return some power to the state legislatures. It is time that we don't take the word of a judge as the final word, but act to change things to be more in line with what The People really want...even if that result is that the people don't really want it.
This bill is good for the exercise of Democracy.
UPDATE: Related.
Read More "Illusion (UPDATED)" »Show Comments »
June 14, 2005
Found "Not Guilty" by a court of law does not equate to "Exonerated", necessarily.
Also, "Assumed innocent until proven guilty" is for the "eyes of the law", and maybe employers. I don't have to stick to that. You'll forgive me, I hope, if I decide not to trust any of the high profile celebrity defendents found "not guilty" by Los Angeles courts.
Show Comments »
June 13, 2005
It's become a lodestone.
If you really think abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, if you really think that abortion should remain legal for the truly desperate situations, then you should be preparing for the end of Roe v. Wade.
And by preparation, I mean laying the groundwork for a Constitutional Amendment that will establish the right you want beyond the reach of a few newly-nominated justices.
You see, Roe v. Wade has always been tenuous. Anything established by judicial fiat can be removed by judicial fiat. And so pro-Choice advocates have to make sure the social context never shifts against abortion. They have to make sure a conservative President never gets the opportunity to appoint judges who stick to what's actually written in the Constitution. And in struggling to do so, the pro-Choice advocates have become extreme in trying to make sure the "right" to abortion doesn't get eroded. They can pressure any Democrat candidate for President must toe the line on abortion. They expend political power making sure that procedures that disgust most people (i.e., partial-birth abortion) remain legal. The way the MSM fought the terminology battle (when every major news outlet referred to it as "so-called partial-birth abortion") for the pro-Choice advocates was another nail in the coffin of the public's trust of MSM, as well. And it didn't help any when a NARAL spokesperson said someone shouldn't be prosecuted for a murder because "it would set a bad precedent for abortion".
The linked article demonstrates the eroding support.
Pro-Choice advocates depend on certain language eliciting a certain emotional reaction to keep abortion "rights" off-limits. But over time, the semantic framing of the issue has worn thin. "Safe, legal, and rare" worked until people realized that abortion advocates only cared about the first two. Pro-"choice" worked until people realized the only choice allowed was to have an abortion (anything else would be castigated).
I tried to avoid the semantic battle, and always tried to argue against abortion using pro-abortion terms. I felt that if I could use their emotionally-charged terms and still make a decent argument against abortion, my point had more strength. In every conversation I had, I challenged pro-Choice advocates to imitate me, i.e., use pro-Life terms to argue for abortion "rights". Not a single one dared to take me up on the challenge. And I think more and more people are tired of "framing" and "semantics", and are starting to pay attention to what, exactly, is happening. And the result is that 50% of the nation wants abortion to be legal only in the case of rape, incest, or a life-threatening situation for the mother.
The battles and the invective are going to get worse before they get better.
Show Comments »
I'll get back to this later...
Show Comments »
June 10, 2005
People who work sitting down are paid more than people who work standing up. -- Ray Prince
10 Bonus Points to the first person who reads my mind about why this is so.
Show Comments »
Caption Contest? No prizes...
Show Comments »
June 08, 2005
Just remember, as you read blog posts about this:
...that I addressed/covered this issue more than a month ago.
The problem is not just that he was convicted of murder. The travesty is that he was charged at all.
Show Comments »
May 30, 2005
I'm actually fairly amused by the Skittles commercials. I particularly like that the people they cast for the commercials are pretty much absolute dorks. I'd be a shoo-in if I ever auditioned.
Show Comments »
May 25, 2005
Considering the information that came to light in this article, I would really like to see a study done of suicide successes, attempts, and thoughts in relation to level of sexual experience cross-referenced to age.
Not that Planned Parenthood would allow such a study to see the light of day, if it could help it.
Maybe there's an abstinence message in Romeo and Juliet?
Show Comments »
In some ways, this related to the previous article.
The article addresses the reasons:
San Francisco has the smallest share of small-fry of any major U.S. city. Just 14.5 percent of the city's population is 18 and under.It is no mystery why U.S. cities are losing children. The promise of safer streets, better schools and more space has drawn young families away from cities for as long as America has had suburbs.
But kids are even more scarce in San Francisco than in expensive New York (24 percent) or in retirement havens such as Palm Beach, Fla., (19 percent), according to Census estimates.
San Francisco's large gay population — estimated at 20 percent by the city Public Health Department — is thought to be one factor, though gays and lesbians in the city are increasingly raising families.
But I think they absolutely miss the mark. Simply put, in trying to create a liberal utopia, they have rendered their city extremely un-family friendly. From subsidizing homeless people, to having an Adult atmosphere nearly everywhere at all times, to increasing taxes that effectively transfer the bulk of revenue away from families, the San Francisco leadership has created an environment in which few people would want to raise their children.
Show Comments »
One of the things that bugs me about national health care is that those who use it the least (take the best care of themselves to need less care, as well as not going to the doctor for minor problems) are the ones who pay the most (as it, getting the least value for the amount of money they pay).
There are certainly medical conditions in which it would be difficult, if not impossible, for an individual to afford decent care, and I guess I don't mind so much that we spread the cost around to the entire society for such situations. But I do object to the people who go to emergency rooms with a cold because they didn't call early enough for a same-day appointment during normal hours. I do object to the people who go in for viral infections (which can be recovered from through time and rest only). I do object to the people who show no interest in being involved in their own treatment and conditions, and so waste doctors' time and raise costs for the rest of us.
A yearly check-up is a good idea, especially as you advance in age. But unless you seriously injure yourself, most people really shouldn't need to see a doctor that often. For most minor illnesses, time is the best medicine.
Show Comments »
May 15, 2005
Indeed the song is No Limit, sung by the former Dutch band 2Unlimited.
And,
Here's the site you can see the commercial. The video of "No Limit" can be seen here.
Don't thank me, thank the tireless effort of my reader, Eric. Nice job, dude.
Show Comments »
May 04, 2005
As much as people might like to think so, the idea that secularists/liberals/atheists/whathaveyou have been piling on against Christians is not just my imagination.
Excerpt:
In more than 50 years of direct engagement in and observation of the major news media I have never encountered anything remotely like the fear and loathing lavished on us by opinion mongers in these world-class newspapers in the past 40 days. If I had a $5 bill for every time the word "frightening" and its close lexicographical kin have appeared in the Times and The Post, with an accusatory finger pointed at the Christian right, I could take my stack to the stock market.
Please note, he's just talking about a recent trend of anti-Christian editorializing in news articles. As such, it is part of a larger movement that ostensibly wants religious freedom, but actually wants to restrict Christian expressions of faith.
And I don't really even think much of it is intentional, deliberate, or conscious. I repeat, though, that I think much of the sub-conscious motivation of many of the people involved are getting revenge for several of their champions taking hits or being defeated, in part by the opposition of conservative Christians. It's a shaming campaign, perhaps, in hopes of shaming Christians out of their political views? I'm not sure.
But it's there.
I can even admit that's not going to be obvious to everyone. Some people who do their own thing are going to see the MSM's campaign against Christians and agree with a few points, perhaps dredging up some old grudges, perhaps making some valid points. But just because their motivation or opinion isn't the same does not mean they don't add weight to the whole movement. It's kind of a variation on mob mentality, if you will.
Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the "head's up."
Show Comments »
May 01, 2005
Gas prices are high. Boo-freakin'-hoo.
I understand that high gas prices are a tax on economic activity, because it raises the costs inherent to shipping goods and moving people. I have always tried to get the most fuel-efficient car I could*.
However, Mr. Carter's point that "Money spent on gasoline could otherwise be spent on more productive durable goods, or, better yet, saved for a rainy day," seems rather inane to me.
Before the rise of Starbucks, you could get a decent cup of coffee for $.49 if you looked hard enough, and not that much more if you didn't. Nowadays, well, isn't the average cup of Starbuck's coffee something like $32 per gallon? Isn't that also money that could/should be spent on more productive durable goods or saved for a rainy day? Many people drink 2 cups of starbucks a day, five days a week, which probably comes close to the weekly gas bill of some people (Even at $2.50 a gallon for gas, that would double my gasoline bill...I should end up filling my tank about once every two weeks once I get settled in to my home and work).
Has anyone talked about government intervention to stop the financial hemorrhaging on this issue? I haven't seen any.
Or what about the colassal waste of capital that gets spent on going to the movies? I haven't been in about 2 years, so I'm not sure what the going rate is now...$8 for an adult? Higher? And then you have the price-gouging on popcorn ($7 for a large that costs them literally $.07 to make?!??!!), soft drinks, and candy...isn't this worse than the gasoline/fuel issue where the market actually determines what the price is?
This isn't really a big deal, but making such a big deal about gas prices seems infantile to me. There are things that far more money is wasted on, like, say: the current Social Security Ponzi Scheme.
Read More "Wasted Cash" »Show Comments »
Yes, I do think there is a recently-undertaken campaign against religion in America. Here are some more indications of that campaign.
As I said in the comments on the first linked post:
...no one is going to convince me that after 200 years of having references to God in all sorts of government literature, that saying “Under God” in the pledge is somehow suddenly an assault on religious freedom.
To tell the truth, the time to have worried about a burgeoning theocracy would have been at the height of power and influence of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. That was far closer to imposing a Theocracy on the United States than anything these days. Meaning: not close at all, despite the overheated rhetoric recently.
Please, if we are close to imposing a Theocracy, name me a few of the leaders. Tell me which sect of Christianity is leading the charge. You can't. Because there is no such movement.
So, if we aren't close to a theocracy, why are atheists 'fighting back' so much recently? Why are liberal Democrat leaders making such dark and dire warnings against Christianity and its 'dark' agenda?
Most people point to the loss of the 2004 election and 'values' voting.
I think it may be more basic than that. Rather than continuing to drag it out, I'll say it plainly:
It is retribution/revenge for the failure of the homosexual movement to win same-sex marriage rights across the entire nation. They blame religion for being the motive force behind the rejection, and so are trying to eliminate the free expression of religion nationwide.
I'm tired of it, but to tell the truth, if religious expression were suddenly (and in violation of the Constitution) suppressed to the level anti-theocrats want it, Christianity would actually grow even more. Christianity always does well under persecution, and the faith not only becomes stronger, it returns to its roots.
UPDATE: Because apparently I wasn't clear enough, I would like to go a little deeper.
Greg Nokes didn't seem to like my statement about there being a recent trend of attempting to suppress Christian religious expression. I left a comment or two there.
Later, I saw a post at Keven McGehee's that explains that some anti-Christians really do seem to think there is some movement toward a Theocracy and are actively 'fighting back'. Now, I don't actually agree that an anti-theocratic movement is fighting back, I think it the motive force comes from a smaller group looking for revenge/retribution. Which I explained in this post.
However, what I did not make clear is that I don't consider Greg a part of that. I might consider him piling on at worst; but my impression is he just likes talking about the issue, so I linked his post both as an example of someone who doesn't see the issue the same way as I do (so that you, my dear reader, can check out different points of view), and also to maybe throw him some miniscule amount of traffic out of respect for his opinions and willingness to share them civilly.
So if that wasn't clear to you, Greg, or to any other reader, I apologize, and I hope no hard feelings or misunderstandings will persist.
I want religious freedom for everyone. But I don't want religious freedom for everyone but Christians. Lately, it seems as if a significant subgroup of liberal atheists want to apply affirmative action precepts to religion, and that's kind of what I'm arguing against. You know: where it's okay to have a Jewish, Wiccan, or Pagan religious symbol because they aren't the dominant religion like Christianity is, i.e., insisting the 10 Commandments are removed from courthouses but not the Goddess of Justice...
Show Comments »
» The Roost links with: So I aspire to a Crusade, or Setting the Record Straight
April 29, 2005
This article demonstrates why. The story makes me feel physically ill.
After Erica's doctor's visit a week earlier, Jerry said, she had decided she didn't want to be pregnant anymore. She'd heard that if someone stood on a pregnant woman's stomach, you could abort the babies. For days, she'd asked Jerry to do it. He didn't want to, but ultimately he gave in.Back in the hospital, Erica did two things: She admitted that Jerry had hit her several times, and she confirmed Jerry's story about stepping on her stomach. Under a state law passed in 2003, she had just implicated her boyfriend in two counts of capital murder. Under that same law, she was guilty of nothing, since a mother has the right to end her pregnancy.
Now, that's Jerry's testimony/confession. It may turn out that Erica didn't ask him to do it, that he forced it on her.
But the facts are unassailable: If a woman begs a man to hurt her enough to cause a miscarriage, he faces prison for murder; she wouldn't even be charged.
How is this moral? How is this even remotely close to justice?
What does this imply about doctors?
What follows is harsh. Don't read if you have an emotional attachment to a pro-choice stance.
Read More "Pro-Choice Advocates are Wrong" »Show Comments »
Okay, everyone hates Caillou. That's just about a given.
But Bear in the Big Blue House has been pretty reliably good, in my opinion. Sure, there's a little social-liberalistic ideology indoctrination present, but you get that in everything these days, and Bear had been pretty good in my experience.
Then yesterday morning, Tutter saw a show about a hero, and then started annoying everyone trying to save them.
So instead of playing along with Tutter and encouraging his imagination, everyone made him feel kinda bad about it. When Tutter finally gave up in frustration, saying, "I'll never be a hero," Bear's solution was to say, "You may not be a hero, but you are something no one else can be: Tutter! And that's pretty special."
Argh!
Hasn't the Empty Self-Esteem movement already been totally discredited????
Why didn't the writers have Bear talk about the jobs society needs that you can be a hero, like policeman or military...or if that is too icky for social engineers, paramedics, doctors, or firemen? Or talk about the everyday heroism of teachers and contributers to PBS, at least.
Best would be for Bear (and any parent who finds himself in the situation) to talk about being a hero by being brave enough to stand up to peer pressure, or being brave enough to not fight back against siblings, or having the courage to do something his parents wanted him to do even when he doesn't want to, like eating vegetables or taking a bath!
At the very least, Bear could have said, "You may not be able to save anyone from a dragon, Tutter, but you make me very happy when you clean up your room without me having to tell you, when you say please and thank you to people, when you [engage in behavior the adult wants the child to increase], and that's pretty cool and special.
Self-Esteem should come from a sense of accomplishment, not being. That's not a news-flash, I know...so why don't the writers of Bear in the Big Blue House know that?!??! Morons.
Show Comments »
April 27, 2005
Increase oil refineries, encourage the building of nuclear plants, and more natural gas terminals.
Show Comments »
» Accidental Verbosity links with: This shouldn't be surprising, considering his background, but somehow it is.
April 26, 2005
To tell the truth, I'm a little uncomfortable taking pictures without permission; it is rather rude to take someone's picture without their permission, after all.
I've managed to capture a few snapshots. Mostly distant shots with telephoto. I've seen another half-dozen girls today here in Starbucks...but the place is a little too small to take a picture without everyone noticing.
I did screw my courage to the sticking point to ask one girl if I could take her picture...but I couldn't get her attention and I didn't want to get up and leave my computer to go ask her... My loss is, well, your loss, I guess.
Within the next few weeks I'll go hang out at the University and snap the shutter like crazy. That should have some good results. Until then, I'll continue my surreptitious shutterbugging until I have enough decent ones to put up a gallery...
UPDATE: The quality may be a little low, but I'm rediscovering the usefulness of a camera phone for this sort of mission. And let me emphasize, I'm not doing this for me, I'm doing it for you. In other words, to increase my hit total as much as possible. I'm going to need a cyanide pill for if I'm caught...but if you don't mind, I think I'd like to try out the placebo version?
Show Comments »
Yep, global warming is caused by environmental activism.
Emphasis mine, read the whole thing.
Show Comments »
April 25, 2005
There is a perspective you get from being a parent that it is very hard for a single person to understand. It's the understanding that you have a child whose prime motivation is to learn about life. Everything is new to a child, and perspective and context make a huge difference in how incidents and information impact.
The parent, the adult, can try to give the child the proper context in which to interpret what they see and hear. But a parent cannot put the child in a box and filter everything. And the world is far more obscene, profane, and carnal than it was even just 15 years ago.
All you adults reading this, especially South Park Republicans and Deadwood Democrats, do you realize you can watch your movies with adult situations, sexuality, and foul language without it affecting you because you were more protected when you were a child. And by insisting that no one touch or regulate your entertainment on "pay" TV (which is now the default in most homes, reaching more households than broadcast TV ever did in the 70s), you are eliminating that protection for your kids.
Michelle Malkin points to an excerpt from a book by a former writer for the sex industry who finally realizes this point.
Excerpt of the excerpt:
In today's media climate, whether we want it or not, we are inundated, saturated, beaten over the head with sex. Television, our national public commons, has an ever-mounting percentage of explicit sexual content on cable, shading down to the mere leering double entrendre and snickering innuendo of broadcast sitcoms. It's difficult to find a program that doesn't reference sex. It's egregious, it's out of control, it's too much. Media, advertising art, and entertainment constantly shove images at me that I am just not interested in seeing.The average child in America puts in a full workweek, forty hours, consuming media. That means our kids are getting a snootful of this stuff, all day every day, week in and week out.
The creators of South Park find it hypocritical that we are so concerned about children being exposed to sex and bad language but don't care about kids being exposed to violent themes in movies.
Well, that's a gross oversimplification. First, parents do object to gratuitous violence, like that in, say, Grand Theft Auto. Then people say being exposed to violence doesn't necessarily make kids violent.
In all fairness, I think there is a point there. Context does make a difference. I was a little worried when my son started watching the Power Rangers, because so many parents have expressed concern that it teaches kids to hit. But I watched it a few times with them and grew less concerned. Violence in that show is always used to help, protect, and defend; not to hurt, manipulate, or destroy. And so we actually use the Power Rangers quite a bit as object lessons in having courage and persistence in dealing with difficulties, i.e., "Okay, so you fell down on your bike. Don't you think it hurts when the White Power Ranger gets kicked in the face? But he gets up and tries again, right?" This actually is working quite well, by the way. The Power Rangers aren't lessons in violence, but in courage.
And violence can, and is portrayed in different ways. Saving Private Ryan is violent, yes. So are Jackie Chan movies. So is the movie The Magnificent Seven. But violence is portrayed differently in all three, and really not glorified as violence itself, but violence in relation to something important. Defense, protection, saving.
Sexual themes, however, are nearly universally about one thing: titillation. Sexual themes are, by definition, attempts to arouse and incite desire. There is one simple message in our Sexually-Oriented culture today, and it's not the one I want my children internalizing as a Way to Live.
I am convinced that pursuing sexual satisfaction as an end-goal itself is the antithesis of peace, happiness, and stability in life. I wish the world wasn't working so hard to drown me out when I try to teach my children that philosophy of life.
Show Comments »
April 23, 2005
"One nation, under your belief system!?!??"
Don't you think this anti-religious movement is getting out of hand?
So was this open season on religious belief brought on by libertarians who feel uncomfortable finding themselves under the same big tent as conservative Christians in voting for Bush, or liberals who feel they lost the 2004 election on the basis of religious values?
I'd guess the latter is the main reason; after all, they have the bulk of the mainstream media to spread their viewpoint...but the fiscally-conservative-socially-moderate voting bloc probably contributed significantly, as well.
Show Comments »
» The Roost links with: I pledge allegance to the moral majority...
» Myopic Zeal links with: One Nation, Under God Your Belief System
April 22, 2005
Does our society, or more importantly, do our authorities completely lack common sense?
If you take the public education system's various Zero Tolerance policies, or the Federal governments War on Drugs as examples, I guess you have to say we do.
Yes, "we", because the government and the administration for public schools are hired by us, and we have direct input into the tenure of both.
Maybe an even more important question is: can we restore common sense to our society, government, and empowered authorities?
The reason is this is an important question is that there are at least three major issues in the news right now that I can think of right off the top of my head that could be resolved with an infusion of common sense.
1) Abortion
2) the relation between religion and government
3) Same-Sex Marriage rights
It is these discussions that provide most of the vitriol in the blogosphere and op-ed pages. It is these topics that have deepened the fissures between liberal and conservative, between the religious and the atheist, that threatens to fracture both parties into a hundred squabbling factions.
I know most of us are tired of it, but nothing ever gets resolved.
Stepping back a moment, it seems like the main problem is that these issues are being argued on the basis of singular examples rather than common sense. For instance: "I have an uncle who has been 100% faithful to his boyfriend for 70 years, and is a model of love and chastity, so how can you deny him the right of marriage?" Well, public policy is not and should not be made on the basis of one example. Or: "What if a girl were raped by her father right after they moved to a new town so she didn't have anyone to turn to for help in dealing with the crime and the pregnancy she now faces? So we must have federally-funded abortion-on-demand without parental notification legal through the middle of the 3rd trimester to help this poor girl". Or, "I do not support and will not stand for my taxes going to pay for anything as religious as a Christmas Tree or for a govt official on the payroll saying "Happy Easter" or a privately-funded monument to the 10 Commandments showing anywhere on Courthouse grounds, because that represents an establishment of Religion in the governemnt".
One of those cool moments of clarity that change your life came in my Junior year of college, in American Public Policy class. The point the teacher made is that there is always and inevitably a difference between Policy-as-written and Policy-as-enforced, and that the dichotomy can be deliberately used to shape public behavior to the benefit of everyone involved. The example she used is Texas'/Houston's policy on speeding tickets. Whatever level of govt it was had built a toll road, and people weren't using it enough to pay for itself. So they stopped enforcing the speed limit on the tollroad; people regularly went 80 mph on it. It encouraged people to pay the $3 for the tollroad if they were in a huge hurry, which made the toll road profitable and reduced congestion on the non-toll freeway. But the automatic $3 charge kept enough people off the tollway that going 70 to 80 mph was still relatively safe.
Now, why can't that sort of attitude be adopted toward these issues?
Why can't abortion be absolutely illegal after the 1st trimester, with the understanding that a truly horrible situation will still be handled discreetly, and even if noted, not prosecuted?
Why can't "sodomy" remain illegal, but only used as an add-on charge when involving rape or manipulation of the underaged?
Why can't the use of harder drugs remain illegal, but we stop prosecuting people who are merely 'using', unless they are also engaged in another criminal behavior like robbing a store to get money for their next fix?
Why can't homosexual partners be treated as common-law lifetime relationships for the purposes of inheritance and hospital visitation without altering legal definitions of marriage? Heck, the added advantage there is that they would have to actually act like a married couple to get the rights of common law marriage...which would defuse the conservative argument that "gay marriages" would be used as a license for extreme promiscuity with spousal medical insurance as a safety net.
Maybe these aren't the best examples. There are probably better ones.
My frustration arises from the litigous society we have created, in which common sense can't be applied or else the ACLU will hit you with a discrimination suit and someone gets a $10 million windfall from "punitive" damages designed to re-engineer social attitudes and mores.
Are you happy that we have a society in which Andrea Yates can drown her children and never get a day of prison? In which a woman gets several million dollars for getting a 2nd degree burn from coffee because she slurped too quickly? In which kids get thrown out of school for bringing a 2" long plastic toy rifle to school? In which a 14-year-old can get an abortion without her parents knowing, but not a tattoo? In which a 12-year-old can get free condoms and be encouraged to engage in oral/anal sex to "preserve virginity" (Thanks, Planned Parenthood!) but a 20-year-old can't purchase a beer? In which tipping authorities to illegal immigration is worse than going to the Emergency Room for your child's cold because the parent knows they won't be denied despite not being able to pay?
This was...not...my best post. ...but that's...okay. Because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and: Doggone it! People like me.
Anyway, these are the random thoughts I am having as I sit in a Starbuck's constantly being distracted by nice gams and slender waists wending their way toward a Venti Latte with caramel.
Show Comments »
April 16, 2005
The War on Drugs is ridiculous, counterproductive, useless, and waste all around. To stop the drug trade, you have to reduce demand. But all a dealer needs to do to increase demand is give a little of his product for free, and he gets a whole new customer base addicted. It's like trying to empty the ocean with a sieve.
So you have to greatly reduce supply, so you don't have people with lots of product to deal. But that's forcing a foreign country to change their ways; difficult at best, and nearly impossible when dealing with a jungled mountain area like that in Columbia.
But you can work on the weakest link: the dealers.
Here's what I'd do:
1) Legalize marijuana. It's really not much different than alcohol in terms of addictiveness, and few people commit crimes while stoned. Of course, if it does ever look like it might be legalized, I'm buying lots of stock in Frito-Lay's and other snack makers...
People argue against marijuana from the basis of it being a gateway drug: i.e., it may not be a problem, but it leads to usage of other, worse drugs. But I presume it is a gateway drug precisely because it is illegal. If someone smokes it and doesn't seem to be harmed or dangerous at all, because they are doing something illegal anyway, they might as well try some other stuff...
2) Keep all 'harder' drugs illegal. They are significantly different from alcohol and cigarettes in the addictability, and that means people who are hooked and can't get the product do commit crimes to get it. But you stop enforcing it, because most of these people are victims of the dealers who get them hooked. So you keep 'em illegal to send a message to kids, and so you have something else to smack people with if they do drive under the influence, or rob a store while high, etc.
2a) I could even see having a program where the govt hands out some harder drugs to an addict...but only in a locked cell that amounts to entry into a treatment program...I'll have to muse more on that.
3) Take out the dealers. Make it too expensive/difficult/painful to keep dealing. I'd support mandatory death sentences for all dealers, although I'd probably insist on an extremely high threshold for proving someone was a dealer, like getting caught in the act of selling. Just handing a joint to your younger sibling shouldn't count...maybe specific quantities? Although merely possessing large quantities shouldn't be enough, either.
At the very least, capital punishment for dealing should be an option.
That would allow us to slash the War on Drugs budget down to a 1/10th of what it already is, and yet still be quite a bit more effective.
Anyway, that's my $.02 worth.
Inspired by this post and this one.
Show Comments »
April 15, 2005
Interestingly, it's probably the one tax I want to keep, for exactly the reasons cited.*
Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.
Read More "Democrat Tax Cut Issue" »Show Comments »
April 14, 2005
The mind boggles at the number.
Excerpt:
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Marshals Service Director Ben Reyna are expected to announce the results of the unprecedented coast-to-coast sweep at a news conference Thursday afternoon.Among the 10,340 people captured between April 4 and April 10 are 162 accused or convicted of murder, 638 wanted for armed robbery, 553 wanted for rape or sexual assault, 154 gang members and 106 unregistered sex offenders.
It looks like AG Gonzales was a better choice than anyone could have guessed.
This is amazing, to say the least. Was it really as simple/easy as this? A week-long focused effort, and 10k fugitives are located, surrounded, captured, and taken into custody? Why wasn't this done before? Did someone have an idea for a unique approach?
This is what an AG should come up with.
I'm sure some libertarian will complain this is a mis-use of federal power and a violation of States' Rights. [/snark]
Show Comments »
April 12, 2005
Ace also won't let the Terri Schiavo issue drop.
Good on ya, Ace!
Show Comments »
Yeah, the issue has been pounded. So what?
Over the weekend I talked with friends about the issue. I had a certain impression of issues different from their impressions because they seemed to pretty much depend on mainline news media. I had a difficult time giving any verbal evidence they would accept as credible as CNN. I could point out that the brain scans were 10 years old; I could point out that other credible neurologists gave a different prognosis from the doctor who saw the case. But nothing I said made a dent because I didn't have the links in front of me, and "CNN Said".
So what follows is just the information I found in about 30 minutes of research. If I get in such a discussion again, I'll have more ammunition. Now so will you, if you didn't already.
If anyone knows of any other factual or authoritative collections of material supporting the idea of reasonable doubt toward the PVS prognosis, please leave the link in the comments.
UPDATE: But none of the following points are proof that Terri Schiavo was murdered. All I ever wanted was more time for a thorough review based on current evidence, not a single CT scan more than 10 years old and a prognosis from a single doctor that spent less than an hour with Terri. Don't we usually get 2nd opinions on weighty medical issues?
Read More "Terri Schiavo Wrap-Up (UPDATED)" »Show Comments »
April 11, 2005
After musing over this, I guess I have to admit that "Culture of Death" is as much of an emotionally-charged propaganda term as a rhetorical shorthand.
I mean, the opposite of "Culture of Death" is "Culture of Life", right? That might be a little unfair.
...except that I can't think of any other way to put it. What I'm objecting to is the thinking exemplified by a "Death is a viable solution" attitude. What I'm supporting is a "Where there is life, there is hope" attitude. My exception is I have no problem with "Do not resuscitate/no heroic measures to sustain life"...because in the case of DNR, the person actually is dead, no? And "heroic measures" are both qualitatively and quantitatively different than just a feeding tube.
So...is there a better way to put it? To discuss these disparate viewpoints without using such emotionally-charged terms?
Show Comments »
» Accidental Verbosity links with: The Little Tiny Linkfest: Take a Deep Breath Edition
Over the weekend, I was taken to task by my friends for using the term "Culture of Death" in relation to Europe's current society.
I had difficulty defining the term, so the criticism was probably justified. [grin]
Now, Drudge attributes this to "liberals". One thing I've learned through blogging is that you can't really do that...there are too many liberals with too many different views to say things like that. This was one guy doing something he thought was clever, not a leading liberal voice or liberal group.
But here's my point: the "Culture of Death" is the shorthand term for the judgment that "death" is not an absolute, i.e., some deaths can be less bad, and so can be considered roughly equivalent to extreme inconvenience.
For instance, no matter what your opinion of abortion, it cannot be denied that the fetus is a unique genetic sequence (and thus not merely a part of the mother's body), and if left alone, it will grow into a person. The question is whether it is a person or not. The question is when life actually begins, so you can determine whether an abortion ends it or not. But the fetus unquestionably possesses a life force.
The "Culture of Death" sees that life force as incomplete, as-yet-unformed, and so the inconvenience of the pregnancy on the woman is greater than ethical considerations of stopping that life force.
In the same way, the "Culture of Death" looks at the quality of life of disabled individuals and weighs it against the inconvenience of caring for that individual, then makes a judgment as to the advisability of stopping that life force. Other factors include the awareness of the individual, the ability to communicate, the prognosis of recovery, the cost of sustaining life.
I'm not absolutely disdainful of these considerations. I just don't adopt them myself, for the most part. I could probably be criticized because if someone is terminally ill and in extreme pain, I think it is justifiable to give them a risky dose of painkiller to ease their suffering, even if it might kill them (although the decision should rest with the individual, not the family or the doctor...I would prefer lucid agony to pain-free unconsciousness). I could imagine at least one scenario in which I would be willing to kill a friend to end hopeless suffering: if they were being burned alive and there was no hope of extinguishing the flame or rescuing them, I would probably put a bullet in their head for them.
But I am concerned at least, and disdainful at worst, of the attitude/thinking that great inconvenience can ever justify stopping a life force. I am concerned/disdainful because these judgments are made by people in good health, or people still young, or people who have never had children...in short, people who can only project what they might feel in a hypothetical situation, and then saying that since they wouldn't want to be in that situation, it is better to just end the life of the subject.
We are seeing more and more discussions of the advisability of "Culture of Death" judgments. It is chilling to me that ABC News can even ask if it is okay. I find it orrific that doctors are deeply involved in pushing for more euthanasia and assisted suicide protocols/laws. Isn't their primary oath: "First, do no harm"...? How can you justify euthanasia and assisting someone in killing themselves to not be harm?
With the general acclaim for the movie "Million Dollar Baby" among Hollywood elites, with Oregon's Assisted Suicide law (other states may have one, too; I'm just aware of Oregon's), with the arguments and intransigence of the Florida State Supreme Court regarding Terry Schiavo, it is clear that the Culture of Death is strengthening a foothold here in the United States, and it is riding the coattails of abortion rights.
Maybe there is justification for the Culture of Death. I may end up changing my mind as I age and deal with infirmity and the inability to care for myself. But I don't anticipate changing my basic attitudes:
Where there is life, there is hope.
You can grow accustomed to anything.
Stubborn Endurance is rewarded with Strength and Character Growth.
Life is to be savored, at all levels of quality.
There is always something to be learned, or shared, or given.
I really do disdain the thinking that says "death is a solution to pain/inconvenience". I think there is a strong element of that in the advocacy of assisted suicide, euthanasia, and abortion.
Show Comments »
April 04, 2005
Isn't this what Planned Parenthood specifically says is one good way to prevent pregnancy?
Gotta give a good shout-out to all the deceptively-named "Abstinence Plus" program advocates, too.
Yay, liberals! You have had some success in creating the society you want. I hope you like it.
Show Comments »
March 26, 2005
Don't get me wrong. I'm not happy about this. I would prefer to purchase a good car at a good price from an American car maker.
...but to be frank, I can't. Not for what I want, not with the money I need to be careful with in order to continue to take care of my family.
After musing over this situation for the last several months, including some near-arguments with my-friend-with-connections-to-the-US-automotive-industry, Jo, here's where I think the Big3 failed:
They never realized when the terms of the "internal dialogue" war changed.
Remember the term "planned obsolescence"? From what I understand, it was never a proven thing in the car industry, but the idea was that car-makers would use materials good enough to last until the car was paid off (80k to 100k miles), but not beyond that. Whether or not that was an urban legend, it does seem that American cars are falling apart by the time they reach 100k miles, that often fuels a desire for a new car.
Now, that was fine when it was only American cars on the market. But when there are more choices, and someone can buy a car for the same price that won't be falling apart at 80k miles...don't you think more people would buy it? I often see Audis and VWs and Hondas and Toyotas that look brand new even at 3-4 years old. Can you say that about any domestic product?
Part of that is using good materials and top-notch paint jobs (that still look new-shiny after 3 years). Part of it is choosing styles/designs that might look somewhat "blah" at first, but the very aspect that makes them not stand out when new makes it harder to tell when the current "style" has passed by.
Anyway, back to the internal dialogue issue:
When I bought my C-RV, I really enjoyed the test drive. I liked the visibility, the seat felt comfortable, and it had plenty of power and room. But I was in Hawaii...what is adequate for that location doesn't work in Spokane, where you have to cross a mountain range to get anywher else, just about.
While C-RVs are quite popular, retaining excellent resale value, I wouldn't buy another one. Why not? Because my internal dialogue is something like, "Sheesh. For the price I paid for it, I could have bought a nicely-equipped Accord. Instead, I paid 'Accord' prices for 'Civic' amenities..." And, "Wow, that road noise is bad. I can't hear the subtleties of that song without turning it up loud enough to inhibit conversation! It would be even worse if I tried to listen to classical music, where the fortes are too loud if you set it for the pianos, or if you set it for the proper level on the fortes, the pianos are inaudible!" Or, "Man! That engine sounds like it is going to explode going up to the pass!"
But with my new Suzuki Verona S, the internal dialogue includes things like, "Mm-mm! I still like how the car looks. The grill/hood look tough, the line of the sill looks rakish. I think it compares pretty well to a Toyota Camry!", and, "Hear that door close? Even if you close it lightly, you still get that 'Japanese thunk' of a solid, tight doorframe!", or, "Boy! It sure took that corner nice! I feel glued to the road!", or, "This is a really nice interior. Comfortable. I can hear the music clearly on just "3", and can still talk to the kids!" And under all this love is the thought, "I would have paid $4-6k more for an Accord or Camry! Sure, it would have been even nicer, with better gas mileage...but not $5k nicer! And a US car wouldn't be this nice for anything less than $10k more!"
Now, Suzuki could still lose me. I'm irritated with the low fuel economy. Sure, it's smooth...but they could have had the same smoothness if they'd used a Continuously-Variable Transmission, which would have given it even better mileage than the average sedan. But Toyota and Honda are on the forefront of car technology for a reason. Suzuki is about 5 years behind on engine technology, I think. 20/28 would have been industry standard then. But, over the life of my ownership of the car, I might spend an extra $1000 on gas over an Accord, so it still seems worthy to me. However, the next time I buy a car, I'll probably be able to purchase an Accord or Camry easily, if not a BMW or Audi, so Suzuki must get a better engine. And if the car starts having lots of little problems with it while I still owe money, I'm not going to be so willing to give them another third/half-year's salary.
That's where the Big3 lose it. They don't pay attention to the minor details of designing the cabin experience to make someone sigh with pleasure every time they sit down. They don't always make the doors close solidly and firmly. They don't make sure the car holds together for a good long time. Sure, making a car last might mean someone waits another year to buy a car...but the way they do things now, the person probably buys a foreign car when their Big3 car starts to have too many annoyance problems, so what has the Big3 gained? Nothing.
I have a friend who plopped down a great deal of cash for a very nice Big3 performance car. It had a dozen minor things wrong with it before it reached 40,000 miles. He traded it in for another Big3 car, thinking that lightning couldn't strike twice...but when he ran into financial difficulties and tried to sell it back to a dealership, they pointed out exactly how shoddy the workmanship was. Not that he didn't already know it from driving it himself, but that highlights the problems of Big3, UAW-made cars: lack of quality, lack of concern over shoddy work and cheap parts.
You know, I used to sneer at the appearance of the early-90s Corolla and Accord. I did always like the early-90s Nissan Stanza, even though it was nearly the same...some minor difference of angles made me like its appearance, but what made me fall in love with it was driving one as a rental when our car was totalled. I never expected you could have the combination of power, quietness, and fuel economy. When it came time to buy to replace the totalled vehicle, we got a nearly-new Grand Am, and we were fairly pleased with it: good power and decent fuel economy. But its coolant system gave us no end of trouble, and so the Grand Am wasn't even on the list when I went looking for used cars a few years later...
We ended up buying a '95 Honda. I thought it was perhaps too small, and really didn't think much of its looks...it was just reliable transportation.
But after driving it for 3 years, I got to the point where I would think, "Huh. Nice looking car..." as I walked toward it in the parking lot. And after driving my '91 Toyota Corolla for a few years, I started feeling the same way about it. So now I think, "Hm, nice car" when I see one in good condition drive by. The early-90s Corolla/Camry are the epitome of bland...but they still look decent, and have plenty of room for normal-sized drivers and passengers. From 110k to 146k miles, it gave me zero mechanical difficulties. It had some cosmetic problems, like a sagging headliner and other functional irritations, like the outdoor handles breaking...but I fixed every one of them for less than $80 total from "Pick'N'Pull" lots. And even being 13 years old with nearly 150k miles, I replaced it for appearance reasons, not because it was used up. It probably has another 100k miles left on it, at least. I actually considered putting $2-3k into its appearance, instead. I finally decided it wasn't worth the risk, because I didn't know its history, and couldn't vouch for it having decent treatment throughout its life, only my portion of it.
...but I can't imagine even considering that for an American car, other than a top-of-the-line Caddy or Lincoln, or perhaps a classic car of some stripe. THe internal dialogue that goes along with a US car is something like, "What's that rattle? Should I bring it in to have it looked at? Shoot, they'll charge me $100 just to look at it and tell me it's nothing. But if I don't, the car will break down and I'll have to take the bus to work for a month. And I'll probably have to take the car in again a month later for the same thing. Why did that light come on? Do I smell burning oil...?"
I can't tell you how many Big3 cars I've been in where the owner tells me the "Check Engine" light comes on for no reason, and the dealer says to not worry about it, that it would cost more to fix than is worth it. I can't remember the last time I saw that on an import car, though.
And so all the Big3 have anymore is nostalgia. They only get hit cars when they strike some chord of memories of the past in styling...never, it seems, in quality or performance*. Apparently, they punted on those issues long ago.
A rebuttal, of sorts, from Bob Lutz
Read More "GM Decides to Become a Niche Company" »Show Comments »
March 24, 2005
Read about inverted priorities.
Show Comments »
The Red Lake School Shooter (or whatever name they end up deciding on) was on Prozac.
The Columbine High School killers were also on anti-depressants for several years.
At the time, I remember an article stating that anti-depressants only work on kids for so long, and then the depression returns stronger than before, usually resulting in suicide.
It seems that using anti-depressants is a brute-force method of treating the symptoms only. Without dealing with the actual cause, the body's electro-chemical system finds away around the pharmaceuticals and gets back to the way it wants to do business.
Just another reason we shouldn't so easily drug our children. The long-term use of pharmeceuticals in a child's developing hormonic and neurotransmitter system just seems to be asking for trouble.
Show Comments »
March 23, 2005
I think the Republican-led Congress was correct in trying to save her life. I think the Florida State Legislature and Jeb Bush were right to try. I think the Courts at all levels failed this woman and our society.
I think the cause was correct, but I think all plausible channels have been exhausted. At this point, we must remember that the innocent die at the hands of the selfish and unscrupulous every day, and having the courage to try to stop it is the most important thing.
I think Terri's death will be announced soon. Many in this nation will grieve; others will crow in victory, and reveal their nature by considering a death to be a victory.
It isn't the death itself that matters. Death comes to us all, and any could be struck down any minute. It is what you do with your life that matters, and what you did to try to preserve it and prevent suffering. What I think is the hidden message of Jesus is that the glass of water received is only a glass of water, but the glass of water given in generosity to the needy is the Spirit of Salvation.
Once this is all over, the nation will go on. Neither the the Sanctity of Life or the Culture of Death will gain or lose much ground on this issue, and our judicial and legislative branches will function just as before. Nothing was broken, and extremely little was even bent; and even that nearly imperceptibly, despite all the wailing about the principles each and the other side should hold (as described by a sneering opponent).
It's all written in the Big Book, and there will be an Accounting.
Read More "Bottom Line(s) on Terri Schiavo (UPDATED)" »Show Comments »
I'm kind of embarrassed about that whole giving to the tsunami victims thing. If I had known how painless death by dehydration and starvation was, I could have used the dough to get my car detailed instead. It's definitely the best way to die. Except for maybe freezing to death- that might be better. In any case, I don't know what I was thinking keeping Indonesian kids from peacefully going off to heaven.
Show Comments »
Sometimes, slippery slope arguments are accurate predictions.
Show Comments »
For about a decade, there was this idea that US workers were too lazy or selfish to be able to make quality cars. That was the basis of the movie "Gung Ho": the idea that there was something essentially different between Americans and Japanese, and we couldn't do it their way. But the quality of cars being produced by Japanese makers in the US pretty much eradicates that prejudice. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the quality of American-made "import" cars was even higher than that of those made in Japan.
But if the factory worker isn't the key element, it seems clear that there is something special about the "Japanese Way". The book I've cited a few times, The End of Detroit* explains it in detail (I won't do that here), but also points out that the United Auto Workers union has been unable to unionize a single foreign-owned factory. The Japanese and German companies are able to provide their workers with a good wage, good benefits and good working conditions without the presence of a union; since unions greatly increase the operating costs of a corporation without increasing value, it seems an easy conclusion to reach that it is the UAW that is ruining the Big3 automotive industry.
Read More "Work Ethic" »Show Comments »
March 22, 2005
Apparently, the G6 (upon which GM pinned so much hope) is this year's "Don't Gotta Have It..." car.
Detroit Free Press auto critic Mark Phelan saw problems with the G6 coming. He gave the car two out of four stars in a review last year, noting: "They are attractive, comfortable and competent cars, but a high price, iffy interiors and oddly tuned steering leave them well short of sporty competitors."
Yeah, that sounds about right for just about everything put out by the Big3 these days: Attractive, comfortabel and competent, but iffy interiors and a relatively high price compared to the quality and value of a reliable "import" model (most of which are made in the US these days in non-union factories).
American consumers realize they deserve better than what Detroit is offering. There are a dozen car lines out there that you can spend under $20,000 and know you will get 150,000-200,000 miles out of...but not one of them is a Big3 vehicle. You may "think" or "have a good chance" of getting 150,000 miles, but it will probably be falling apart by 100,000 miles, and you have a 1-in-10 (or worse!) chance of having it in the shop half a dozen times in the first three years for non-scheduled maintenance problems. American consumers are becoming less willing to assume that risk for the benefit of the Big3.
Show Comments »
Here's the list. Notice anything unusual? Not a single American car on it. The closest anything comes is the Volvo XC-90...
Not looking good, Big3...
Show Comments »
March 21, 2005
Three children missing as explosion destroys Colorado snowmobile lodge.
This article says it was most likely a propane explosion...even though the expert making that assessment doesn't know if the lodge had propane or not.
Considering all the circumstances, I would like to know if the local ELF branch is being considered as suspects until foul play is absolutely ruled out...as I hope it is soon...
Show Comments »
An email to Mickey Kaus makes the point:
After the election, several Dems talked about extending some kind of olive branch to the religious right ...[snip] ... Isn't this a great opportunity for the Dems to make a symbolic gesture to pro-lifers that wouldn't hurt anybody except Terri Schiavo's creepy husband? But instead, Dems are once again telling the right -- in a swing state, no less -- to shut up and obey the courts ....
"Shut up and obey the courts". It just makes my skin crawl.
Show Comments »
Once upon a time (I can't be bothered to look up an entry on Wikipedia...honestly, people! Do I have to do everything for you?!? Oh, okay, if you insist...), the federal courts made a decision about the Cherokee Indians situation in the state of Georgia. I still think they made the right decision.
However, President Jackson did not. According to Wikipedia, he didn't say, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" However, he absolutely refused to do his duty as outlined by the US Constitution: he refused to enforce the law as determined by the Supreme Court.
Even if Congress is overstepping its bounds in the Terri Schiavo case, it is by far less margins than the Indian Removal decision by President Jackson. The United States managed to limp along for a number of years after that, eh? So perhaps our system of govt is actually quite flexible, able to deal with minor mistakes and failures to live up to the ideal.
If it is wrong to preserve Terry Schiavo's life long enough to try to determine what her prognosis actually is (in the absence of Mr. Schiavo's obstructionist actions), then enough people will act to punish those involved. If it is wrong, and the govt attempts to take advantage of this self-created loophole, the people will notice and put a stop to it.
In fact, one could easily look at this development and realize that perhaps this is a People-supported move to curtail the over-extension of power by the Judicial Branch, as supported and abetted by Democrat Senators. The only reason it has gone this long is that, well, that's a different post, eh?
Show Comments »
March 20, 2005
I've been reading The End of Detroit by Micheline Maynard over the last few days, so I'm really not surprised to see this bad news.
The Big3 don't really know how to pay attention to customer desires. They are still chasing after the "Gotta Have It! Car" Will-O'-the-Wisp, thinking that will save them.
That method did save Nissan with the Xterra, but Nissan followed up on it with a pretty hot Maxima 2001-2, and then an excellent Altima after that. They put good quality cars out with excellent engines, and they refuse to allow any shoddiness that might cause even one customer to be disappointed. The Big3 don't really think that way, it seems. They think "good enough" is "good enough", and it isn't.
It was good enough to have a nice looking car when drivers weren't that sophisticated. It was good enough to have impressive straight-line power when the roads were used little enough to allow drag racing, and when gas prices weren't so inhibitive.
But the Big3 haven't really noticed that it is possible to fall in love with a car for other reasons, and then learn to love its looks. That happened with me with my old Volvo 240 DL, and it happened again with my '95 Honda Civic 4-door w/ stick-shift.
Of the Big3, Ford has the Freestyle, the F-150, the Focus, and perhaps the Five Hundred to catch people's attention. The Focus has decent handling and gets decent mileage for a decent price...it very nearly competes with some Japanese cars....except on the quality/reliability part. Chrysler has the 300C, the Crossfire, and the PT Cruiser to excite people and draw them in. But GM? The Malibu Maxx seems to have fallen flat, much less the original Malibu. People on the inside swear it has European handling, good power, decent fuel economy...but there isn't much buzz among the non-GM employees. The Silverado sells well, but they pretty much seem to be a step behind Ford in almost every category. The Cobalt should replace the Cavalier whose name they ruined...but it doesn't seem to be garnering much excitement at large.
GM is just the best example of the problems the Big3 all face: an inability to understand what people want, an inability to make a completely reliable car line, an apparent inability to look beyond immediate profits...
I think the internet has hurt the Big3, too, because they can no longer depend on someone walking on the lot and being able to convince him to buy that day. Rather, consumers these days research, try things out, and aren't so vulnerable to the hard sell these days. And the Big3 just don't make a good enough product any more.
Too bad.
Show Comments »
March 17, 2005
One school decided to invite some pro-war speakers, then ambushed them.
Students were playing the parts. That's the part that bothers me the most. Did they come up with the idea all on their own? Did no adult see any necessity of correcting their obvious misapprehensions about the reality in Iraq?
It is from such places that Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty "Idiot in Tennis Shoes" Murray* garner most of their votes. Little wonder.
Hat tip to Ms. Malkin.
UPDATE: Gotta find this bumper sticker mentioned in the article:
"Proud American, Embarrassed Washingtonian"
Show Comments »
Doctors authorize abortion of 3rd-Trimester baby* because of a condition easily corrected by surgery. And the courts rule them not-guilty of murder.
A sarcastic "Woot!" goes out to the British Court System for their help in the march toward universal liberal values**. And this is the sort of legal progress Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, et al, prefer we use as a guide to interpreting our laws instead of using the good ol' US Constitution.
*(yeah, it's clearly human, clearly could survive outside the womb)
**i.e., "Convenience for the one who can speak for themselves trumps life for the one who can't in all circumstances." That may not be what is said, but the actions over time clearly establish that principle as an essential aspect of the liberal ideology taken as a whole. Another sarcastic "Woot!" for liberal values.
Show Comments »
March 15, 2005
The most interesting aspect of this article is in the very first paragraph:
For eight years, Congress has attempted to enact comprehensive bankruptcy-reform legislation, but has been frustrated by extraneous issues and procedural difficulties. Last week, by a vote of 74-25, the United States Senate passed the legislation. It will now move to the House, where swift approval is expected (prior versions routinely garnered over 300 votes), and then to President George W. Bush, who has indicated that he will sign it.
What I find interesting is that the House of Representatives routinely gets strong, bi-partisan majorities to pass the bill, but it keeps getting hung up in the Senate. For eight years.
The purpose of the House of Representatives is to provide a form of representation that, in theory, is more responsive to the people. They have to be re-elected every two years, and the Representatives don't have near the stability and tenure of Senators. I can see how that might make them a less tempting target for lobbyists...after all, the guy you buy off might not be in Congress in less than two years; a Senator is a much better buy. Then again, I could see that the potentially brief career of a Representative might make them more susceptible to the wiles of lobbyists, as they attempt to cash in as much as possible before their tenure is possibly cut short at the next election. Thoughts?
But the point is that we've missed chances to improve a pretty lousy bankruptcy system for eight years because the Senate could not come up with Bill that a majority could agree on...before now.
For that reason alone I am leaning toward supporting it, since it would be short-sighted, if not downright stupid, to squander the best chance we have to make a substantial improvement to the bankruptcy system just because it doesn't address all the problems. If it can solve 2-3 of the 5 biggest problems, that's worth it to me. Let it run for a few years, and then pass another Bill into Law to tweak it and shore up a few other weaknesses, and we could have a vastly improved system 8 years from now, instead of continuing to limp along for an unknown number of years waiting for a better Bill. Apparently, Sen. Schumer is "an enemy of the good" just as much as "perfection" is!
In any case, Mr. Zywicki says:
The legislation addresses two problem areas of modern bankruptcy law: the consumer-bankruptcy crisis and the problem of small-business bankruptcies.
He concludes with:
I can’t see any reason why I or anyone else should have to pay higher interest rates or get worse service at the doctor’s office in order to preserve the “right” of some guy making $80,000 or $100,000 per year to walk away from debts that he could pay but does not want to. Yet that’s the way it is under current law. Those who are hurt the most are low-income and young borrowers who have the fewest credit options and can least afford to pay more for credit and goods because of the hidden “bankruptcy tax.” For all you critics out there — is there someplace where I can send you my part of the bill so that you can allow bankruptcy fraud and abuse to keep going unchecked?
The stuff in between is pretty good reading. I'm not sure I trust all his assertions, since he doesn't quote much or provide many links...but the assertions are compelling nonetheless. At the very least, it provides some issues to watch for in articles addressing the bankruptcy issue.
Show Comments »
March 07, 2005
On second thought, that might be an unfortunate title. President Clinton elects to sleep on the floor to allow the former President Bush to sleep in the plane's only bed.
That's a pretty classy move. Good on ya, Bill!
Show Comments »
March 04, 2005
While they were at it, couldn't they have also settled the issue of music downloading?
Show Comments »
March 01, 2005
You know what? I could care less about what Sen. Stephens wants to try to do. The market can sidestep conservative controls more easily than liberal indoctrination.
My response to Mr. Green was:
Well, considering the lifeless, banal crap coming out of Hollywood these days (i.e., do we really need another remake of a 70s TV show?) along with the left-leaning activism, can we keep the Democrats out of our entertainment, too? I can see boobies anytime I want on the internet, I don't need it to distract me from the complete lack of plot or compelling characters in today's "entertainment".
I didn't spell it out, but if imposing a few more family values means people actually put a little effort into better plotlines, is that a bad thing? Not that I support the imposition of censorship, but Hollywood's way sure isn't working.
Need an example? "Titanic". Very nice boobies, very lousy story. Final analysis? Not worth seeing for either one.
UPDATE: I'm not trying to argue For the Children (tm) or anything...but in a society populated with people from age 2 to 92, why does the default *have* to be for the Beavis and Butthead level of maturity? Why do 22-year-olds (and people who might technically be chronologically older...) seem to think the world exists for them? Oh, yeah: that's what it means to be 22, I guess.
Show Comments »
» Diggers Realm links with: Senator Ted Stevens Wants Decency Laws To Apply To Premium Cable As Well
Stuff like this really upsets and angers me. My heart goes out to the Judge, and I will pray for her. If your heart is aligned that way, please join me.
Show Comments »
February 24, 2005
...because they have gone beyond all possible common sense.
"In fact, salt is generally recognized as unsafe, because it is a major cause of heart attacks and stroke. The federal government should require food manufacturers to gradually lower their sodium levels."
In fact, groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest is generally recognized as unsafe, because it is a major cause of people smacking their foreheads in disbelief, assault on activists who want the govt to increase control over daily lives and reduce choice, and generally increasing the overall aggravation level of the average US citizen.
Show Comments »
» Accidental Verbosity links with: CSPI Smackdown
» Galen's Log links with: From the We Know What's Best for You Dept.
February 22, 2005
From Today's Best of the Web.
Some Blacks Are More Equal Than Others
Buried in a New York Times story on the massive increase in black immigration to America may lie the undoing of racial preferences in higher education:
"African-born and Caribbean-born brothers and sisters have realized that the police don't discriminate on the basis of nationality--ask Amadou Diallo [an immigrant from Guinea who was accidentally shot by police in 1999]," said Professor Charles J. Ogletree Jr., who teaches at Harvard Law School and has warned colleges and universities that admitting mostly foreign-born blacks to meet the goals of affirmative action is insufficient."Whether you are from Brazil or from Cuba, you are still products of slavery," he continued. "But the threshold is that people of African descent who were born and raised and suffered in America have to be the first among equals."
Ogletree seems to be arguing that American-born blacks deserve preferential treatment vis-à-vis foreign-born ones, at least if the latter do better than the former absent such preferences. In other words, in the name of "affirmative action," he is calling for discrimination against black people who were born outside the U.S.
The trouble with this is that the argument the Supreme Court has used to justify racial preferences in university admissions is "diversity." Favoring someone from the Bronx over an African-American from Burkina Faso is hardly a way to achieve that goal.
Show Comments »
Police believe pregnant woman and 7-year-old son are dead, and the victims of murder.
Okay, not to condone murder of the woman as justifiable or anything, but it seems clear that a selfish and unscrupulous man might go so far as to murder a woman to prevent a birth. Obviously, both men and women sometimes feel driven to murder someone who they feel is preventing their happiness.
...but (assuming the guy mentioned is eventually convicted for the crime) did he have to murder the 7-year-old kid, too? What motivation could possibly cause him to think he had to do that?
Don't get me wrong, it's absolutely horrible he (allegedly) killed his pregnant ex-girlfriend. Nothing excuses that action at all. But the fact that the 7-year-old son was murdered, too, just increases the tragedy many-fold for me.
UPDATE: They found the bodies.
Please note: when I linked the NBC article at first, it said the bodies hadn't been found yet. Apparently they updated the information at the link to reflect the new information. I'm not trying to be redundant here.
Show Comments »
February 21, 2005
The New York Times is on the case. (no registration required if you get it through Drudge like I did...)
[S]ome research scientists said the appearance of a possible drug-resistant and virulent strain of the virus in one 46-year-old man meant little. The man's immune system might have been compromised by the crystal methamphetamine he had taken, they said...
It is highly interesting that prominent, mainstream scientists can admit that the man's immune system might have been compromised by the crystal meth to hasten AIDS, but when the man who proved retro-viruses exist says that AIDS is itself merely caused by drug use, that's an unacceptable answer.
Longstanding rivalries among top AIDS researchers resurfaced, and one of the researchers who discovered the possible strain was accused of using a test developed by a company to which he had close ties.
Also very interesting, no? It is still acceptable to point out a possible conflict of interest for the person who provided the test that identified this possible new strain...but it is not acceptable to the AIDS industry to point out the same situation applies to the HIV testing kits that helped propel the idea that HIV causes AIDS in the first place...
There is much to consider in all this, if you have the wit...and the courage.
Show Comments »
February 17, 2005
It is increasingly clear to me that male and female homosexuality should be treated as entirely separate issues. In other words, it is not that you are straight or homosexual as much as you are male or female, and then straight or homosexual.
I think if science can disentangle itself from sociology (political correctness?) and delve for answers without having to tweak the results to conform with some ideological viewpoint, we will find that the causes and consequences for female homosexuality are entirely different than that of male homosexuality.
I realize that's not a news flash for some of you...but our society seems to want to treat male and female homosexuality as pretty much the same thing, as a united but opposite sexual expression from heterosexuality. And I am nearly convinced that's flat-out wrong and contributing to the overall confusion.
Show Comments »
February 15, 2005
Since this is already in the legal system, it is unlikely to turn out to be a hoax.
We are hearing more about the murders (and attempts) to steal babies from other women's wombs. We are hearing more about mothers murdering their babies. Or starving them, or poisoning them, or abusing them.
Are things really getting worse? Or are we, as a society, just beginning to realize that mother's love is no more (or less) universal and automatic than father's love?
I think it's just the nature of an increased information flow. We can hear about things much more quickly and easily, and the more lurid the tale, the more it reaches prominence.
Show Comments »
February 14, 2005
Kris of Gradual Dazzle has a very interesting glimpse into racial issues up on her blog right now. Well worth your time to read. It provokes all sorts of cogitation...
As an aside, can I please interject here that I absolutely love that my children do not notice their playmates' skin color, or rather, they don't choose their playmates based on skin color. They notice, but only as shades of hue rather than as distinct groups, and they readily play with kids who are nice regardless of their appearance. It's how I have always wanted it to be.
Exactly right.
Show Comments »
Show Comments »
I do know a few women who have complications and pain associated with their menstrual cycle as a matter of course, so I think Zelda's reaction might be a little unsympathetic. However, her overall point is valid: this is a ridiculous rule.
One way or the other, this rule says something significant about equality in the workplace.
The actual number of women who require an extra 12 days of sick leave every year seems too low to justify this rule. If the number of women who need it comprise less than half the total female workforce (and I gotta assume it's probably less than 10%), then this will be abused constantly. Where's the equality in that?
On the other hand, if the actual number of women who truly need additional sick days to deal with chronic menstrual problems not treatable by doctors is more than 50%, then whither the notion of "Equal Pay for Equal Work"? If women can't be expected to work as much as men due to physical problems, many of the arguments for equal pay go out the window.
I used to think that if the work isn't physical, it made little difference whether the worker was man or woman. Now I'm not so sure.
Heck, this makes me rethink the feasibility of a female President of the United States of America...
Show Comments »
February 12, 2005
Yeah, I'll fisk the New York Times:
Or at least parts of it:
City health officials announced on Friday that they had detected the rare strain of H.I.V. in one man whose case they described as particularly worrisome because it merged two unusual features: resistance to nearly all anti-retroviral drugs used to treat the infection, and stunningly swift progression from infection to full-fledged AIDS.
Umm, no, they detected no such thing. At least, absolutely no evidence of a new strain of HIV was given at all. At the very most, all they can say is that this man's AIDS progressed atypically fast. But if the average time for AIDS to appear is 10 years (as they say now), and some people are AIDS-free nearly 20 years after being diagnosed with HIV, well, then this isn't strange at all, is it? Is it too much to expect scientists to be consistent in their claims? If this is unusual, then 10 years isn't the average. If 10 years isn't the average, why did the early AIDS sufferers have it appear within the first 3-5 years of being exposed to HIV?
And resistance to anti-retroviral drugs? Might that not indicate it isn't a retrovirus causing it?
By last month, it was clear that three of the four classes of anti-retroviral drugs used against H.I.V. were not working in this case, and the man showed signs of AIDS, including rapid weight loss, a high level of the virus in his bloodstream, and a depleted supply of crucial immune system cells.
Unless, of course, the anti-retroviral drugs are causing the rapid weight loss and depleted supply of crucial immune system cells, as Dr. Bialy and others have asserted.
...people have developed a false sense that AIDS no longer poses a significant threat, leading to a rise in unprotected sex. Clear evidence of the trend has been seen in the growing number of cases of sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis, chlamydia, and lymphogranuloma.
Well, then shouldn't we be seeing a significant rise in the number of HIV cases? From my understanding, estimates of the number of HIV cases in the US has pretty much held steady between 950,000 and 1,000,000 cases. The HIV virus is smaller than the syphilis pathogen, so it's not like differing effectiveness of condoms could explain that non-HIV STDs are rising while HIV infections remain pretty much constant.
Unsafe sex practices combined with growing resistance to medications among people with H.I.V., has had officials warning for years about a possible resurgence of AIDS, a fear voiced yesterday by many people across the country as they struggled to make sense of the news out of New York.
...and yet, there is no resurgence of AIDS to date. There's just one AIDS case that progressed far more rapidly than normal, and that's it.
I tell you, the justifications and excuses used to justify the premise that HIV causes AIDS remind of those used by a witch doctor to explain why the spirits aren't cooperative...
Just for kicks, here's a bibliography with a few summaries to guide your investigation.
Show Comments »
February 10, 2005
Infant thrown from car window.
Sad, sick, and tragic.*
UPDATE: A complete report on the story fabrication. I'm glad it didn't happen the way we first heard.
Read More "What Is Wrong With These People? (UPDATED)" »Show Comments »
February 09, 2005
You know the teenager that got scalped?
Well, my sources tell me:
OK...this was done to remove her "punk cred" because the ringleader thought she was a "poser" or defied the group mentality. How do I know this? Because when [someone I know] was part of an...er..alternative group of friends, she upset a lead girl and also had her hair forceably removed, to take away her "chelsea" (bangs with little hair elsewhere, more common in UK punks)
My source goes on to say:
[The girl I know] was extremely cut up about her head, as the girl attacked her with extremely sharp scissors. It was a violent attack, but she fended her off well enough that more damage wasn't done. Skin was removed, but not to the extent of that young lady...not sure what she used to literally scalp so accurately.
Editor's note: In the news item, it wasn't through a frontal attack: the woman doing the scalping tied up the victim first. Much easier to do this sort of thing if you immobilize your victim first, I would presume.
Even more input from my source:
You may want to stick in a line about "not being worthy" of wearing a "punk" hairstyle, and also, both were girl-on-girl attacks...not insignificant, I think.
Good points, and I agree with both. In both anecdotes, the attacker does seem to be saying: "Your mark of belonging has been taken away from you, your membership in our group has been revoked."
Show Comments »
If you peruse these pages*, you may notice that there is little or no reference to Ward Churchill, nor Jordon Eason's recent flap; you won't find a discussion of whether torture is useful, advisable, or permissable on terrorists.
The reason is that I don't feel I have many qualifications to discuss these issues, nor do I have any strong visceral reaction that compels me to weigh in, nor do I feel I have any relatively unique viewpoint to add anything useful to the overall online debate.
I'm not ignoring the issues of the day, I'm still absorbing. I'll find other things to talk about, I'm sure.
Read More "No Comment" »Show Comments »
February 07, 2005
...of course, I'm a full day late in spreading the advice. At least I'm not a dollar short.
Excerpt:
So why do you feel it's ok to barge in on the biggest day of the year for your football fanatic boyfriends and husbands? Are you that insecure in your relationship that you can't just let him be for a few hours?
Show Comments »
February 02, 2005
I've used this phrase before, as have many others, and been taken to task for it, as have many others.
There's points by both sides. We do have a country that values the free expression of political opinion, and that surely applies to celebrities. On the other hand, there is something somewhat unfair about someone who becomes rich and famous with the money and support of all citizens using that wealth and fame to disparage and oppose conservative values and promote just one political ideology. Yet back on the original hand, the people who complain about the Dixie Chicks and Barbara Streisand are pretty much the same ones who have no problem with Charlton Heston and Arnold Schwarzenegger....
Well, here's the difference: Credibility.
With great power comes great responsibility. If you are lifted up on the shoulders of others, it isn't right to spit on the people who lifted you up. It's even worse to whine about losing your popularity as a result of your disdain (as the Dixie Chicks learned).
If your fame and wealth come from doing one thing well, then you have credibility in that realm. But to arrogantly assume that money and fame in one sphere automatically grant you influence in another sphere is stupid and worthy of ridicule. And that's where "Shut up and sing/act" comes in.
Arnold Schwarzenegger was never just an actor in the same way Barbara Streisand was only an entertainer. He was a successful businessman before he ever starred in a movie. He married into a political family and showed good politcal savvy before he ever ran for governer.
Ronald Reagan demonstrated politcal acumen as he rose through the political system. The charge that he was "just an actor" was hollow long before he was elected to President.
Heck, even Bono of U2 has gained a great deal of credibility through his involvement in political issues. And Angelie Jolie seems to be approaching it correctly, as well. She understands that if all you bring to an issue is celebrity, you do more harm than good. You need to educate yourself first, understand the issues, discuss them with educated, intelligent, credible people, and then approach the issue with humility.
And that's what most of the stars lack.
We've already mentioned the Dixie Chicks' sour note. Barbara Streisand earned derision, not for expressing her opinions, but by telling career-politician Dick Gephardt how to run his campaign...and for mis-spelling his name. How more presumptuous can you get? Sean Penn provided aid and comfort to Saddam al-Hussein by making a high-profile visit there and then announcing Saddam al-Hussein had no WMD. Perhaps history will prove him correct (I'm still convinced there's some needles waiting to be found in that haystack, even the US govt has decided it is no longer worthwhile to search), but his assertion that his brief visit was of any significance shows how ignorant he really is.
And that's the thing. It is important to understand what you have credibility in and what you don't. I have a great deal of credbility in discussing some issues regarding China, or music, or pre-WWII military surplus bolt-action rifles. Some. I would never pretend that my opinion, as educated as it might be, is the end-all-be-all on any topic. In fact, one of the main goals of my life and this blog is to talk intelligently enough about different issues to gain the credibility to be heard on those topics and others. Perhaps I've failed horribly, but it is still my goal.
Celebrities would help themselves if they understood that. And so, if celebrities display the hubris to name themselves as political experts, I'll be here to tell them again to Shut Up and Sing/Act. Even if they don't listen to me.
Show Comments »
One of the things that bothers me about Planned Parenthood is their very name is one of the biggest euphemisms of all time.
They really don't have much to do with actual "parenthood", obviously. The emphasis is on the "Planned" part. I hate that they assume the only good family is one that happens according to a pre-determined schedule. Implicit in the title of their organizaion is the notion that an unplanned parenthood is one of the worst things in the world, and as such necessitates millions of federal dollars, strong-arm tactics on reluctant doctors, underhanded marketing techniques to teens and pre-teens, spreading misinformation and the least effective condoms on the market to people...all in order to help increase demand for what they are selling: Abortion.
They should change their name to, "Unplanned Parenthood is Only Wrong if Allowed to continue past the 2nd Trimester!" Or even more apt, "Abortion, Inc." That would be honest, at least.
I detest that all their activities are justified as "reproductive health", First, they are about ending reproduction whenever possible (rather than preventing it)*. Second, complications from abortion greatly increase the chance of infertility, and perhaps other problems. So "reproductive health" concerns are an absolute lie.
Planned Parenthood is quite simply one of the most amoral, uncaring, brutal, cold-blooded, ineffective, and just plain evil government programs significantly-govt-fund "non-profit" organizations** I have ever seen.
Show Comments »
I lost count of the deliberate use of politically- and emotionally- charged rhetorical devices somewhere around 30. See how many you get!
But it's an interesting article, nonetheless. The filter through which Ms. Feldt sees America saddens me...
Show Comments »
Interestingly, the impact of smoking is far worse. It slows reaction times by something like 30% in the 20 minutes after you smoke a cigarette. I can't imagine why that wasn't included in the Demonization Program.
Show Comments »
January 31, 2005
A fairly balanced look at the uniquely female component of domestic violence.
One man's experience with domestic violence.
The following reaction is most likely wrong, as Jo pointed out in the comments. I'm leaving it here because I like to own up to my mistakes:
The most interesting part of this was that the newspaper felt it had to find corroborating sources for his account...they don't usually feel necessary to go that far if they were writing about a female victim of domestic violence, but I guess you take what you can get, eh?
Show Comments »
January 12, 2005
I believe in a right to life. I believe in the dignity and sancitity of human life.
And that's why I advocate Spammers right to die with dignity. Although a case can be made that if something isn't actually human and obviously lacks feelings or any sensitivity whatsoever, it can't actually feel agony, I still believe that common human decency demands that we err on the side of caution. Even if they deserve no better, if we use slow and painful methods of killing Spammers, we risk become no better than they are.
No, I must strongly and forcefully insist that we use the most humane methods for ending the lives of terminal Spammers...
Read More "I Advocate" »Show Comments »
January 04, 2005
When phrases like this are uttered for the record:
It's also really empowering because it's not about turning a guy on - it's about turning yourself on and learning about being comfortable with your own body."
...the thinking has obviously atrophied.
Show Comments »
December 31, 2004
May all your troubles remain in the passing year. May the New Year bring you all you wish: happiness, good relationships, health, material comfort, salvation, peace.
Choose from any three of the above. Heh.
Show Comments »
December 29, 2004
The debate right now is between "abstinence-only", "abstinence-plus", and "safe-sex" education in the classrooms, right?
But since the discussion is about classroom teaching, itsn't that already a defeat for morality?
One of the tenets of morality is that sexual intercourse is a private, personal, intimate, modest issue. Discussing it in a classroom betrays all those aspects immediately. The teacher most likely does not have a relationship of trust with the children, and the students certainly don't have that level of relationship and trust among them.
One of the natural obstacles to kids engaging in sexual intercourse is the difficulty in bringing it up. Classroom education sure takes care of that, doesn't it? Having an adult talk about it implicitly tells the kids that it's okay for them to talk about it in graphic terms, as well. Talking is a sort of exploring, as well, and so classroom sex education erases natural boundaries and expands the envelope of sexual activity right there.
Now, I'm not advocating ignorance. But if we can have national campaigns urging kids to talk their parents into not smoking, if we can urge parents to talk to their kids about drugs, why can't we start a national campaign to get parents to take responsibility for their children's understanding of sex? At a guess, I think the biggest problem with it is that all those conservative parents wouldn't be teaching their kids that's it's okay to "explore their sexuality", making it the field that much less fertile (pun intended this time) for Planned Parenthood's message of "Go ahead and have sex, cuz we'll help you get abortions whenver you want one!"
Right now, it seems like liberal society wants parents to talk to their kids about drugs, and schools to teach about sex. It should be the opposite.*
Read More "Sex Education" »Show Comments »
Dawn Eden has a quote from NARAL's Pro Choice America blog by Jessica Valenti:
They also are hoping to push at least two bills through the next Congress...One would make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines to circumvent state laws requiring parental consent for abortion.Sigh. When will the f---ed up logic ever stop? How is a minor not old enough to make the decision to have an abortion, but old enough to have a baby? Please.
This statement is wrong on so many levels, I hardly know where to start.
1) Obviously, physical and mental/emotional growth happen at different rates. She most certainly is old enough to physically give birth to a baby, but there are several options regarding having the baby, including adoption.
2) The statement is a deliberately false dichotomy. The minor would not have the baby without advice and support from her parents, but the law the writer is attempting to block specifically excludes parents from advising and supporting or even providing any input into the decision whether or not to abort.
3) Since there are approximately 30 million women who have had abortions to date, it is at least conceivable (pun not originally intended, but I'm running with it) that a parent's objection to abortion might be due to actual experience. Therefore, this attempt to end-run around parental involvement/advice represents a truly evil attempt to "get 'em on-board" while they are young and easily-influenced. How do you get someone to commit to a depraved ideology? Separate them from those who care about them and pressure them into doing something they would otherwise consider morally repugnant. Then they are forced by shame into defending the evil ideology.
It would be extremely interesting to cross-index post-abortion women's pro-choice/pro-life views to their age when they had an abortion...
4) The original question is wrong in the first place: the choice of having the baby or aborting is actually a choice of "bad" and "worse", respectively. The real crisis point was at the point the girl decided to engage in intercourse. Ms. Valenti would be serving our society much better if she worked as hard to convince girls to wait for marriage to have sex* as she does to convince pregnant girls to have an abortion.
Read More "Abortion Pushers (Get the Teenagers Hooked Early)" »Show Comments »
December 24, 2004
Can you spot the deliberately-introduced fallacy?
...actually, there are more than just one.
Show Comments »
December 19, 2004
I've said several times before that both my best and worst commanders have all been female. A dream last night helped me realize that the "best" have all been at least 2 levels higher, the "worst" have all been direct commanders.
And it struck me: in my experience, female commanders tend to "judge" the person quite a bit more, whereas male commanders tend to "evaluate" the performance. Under the female commanders I've served with, it doesn't matter what you do as much as what she thinks of the person doing it. Under female commanders, once you get in the doghouse, there is nothing you can do to get out of it.
I'm sure that happens under male commanders, too, but I haven't seen that.
...and yet, I have no problems with female peers. You can try to convince me this is some sort of sexist discomfort working under a female if you want; I don't think you'd be right, but I'd prefer an uncomfortable truth to a comfortable misapprehension, so I'd be willing to listen.
Show Comments »
December 17, 2004
This is happening far too often lately...and the frequency is increasing.
A 23-year-old woman who was eight months pregnant was killed Thursday and the fetus was taken from her body, authorities said.
I first heard about this sort of occurrence happening about 5 years ago. I've heard of at least three this year, I think.
...and what connection does it have to the number of children available for adoption at any one time? From there, what connection does it have to the rate of abortion?
Show Comments »
December 16, 2004
At least, they keep on pumping up their wacky-ish liberal credentials.
This is truly hilarious:
The ASUO Women's Center is reworking the casting process for this year's production of "The Vagina Monologues" in response to protests that last year's production underrepresented various communities of women.Read More "Oregon: The New True Granola* State" »
Instead of holding auditions, the producers will solicit nominations from several student groups, as well as the Women's and Gender Studies Program, to assemble a potential cast. The final casting decision will be made by a volunteer selection committee."The queer community, the women of color community and the plus-size community did not feel represented last year," producer Nicole Pete said.
In addition to securing a more diverse cast, the selection committee will also be looking to include activists and community members who are involved with women's issues.
Pete said the committee will select people who are "not necessarily drama-oriented" in favor of "people who work (toward) 'The Vagina Monologues' mission of ending violence against women."
Women's Center spokeswoman Stefanie Loh said the de-emphasis on acting ability will provide a "down to earth" feel to the production as well as allow the producers to be more inclusive in their casting.
"The fact that they had auditions means that some people are automatically excluded," she said.
The primary concern of the selection committee will be "fitting the person to the part," Pete said, adding that all parts in the script calling for women of color will be played by women of color.
Show Comments »
December 14, 2004
Sure, Jon Henke uses a different animal for the big one, but I want to avoid the political party association with that animal.
Show Comments »
December 10, 2004
On the news yesterday, they were relating one of the Defense's arguments as to why he should get Life Imprisonment With No Chance of Parole.
To me, there are basically two reasons for the death penalty. Vengeance has nothing to do with it.
First, if you have already given someone a punishment that cannot be altered by anything he does, i.e., there is nothing he can do to make it less or worse, then you've lost any control on his behavior at all. A prisoner could then murder guards, rape fellow inmates, etc. You must always retain the right to end their life as the ultimate punishment, or you risk creating a monster by placing him beyond any further penalties. If that's not clear, I can expand on that somewhat.
Second, there are some actions by which a person forfeits their right to continue living in this world. Murder is one of these: If you consider someone's life (and all that entails: personality, hopes, dreams, accomplishments, etc) to be less important than your own convenience, then you are capable of any evil and should not be allowed to continue polluting the earth with your presence. Manslaughter isn't quite so cold and heartless. But right along with that, I would assert that serial, violent rapists have also forfeited their right to continue living, based on the amount of long-term damage they cause in pursuit of their own twisted urges. And right along with that, serial child molesters also forfeit their right to continue living.
It should be obvious, this is just in the theoretical case. There can be mitigating circumstances. Maybe only 10% of rapists should be executed, or maybe only 1%. I'd be open to arguments that if Michael Jackson is convicted of sexual abuse of children, that he should be at least subject to the possibility of the death penalty, because it would mean he used his money, fame, and power, not only to get the opportunity to abuse innocent children, but to conceal his guilt in order to continue doing so.
If you are sick, you have the responsibility to seek help. Willfully and consistently avoiding that responsibility is just as bad as willful and premeditated murder.
None of those arguments can be applied to a fetus. This is how someone can be pro-Life and pro-Death Penalty.
Show Comments »
December 09, 2004
Mickey Kaus has some very interesting thoughts regarding ID cards for illegal immigrants. (you may have to scroll down because his blog is one of the least easily-navigable/linkable)
The most intriguing point he makes is:
A national ID card would help solve 1) the terrorism problem and 2) the illegal immigration problem. Comrade Kuttner points out today that it would also help solve 3) the voter registration problem and 4) the underage drinking problem. A fourfer! It's very un-American, but it also seems unstoppably useful.
Please note, he's not saying he supports the idea, he's just pointing out some of the most compelling arguments for a national ID card... I find them hard to refute, myself, and yet in complete agreement that it's very un-American. Anyone got any better suggestions?
Ms. Malkin's got some links, too.
Show Comments »
December 08, 2004
Well, Duh. It's as simple as 2+2=5!
Read More "What? I Don't Get It! (UPDATED)" »Show Comments »
» IndustrialBlog links with: Why can't people understand that 2 + 2 = 5?
The actor explains, "I'm being censored by the FAA and they're going to ground me. The hardest thing about flying is holding altitude. It's a three-dimensional effort."
If it's so hard to follow instructions, Mr. Freeman, perhaps the FAA is exactly correct in grounding you. If you cause a crash, it's not like anyone would say, "My loved ones died in a fiery crash so that we wouldn't censor an important artists like Morgan Freeman by holding him to standards we hold every other pilot to? Well, censoring is wrong so I'm okay with them dying for Mr. Freeman's artistic freedom."
Just don't call him unpatriotic, okay?
Show Comments »
December 07, 2004
This year, the trend has continued, and perhaps intensified.
Through early October, 99.9 percent of indecency complaints—aside from those concerning the Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” during the Super Bowl halftime show broadcast on CBS— were brought by the PTC, according to the FCC analysis dated Oct. 1.
On the one hand, if 99.9% of the complaints are coming from an activist group, they probably don't represent anything like a mainstream view of what is appropriate, and I'm a little irritated that they would waste people's time and taxpayer's money in frivolous complaints.
On the other hand, however, what other choice do parents have if they'd like to resist the crassification of the airwaves? Things seem to always slide toward the least common denominator, i.e., someone who wants to see boobs during children's shows is eventually going to have their way unless the current trend is reversed...
But thinking it over further, I guess I'd prefer to see people stop watching television or boycott advertisers rather than using this method. I believe the free market of capitalism is a better method. More effective, more lasting, more fair, and less subject to manipulation and excess than 'govt control', which tends to just oil the squeaky wheel.
Okay, I'm against it.
This open thought process was brought to you by: "Brain Fertilizer: Dullness...Ready to Eat, Right From the Can!"
Show Comments »
December 06, 2004
Los Angeles-area broadcasters said the ad is in poor taste, but the county health agency said it is simply trying to reach gay men - the group at greatest risk of getting the sexually transmitted disease, which has been on the rise in recent years.
Show Comments »
December 03, 2004
There are lots of reasons, including keeping your mind/body active for a more healthy and enjoyable life, but one is simply that it can be very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately predict what your future expenses will be.
I have a relative-by-marriage who has a fairly large tract of land that has been in the family for generations. Unfortunately, it is near enough to Houston to be caught up in the urban sprawl, and they will soon be unable to afford the taxes as the value of the land is assessed ever higher. Their only choice is to sell the land, and that seems to me to be an injustice and a travesty.
Show Comments »
December 02, 2004
Show Comments »
I didn't have an actual example at the time I mentioned it. I've heard of it happening, but admit that it may have been an urban legend.
Well, mere days later, here's the example.
Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper recently announced that next year the phrase "Merry Christmas" will be removed from the city building and replaced with "Happy Holidays."
I realize that's not exactly the same as barring govt employees from individually expressing wishes for a Merry Christmas. It's darn close, though, and makes that next step a short one. If we don't have news of it this year, we will before Dec 25th of 2005, I'm 99% sure.
Show Comments »
I found this .pdf file regarding homosexualist indoctrination techniques at Townhall.com.
It was described as a "document that demonstrates the strategies and tactics designed for use in public schools to eliminate "heterosexism" from your children's tender, impressionable minds." [I just fixed the missed "close tag". Oops! heheh.]
I don't know, but that strikes me as an over-reaction. I mean, I consider myself fairly sensitive to indoctrination attempts, but this was a sample lesson plan from an organization formed to provide such lesson plans. Just because this was developed and promulgated doesn't mean it will actually be used, anywhere. And even if it is used somewhere, the problem would be with the teacher, administration, and school board, not with this lesson plan.
Sure, there are homosexualist assumptions that I consider misguided (at best) all through the lesson plan, but isn't that what you expect? I'm sure there are equivalent lesson plans with an opposite slant from conservative Christian organizations.
It seems a non-issue to me. Everyone does have a right to promote and advocate for their own point of view. I only linked these pieces so you can read and form your own opinions.
Show Comments »
December 01, 2004
In this article by Joshua K. Baker & Maggie Gallagher, they ask the questions:
Will young adults who currently favor gay marriage continue to do so, even as opposition to gay marriage continues to be voiced and as they move through the lifecycle, marrying and becoming parents themselves? Will teenagers’ current high levels of opposition survive the college experience? The answer to both questions is: We don’t know.
I disagree. I think we do know the answer. I can all but guarantee that support for homosexual marriage decreases within a population as that population ages.
Churchill supposedly said, “If you are young and not liberal, you have no heart; if you are old and not conservative, you have no brain.” I think I’d prefer to re-state that as, “If you are young and not idealistic, you have no passion; if you are old and are not pragmatic, you have no sense.”
The young are always going to be more excitable, more willing to fight for “unjust” causes…but also more self- and ego-centric. Make no mistake, having children changes your perspective. Most parents are incapable of remaining so narcissistic, so unaware of the prerequisites for a stable society, so blissfully unconcerned for future generations. Having a child (not just adopting) makes you aware of grandchildren, and even the possibility of seeing and helping raise great-grandchildren. That often has a profound impact on attitudes toward social tinkering.
And while you can make the argument that heterosexual support for homosexual marriage is “caring about the needs of others, it is based on the twin self-centered attitudes of “it doesn’t affect me, so why should I stop it?”, and “I can’t imagine being legally barred from marrying someone I love, so how can I support legally barring someone else?” When you have children, if you are a good parent, your priorities switch to “What needs to be done to ensure a happy, successful life for my children and their children and their children?”
That is a significant difference. Not everyone adopts that attitude, no, and there are other arguments for homosexual marriage that can be made that are equally valid. But many will see it the way I described, and that will reduce support for homosexual marriage among the currently-young as they age.
Show Comments »
November 29, 2004
There's a very nice article here on the Opinion Journal.
Some of the quotable coolness:
Liberals see themselves as self appointed Robin Hoods [taking from the rich and giving to the poor], but they are seen by red-county Americans as taking from the productive and giving to the indolent.
I know you know who Robin Hood was, but I like the parallel construction, so I added in the emphasis of "taking from...and giving to..."
[Liberals] were wrong about communism (it was an economic failure), wrong about socialism (it didn't work either), wrong about the welfare state, wrong about high taxes and government regulation of economic matters.Exactly.
Or in the words of former teachers union president Keith Geiger, why should some children be allowed to "escape" from bad public schools?Unions. Natch.
"Not happiness stamps; not a department of happiness; not therapy for happiness. Pursuit."
Nice. Read the whole thing to get it all in context.
Show Comments »
November 25, 2004
Europe is having problems with this issue, too.
Show Comments »
It bothers me that if the overall thrust of the secularization move gets its way, the Peanuts Christmas and Thanksgiving Specials will have to be banned, censored, or modified.
Thus, it bothers me that Christians are supposed to "turn the channel" if we don't want our children exposed to Janet Jackson's breats or Howard Stern's obscenities, but atheists aren't expected to be able to deal with the horror of seeing a Nativity Scene on City Hall grounds or a cross on the Los Angeles County seal.
"Let's Go Kill Cops" in school is protected speech. "Let's Pray", in school, isn't. Which is absolutely ridiculous.
I am attempting to return some common sense to society.
Show Comments »
November 23, 2004
Someone call the ACLU! Oh, yeah, this is the kind of suppression they like.
You almost have to admire the technique. Put a bunch of Christians in a pot of cool water, then slowly turn up the heat, eroding freedom of religious expression by constantly citing "Separation of Church of State" as a Constitutional Principle, rather than something imposed by the courts based on private letters written by Thomas Jefferson but never ratified by any level of legislature.
This distortion is truly diabolical. We have never come close to the imposition of a State religion, and as long as no one is forced to worship, there is no establishment of religion and the US Constitution is not violated. If using tax dollars somehow violates the idea of establishment of religion, then the same principle needs to be applied to all belief systems.
Religious freedom isn't actually in danger yet. Yet. If intelligent, reasonable people don't stand up and resist the atheist extremists soon, however, we may all come to regret it.
Again: why does someone have more right to public nudity than for a nativity scene?
Why can we not censure crudity and obscenity, but we somehow are required to sanitize Faith completely out of public view? Why are people who do not want to see nudity or hear profanity in prime time told they can always "turn off the TV", but adult atheists cannot bear to hear the word "God" without shrieking and recoiling?
The priorities of the so-called "enlightened" are ridiculous.
Show Comments »
November 20, 2004
Here's yet another reason why.
Show Comments »
November 19, 2004
In my opinion, the problem with Oliver Stone's Alexander is that he justifies highlighting Alexander's homosexuality by saying, ""We go into his bisexuality. It may offend some people, but sexuality in those days was a different thing."
Well, sure. Sort of.
The problem is, based on some of the early reviews that have come out (pun sort of intended) so far, Mr. Stone is not depicting Alexander's sexuality the way it was back then. He's putting a stereotypical modern-day homosexual male in what seems to be a fairly blunt attempt to leave a positive impression of the purity of homosexual love. One reviewer even complained that Alexander was made to look like something out of "Queer Eye for the Macedonian Guy". From the stills I saw, that description was pretty accurate.
From what I understand of history, homosexuality or bisexuality in those days was most like NAMBLA's stated goal (the use of a young boy for a few years for purely sexual gratification) or like the stereotype of prison sex (the strong uses the weak for purely sexual gratification, but it is only the 'receiver' who is considered gay).
I haven't seen the movie, and won't. But in my opinion, Oliver Stone has made an essentially dishonest movie, attempting to misrepresent that nature of historical fact as a pretext to advance an agenda for which he has sympathy.
Which is his right. But don't hold your breath waiting for me to support it.
Show Comments »
» The LLama Butchers links with: Queer Eye for the Macedonian Guy?
November 17, 2004
One of the biggest problems I have with liberals, atheists, the ACLU and other lefty types is that they get this condescending attitude toward Christian belief systems and values, and ignore that the basis of their own views comes from an equally faith-based belief system and morality. If you promote the idea (as Planned Parenthood implicitly does) that "sex in all its expressions is good and shouldn't be repressed", that is imposing a morality as surely as saying "sex outside of marriage is bad and should be discouraged". Especially because with STDs, pregnancy, AIDS, emotional difficulties, rape, teenage prostitution, etc, there is far MORE evidence that the Christian view is more correct than the humanistic one.
If you believe there is no God and set about ensuring that is the only view that can be officially expressed, it is just as bad as saying that the only religious expression allowed is that Jesus is Lord of All!
But because they refuse to recognize atheism as a belief system, they believe that by denying they have a religion that it leaves them free to impose their belief system on the majority of Americans who believe in God. And the atheistic media helps them.
The part that atheists and secular humanists conveniently ignore is that whatever you put your faith into is your God. For some, it is money. For others, it is science. For still others, it is self, or sexual fulfillment, or education, or rejection of tradition.
Right now, the major God seems to be sexual fulfillment. It’s almost as if liberals want to replace Confirmation/Baptism with Losing Your Virginity, Attending Services with Having Sex, and you receive sanctification, not by Communion, but by having an Abortion.
Unless the pendulum swings back, I fear for my children and my grandchildren. I wonder if parents felt this way as Rome began its decline into debauchery?
Recently in the news was this legal decision, in which the ACLU argued (successfully) that since the Boy Scouts include "belief in 'God'" as one of its core values, meeting on government property violates "Separation of Church and State".
Well, in the Boy Scouts FAQ, the 'God' is most certainly not Christ. (thanks to Captain's Quarters for that link)
In a discussion with a friend who has worked with Boy Scouts quite a bit, the impression was that the Boy Scouts were a Christian group. Having been a Cub Scout, I never got that impression at all. Maybe every group has a different tone? But since many of the kids who went to Sunday School also were Scouts, and since many of the same adults who taught Sunday School were also the type to volunteer to lead a Troop, how possible is it that a prevalence of discussion of Jesus and Christian values was simply due to the majority of the people being Believers?
Yeah, it might not be good for someone in a minority to feel uncomfortable or left out. But compare that situation to this story of another example of belief systems being imposed on impressionable youth.
Excerpt:
There were a few scattered murmurs of agreement from the other adults as he spoke about how he just couldn't live in a country that was run by George W. Bush. He expected things would get "worse and worse" in the next few months until he'd be forced to leave. I noticed a few of the children turned around in their seats listening to this guy. They weren't saying anything, just taking it all in. I can only guess what a group of elementary-school kids, many of whom had moved here from other countries for a better life, were thinking when they heard that it might be time to pick up and leave again soon.I have come to expect political chatter at events like this, and I have also come to expect that I will be the only Republican in the room.
Is there really any difference? If you follow the link and read the whole thing, you'll see an example of an even more forceful attempt to influence moral attitudes.
Liberals and atheists have some sort of paranoia about religion...maybe they too deeply internalized Marx's derisive opinion that it is the "opiate of the masses" or something. I won't deny that some horrible things have been done in the name of religion...but more horrible things have been done in the name of atheism, and politics, and greed. Most religions appeal to the better side of humanity, and don't allow for "conditional morality" as easily as atheism and progressive/liberal ideology does.
And one thing the rabid atheists and progressives forget is that multiple viewpoints and competing opinions tend to smooth things out. If they ever succeed in making Christianity a discredited belief as they seem to want to, the remaining "true believers" are more likely to be quite militant, extreme, and violent in the defense of their religion.
So understand it clearly: a belief system is a belief system is a belief system. It isn't right to impose yours on society at large, regardless of whether it is religion, politics, sexuality, morality, or even taste. I'm a little sick of religion being considered somehow worse than the others.
Show Comments »
» Accidental Verbosity links with: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
November 16, 2004
One of my sources forwarded this story to me.
Real discipline and genuine love (rather than enabling and excuses and selfish coddling) would have gone a long way toward making sure the first entry on that list never happened, much less the rest.
People need to be allowed to take responsibility for the actions. Allowing people to get away with crap just makes them think they can get away with more. I'm a little tired of it.
Show Comments »
November 15, 2004
For a few days there, it seemed like we might have a Runaway Jury.* It's a great book (although Hollywood's self-serving and cynical choice to change the anti-smoking message to an anti-gun message is deplorable) and a great read, but it also very nearly constitutes a primer of how to manipulate a jury to get a desired conviction.
Ms. Malkin implores us to not forget that Laci wasn't the only victim. She goes on to mention that Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice groups opposed the Federal Unborn Victims of Violence legislation.
If you put those two ideas together, it begins to seem possible that something sinister was going on.
Let's say the spate of juror dismissals was, in fact, an attempt to alter the constitution of the jury to get an acquittal or guarantee a conviction. When you suspect something like that, you have to consider who would stand to benefit, and who has the means to bring it about.
First, let's dispose of any idea that Laci's family would try to pack a jury to get a conviction. If Laci's family believes Scott did it, I'm sure they believe it is obvious enough to not have to cheat to do it. Even if they wanted to "increase the chance for justice to be served"**, how could they afford to do so, or be willing to risk getting caught and having him set free on a technicality?
Scott Peterson obviously did not want to be convicted of murder, regardless of his actual guilt or innocence, so he would benefit...but he obviously lacked significant resources to pack the jury. It would take several hundred grand, at least, I'd think. His parents appear comfortable, but hardly rich enough to swing that sort of cash without setting off all sorts of alarms. I wouldn't think anyone in Scott's family would have the expertise to pull it off, either.
What about Pro-Life groups? Would they want to get a conviction with Connor being named a victim to score points for the pro-life agenda? I don't think so. Again, the risks of getting caught are fairly large for so small a payoff. The networks aren't really playing up the "baby-victim" part, they are only talking about the murder of Laci. There's no real upside for Pro-Life groups to risk everything to get maybe a 10% greater chance of getting what seemed from the beginning to be a near-slam dunk conviction.
Ah, but the euphemistically-named pro-choice groups, that's a different story! The spokesperson for the California chapter of NARAL famously went on record that trying Scott for the murder of Connor would "set a bad precedent". Liberals everywhere were put in the awkward and obviously hypocritical position of saying that a designated spokesperson for a group wasn't actually speaking for that group. NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, and other directly or indirectly pro-choice groups certainly have a great deal of experience in litigation, and have scads of cash to blow in support of any trial that might affect abortion rights. A high-profile case in which the defendent looked to be heading for a conviction for murdering an unborn child would set a bad legal precedent that does erode abortion rights on some level, to some degree. Although probably an imperceptible difference, this does open the door to other rulings that could alter the fundamental attitudes and rights that are now taken for granted. Things like this do change minds. With all this at stake, it might just be worth the risk to try to ensure an acquittal.
Likely? No. Inconceivable? Not at all. Live by the sword, die by the sword, yanno?***
UPDATE:
I don't seriously think the above is the case. I think it may be the burgeoning novelist inside me jumping on an intriguing plotline possibility.
Show Comments »
November 10, 2004
Just in case you are interested, in perusing the nekkid pictures of Ami, the hot lesbian on Survivor: Vanuatu, (work-safe link) it is quickly apparent that her 'large, heaving mammary glands' are both fake, and not all that well-done.
I hope that doesn't ruin anyone's day.
Show Comments »
» The LLama Butchers links with: Rather disconcerting news
Picture below the fold:
Read More "Democrats More Compassionate?" »
Show Comments »
» Aaron's Rantblog, aka Aaron the Liberal Slayer links with: Michele Malkin Catches Up
Show Comments »
I don't really want to be alarmist, but this item should be extremely disturbing to Democrats.
HIGH SCHOOL ATTACK: KERRY TAUNTS TIED TO FIGHT Wed Nov 10 2004 09:55:52 ETThree high school students face charges for using a bat to beat another student who taunted them about being John Kerry supporters days after the contentious election.
The 17-year-old Apple Valley victim was assaulted Thursday in a Minnesota Zoo parking lot near Apple Valley's School of Environmental Studies, better known as the zoo school. Chad McKay, also 17, stood over the victim attempting to protect him.
"It's a good thing to see young people interested and excited about politics," said Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom. "It's obviously very disturbing to see this kind of violence over it."
The SAINT PAUL PIONEER PRESS reported in morning editions: The argument began earlier in the day Thursday with a discussion about candidates the minors had supported for president, Backstrom said. The two victims supported President Bush.
"We were sitting in the computer room at school, and there was kind of a political debate," said Chad McKay of Arden Hills. "Some people said only gay people vote for Bush." Chad said the victim said "only gay people would vote for Kerry because he supports gay marriage."
Backstrom said the victims then "called the other guys some names."
Chad said later in the afternoon when he and the victim were walking to their cars they heard their three senior classmates yelling at them, according to the police report.
Chad got to his car, but the three 17-year-olds attacked the victim, he said, hitting him in face, including with a baseball bat and kicking him. One boy had a padlock wrapped around his finger, Chad said.
Democrats are not responsible for it, no. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying this is a reflection of the Democrat Party at all.
However, the rhetoric of many liberal writers, celebrities, and spokespeople is vile and hateful enough to encourage this sort of thing. The Democrat Party constitutes the main outward expression of liberal thought, and represents the main channel of expression for liberals in this country. Even more specifically, Democrats actively sought to reduce the channels for liberal expression by attempting to block the Green Party from getting on the ballot in several states. When people lack avenues for political expression, they often turn to violence.
The Republicans handled the issue horribly in the 90s, and I think that resulted in right-wing violence, particularly Timothy McVeigh. President Clinton was wrong to blame that event directly on Right-Wing Talk Radio, but in a very real sense, there was an indirect responsibility.
Kids like this turn into adults who burn swastikas into lawns and fire bullets through windows and otherwise attempt to intimidate voters to win elections. How the Democrat Party Leadership responds to this will be telling. How the Democrat Party as a whole works to reduce the accumulated resentment and to provide safe channels to express anger and release pressure will make a huge difference in preventing Left-Wing violence and terrorism over the next four years.
If you think I'm being overwrought or over-reacting, just call me Cassandra.
Show Comments »
It's actually a very interesting article when you start getting into the responses of City Officials and hear the different viewpoints on what is actually going on...
Show Comments »
November 09, 2004
Love, in fact, is just as silly and superstitious a concept as God (and for those who believe God is Love, this too is a distinction without a difference). Chesterton's observation that the purely rational man will not marry is just as correct today, because science has done far more damage to the ideal of love than it has done to the notion of an awesome God beyond our ken. Genes, hormones, instincts, evolution: These are the cause for the effect of love in the purely rational man's textbook. But Maher would get few applause lines from his audience of sophisticated yokels if he mocked love as a silly superstition. This is, in part, because the crowd he plays to likes the idea of love while it dislikes the idea of God; and in part because these people feel love, so they think it exists. But such is the extent of their solipsism and narcissism that they not only reject the existence of God but go so far as to mock those who do not, simply because they don't feel Him themselves. And, alas, in elite America, feelings are the only recognized foundation of metaphysics.
Yep, you guessed it: Jonah Goldberg. The whole second half of the piece, excluding the last two concluding paragraphs, is a nice philosophical argument against atheism (though not necessarily for God). A good read. Be sure you read all of it.
Show Comments »
November 05, 2004
...going on looks alone*, I wouldn't want either one. Jenna looks like she's getting ready to join the East German Shotput team**, and Barbara looks like the kind of girl who sets fire to your '78 Trans Am because she overheard another girl saying you have cute hair in the dormitory rec room.
I'll pass, thanks.
Read More "I Know This Won't Be Well-Received, But..." »Show Comments »
» The LLama Butchers links with: Not exactly Alice Roosevelt...
Of course, my title is snark. Read the whole thing.
Show Comments »
November 04, 2004
Just heard a comment on Fox News that I thought was intriguing.
"Scott Peterson has to be the most unlikely man in the world to go fishing in the same lake that his murdered wife's body turned up in..."
So, yeah: the jury is facing a choice that either Scott is really stupid or really unlucky. I believe in stupidity more than I believe in luck.
Speaking of luck, though, Mr. Peterson is rather lucky I'm not on the jury.
Show Comments »
Over at Q and O, McQ had this to say:
And by that I also mean government that stays out of the bedroom as well as out of the boardroom. So back off the marriage amendment nonsense. That’s something the people should decide at a much lower level. And they are.
Fair enough, and a good request. Except that in several states, the people had decided, and the courts still avoided democracy to impose SSM marriage on a largely unwilling populace. Okay, yeah, 11 states amended their constitution to ban SSM. We'll see if it works. If it does, President Bush will leave the Amendment to the US Constitution on the table. Heck, he'll probably leave it on the table, anyway, since the vote in the 11 states gives it more teeth as a threat to social activists to back off and stop using legal (i.e., non-democratic) means to impose SSM.
Just don't forget, President Bush had stayed out of it until the Massachussetts Supreme Court told the legislature to rewrite the state constitution according to the Mass SC dictates. He brandished the stick, the 11 state constitution amendments added some nails to the stick, and things should quiet down for a while.
Show Comments »
November 03, 2004
Please Note: This is not my best post. It is full of gaping holes and not organized all that well. Have fun reading it anyway.
In the 1800s, there was a concept called Manifest Destiny.
Simply put:
In the 1840s the phrase was used by politicians and leaders to justify and promote territorial expansion across the North American continent by providing a sense of mission to citizens. It promoted this sense of mission by fomenting a desire to establish a large empire-like nation in which the ideals of democracy, freedom, and progress are ostensibly protected and promoted.
See? Wikipedia is wonderful.
But not so good when it defines the modern "Manifest Destiny", or Progressivism. Its description seems to be somewhat lacking to me.
Because a good third of our population is committed to the idea that freedom and "rights" will be expanded endlessly until we have achieved a standardless society, a in which anyone can do anything they want without fear of anyone expressing disapproval. This is more than a goal, you see. They think they have already won. They think it is destiny. It is more than a belief, it is nearly a delusion.
And you see the ramifications of this played out on the national stage. If they've already won, then all that matters is getting the right numbers to appear that express that victory. So there is no such thing as a "fraudulent" vote, and there is no crime in disallowing a conservative vote. Because any dirty tricks, any intimidation, any dishonest tactic, well, it's all justified as necessary to sidestep the schemes and dirty tactics of the evil conservatives who want to deny the free, standardless society. Any rhetorical device is allowed, any cheating is fine, as long as humanity inches closer toward the nirvana of total freedom.
Okay, none of this is news to most of you. Stick with me a moment.
It's been said (and I agree), that Conservatism took a big blow when the general population of the United States failed to support Republicans in the standoff with Clinton that resulted in the temporary shutdown of the federal government. But then liberalism took a big blow when the general population failed to support Hillary Clinton's plan for Universal Single-Payer (i.e., govt-funded) Healthcare. The conclusion was obvious: Americans didn't really want a bigger government, but they didn't really want a smaller one, either.
And here's the point: how did each side react?
The Progressives went underground. They pushed their agenda through litmus tests for politicians regarding abortion, through public demonization of morals arising from religion, and through activist judges. They are attempting to litigate their vision into existence, and have no problem imposing their will on an unwilling but hapless majority. That's why you see Progressives fight like anything to disqualify conservative judges. That's why you see Progressives attempt to control the reins of govt bureaucratic power, so they can maintain funding and agenda control for Planned Parenthood, PBS, affirmative action programs, etc.
The Conservatives retooled their whole organization. Rather than trying to impose a vision in an underhanded manner, conservatives set out to educate and persuade at the lowest levels, and wait until a later date to try again to reduce government.
That's one of the reasons you see a resurgence of conservatism on college campuses. That's one of the reasons why you don't see current Republican lawmakers making much attempt to reduce spending. That's why you see Republicans more than willing to turn things over to democratic systems, like Constitutional Amendments and Initiatives and Referendums. Because Conservatives are confident that most of the major platforms of the Progessive Movement are in the process of being rejected. Gun Control is nearly completely debunked, as "Shall Issue" concealed carry laws sweep the nation, as Britain's disaster with gun control becomes more evident. A majority of the US population wants abortion outlawed in "most circumstances". 11 states, including liberal Oregon passed Amendments to their state constitutions to ban SSM.
But both sides seem committed to their chosen tactics. Conservatives will continue to try and persuade and convince, but leave it up to the people. Progressives will continue to try to seize and maintain significant power nodes from which they can impose their ideology on the nation until we get used to it.
I think that Americans are growing to understand that individuals must sacrifice some freedom in order to gain security and stability. Americans are starting to realize that it might be nice to pretend for a while that choices don't have consequences, but that they don't like it so much when the consequences they avoid fall like a ton of bricks on their children and grandchildren.
The pendulum might be swinging back toward morality. Let's hope.
Show Comments »
November 02, 2004
I think casinos should not be allowed to advertise on television.
Show Comments »
October 26, 2004
Then again, maybe not.
Show Comments »
October 22, 2004
Yeah, Best and Worst at the same time.
Show Comments »
October 20, 2004
Is a shortage of flu vaccine really that important?
Do people really even understand what the flu vaccine is all about? Meaning: the powers that be predict what they think will be the 6-7 most-spread (most virulent?) strains of flu will be this year, and then construct a vaccine. It does nothing to stop the other 100 (1000? 10,000?) strains that are merely not in the top level, so you'll still probably get the flu.
Moreover, very few people die of the flu these days. Sure, we had an epidemic waaaaayyy back at the turn of the last century, but it is nothing more than a nuisance to 99.9% of the population these days. Is it worth getting that upset and spending that much money over just a nuisance?
Sometimes I think people are losing all perspective in life. As such, we are getting bad enough to almost deserve another pandering Democrat government.
Show Comments »
October 08, 2004
In the comments over here. Go see and judge for yourself.
If nothing else, I'm probably an asshat for distracting from an excellent topic of discussion in and of itself: Partner Notification for Those Diagnosed with STDs.
Go leave a comment more on target than mine and ignore my asshattedry, if you will/wish/can.
Show Comments »
October 05, 2004
...maybe I just want to be shocked?
Show Comments »
September 21, 2004
Which comments?
I'm trying to find the correct name for it . . . this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. . . . I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died.
He is wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels.
The first being that the main damage of a sin is against yourself. He would be damaging his own soul by killing (not to mention lying to God!) far more than any imagined damage of being looked at "like that".
The second being that this life on earth is not important, and so a mature Christian should not find any insult worth killing over. As Christians, our focus should be on the next life, and this life only impacts us as it prepares us for ourlives in Glory. No, that doesn't mean we should ignore politics and social issues because the next life is more important, because as Christians we should be working for a society that makes it easier for other people to recognize and accept Christ rather than more difficult.*
There are more levels,
Show Comments »
» The Queen of All Evil links with: I have Two Words For Jimmy Swaggart
Juliette reminds us of the facts of racist attitudes.
Whenever I meet or read about a black American who has adopted Islam and/or an Arabic name, I view him/her with a certain amount of skepticism and pity (yes, even Laker legend, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, though I admire him to certain extent). As a black American who, through simple patrimony, was born honestly owning an African surname, I can definitely understand the desire of some black Americans to embrace the heritage denied to them and to their ancestors by American slave owners. So why not adopt a West African name? For a black American to adopt an Arabic name is to trade one set of now-symbolic chains for a set of real ones. One type of oppression is dead/dying; the other is still alive and growing. Like a tumor.
Show Comments »
I've made these points several times. It doesn't hurt to have the Census Bureau backing me up:
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:— Forty-six percent of all poor households own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and porch or patio.
— Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
— Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
— The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
— Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
— Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions.
— Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
— Seventy-three percent own a microwave oven, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Yeah, I blame the evil Republicans for the late 90s welfare reform, too. Not to mention Bush's tax cuts.
Via The Conspiracy.
Show Comments »
September 15, 2004
You are a soldier, even if your body will no longer allow you to serve.
Diogenes makes multiple excellent points, so read the whole thing. I'd like to highlight two, however.
Some time ago, I asserted (without backing up my claim) that are a huge number of Christians in the military. I didn't follow up on it because Jeremy was the only person who seemed interested, and I'm lazy sometimes. Well, Diogenes makes the exact same point, plus more, that I was going to make:
You see a lot of religious soldiers. There's a reason for that, and it's humility. Service to country and Service to God bear a striking resemblance in the humility that it imposes. There is a recognition in both that there is more to the world than your wants, your desires, and your needs. Facing the prospect of death reminds many soldiers that much of what we see in the world is smoke and shadow. Conquering your fear of death through belief in the Almighty reminds you of the same thing....
Some people are uncomfortable with the idea of service to God. Perhaps for those who don't understand the power of God's love for humanity, it is an easy step from belief in your ideals to blind-eyed fanaticism. Certainly there are those who in the name of religion betray the fundamental precepts that undergird a religion and twist the tenets of one's religious beliefs to fit the selfish needs of an individual or a group. Perhaps. I've never seen it. I've seen only weak men who claim one thing while feverishly pursuing another. Certainly that's what I saw when the planes hit.
This point is of the utmost importance, as well:
The weak cannot defend themselves. George W. Bush has many flaws, and so does his administration. But one thing can be said that only a fool can discount. He has chosen his ideals. Those ideals are worthy of emulation and respect. And the American president will not waver from service to those ideals.We, the American people, and those of our like-minded brethren around the world have a choice. Both in the ballot box and in our personal lives, we can choose to follow the ideals of our president, or we can choose to fight them.
When clever pundits mock the strategy behind the war, or seek political gain from missteps, they are doing so because they do not care about the weak and the innocent. When protestors in the street chant mindless slogans meant to showcase their defense of the weak against American ideals, they are stomping on the dreams of those they claim to care about.
Hat tip to Dean Esmay, again.
Show Comments »
September 14, 2004
Not Americans, I guess. Well, not Americans who are being honest about their opinions, Americans who aren't trying to trump up minor issues to score major political points...
Various people say accusations that Patriot Act is a "Threat to Liberty" are overhyped nonsense. Here's a more specific defense.
Fair enough. You can agree or not.
But some indications that people really don't care that much about privacy can be found every time you turn on your TV. Yep, at least two major credit cards have made entire advertising campaigns around the idea that they will pay attention to your purchases and contact you if it seems out of character. One of the paid-actor-fake-examples is a rotund middle-aged man who is pleased that his credit card company knew that he was too overweight to have actually purchased surfboarding equipment.
And GM's OnStar system is about as intrusive as you can imagine. At least some people are raising some questions about that, in that I read an article last week that pointed out something to the effect of, "People want their stolen cars found by GPS, but don't want anyone to know they spent 5 hours at the local strip club."
Technology is creating a corporate Big Brother far more insidious than George Orwell ever thought. For instance, cell phone companies had been trying to figure out how to more precisely locate cell phone users, ostensibly to aid in locating 9-11 calls, but in actuality to help them plan transmitter/receiver construction more appropriately. I just got a cell phone again last month after a 2-year gap, and imagine my surprise to read the user's manual and find that the little symbol in the icon bar means that my location has been identified...and its a "constant-on" system.
I'm sometimes ridiculed for my "If you live an honorable life, you don't need to worry so much about privacy" attitude, and sometimes applauded. It seems to me that the people who think I'm being excessively naive need to confront their naivete (naivety? naiveness?) regarding the impossibility of retaining privacy in our increasingly electronic, increasingly monitored, increasingly interconnected world. The irony is that we pay companies to invade our privacy, much like giving free advertising to multibillion dollar clothes companies like Abercrombie and Fitch while paying for them for the privilege.....
Show Comments »
September 13, 2004
I have a friend who I shamefully accused of growing more conservative. It turns out I misunderstood a comment he made to me last year.
But in any case, we had a nice discussion about politics and such on the phone the other day, and one of the things that came up were the media distortions regarding President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" Act. Based on his experience as a teacher, and his wife still being in the teaching profession, one of the good points he made was that attempts to enforce accountability merely encourage "teaching to the tests" and don't result in better learning.
Well, this article is for him and those who agree with him.
States with more school choice or stronger accountability testing produced significantly better academic outcomes when differences in student disadvantages were taken into account, while states that spent more money per pupil produced no better results.
But the main point of the article is that despite doubling the amount of money spent per child on education in inflation-adjusted dollars, and despite it actually being easier to educate children (less outside problems distracting the students), education isn't improving. Why? Who do we hold responsible? Given the track record, I'd say we start with the liberal ideology that encouraged parents to think of the school as being responsible for education, i.e., "The Village raising the child."
Show Comments »
September 08, 2004
The comments on this post resulted in a flash of insight for me:
A mere two years ago, I was a normal, slightly-conservative Republican, tolerant of homosexual behavior without approving of it, and with several people for whom I care deeply being homosexual. Now, without my views having changed in the least, I am now a viciously anti-gay religious rightist. I assume that I won't rest until John Ashcroft imposes a theocracy, although I assure I wasn't aware of any desires in that direction, but if history has shown us anything, it is that homosexuals are never, ever wrong. Just ask Andrew Sullivan.
(Hat tip to the inestimable Zombyboy, who may not approve of being linked to sarcasm like this. Let me know if you want this link removed, k?)
Show Comments »
Yes, let's listen to the Democrats and liberals in this nation and try to be more like Europe!
Show Comments »
I wonder if articles like these decrying the precocious sexuality of youth will result in a backlash? Morality is often a pendulum: the Roaring 20s weren't called "roaring" for nothing! They featured relaxed attitudes about sex and drugs, as well. But we still returned to conservative morals in the 40s and 50s.
If such a shift *does* occur, it's going to be hard on the homosexuals, particularly.
Show Comments »
August 30, 2004
People talk about the polarization and anger in politics today, and they point to the 2000 election fiasco, or debate over SSM and/or abortion, or even the internet as the cause of the recent hatred, insanity, and general idiocy.
They're all wrong.
It's late-60's/early-70's fashion. If people are dumb enough to bring back fashions like low-rise jeans, they're dumb enough to blame President Bush for successfully improving the economy and making the country safer. If they're dumb enough to wear dorky glasses like Tina Fey (and worse!) wears, then they're dumb enough to vote for John F. Kerry.
Bring back big hair and garish eye makeup, and I guarantee you conservative voting will rise again!
Show Comments »
People younger than a certain age may not understand the bliss that used to be eating McDonald's french fries.
There are children growing up today who will never understand french fries that stay good for longer than about 5 minutes, french fries that don't shrivel up and become hard when cold, french fries that still taste good even when not hot.
The Crusadors Who Know What's Good For Everyone decided that using animal fats in fried foods at fast food restaurants should be stopped, because it was bad for the circulatory system.
Perhaps, but now we have crappy-tasting french fries and people still complain that fast food is making them fat against their will.
If people are going to die obese from fast food, can't we at least make sure everyone gets to enjoy the food?
Show Comments »
This guy is a genius. He's figured out a way to grope women who not only willingly come to him for the privilege, they pay him for it. And he didn't even have to get elected to a position of power like Governor of Arkansas or President of the United States to do it.
Honestly, this sounds like the immature adult version of 'hooking up' to me. People can get non-commitment sex pretty easily, thanks to the erosion of standards exemplified and reinforced by such 'entertainment' products as HBO's Sex in the City, but sex without true intimacy leaves people feeling unfulfilled. So rather than trying to develop a meaningful bond with another person, this guy is trying to satisfy urges through still more impersonal contact. It may feel good for a time, but I'm betting the people feel emptier after it's all over, whether they admit it or not.
Humans are wired a certain way (except for those few humans who seem to have some crossed circuits), whether you believe that hard-wiring was by God or Evolution (I apologize for the redundancy). People thrash around trying to find alternatives, but there is an effective and proven plan for happiness in life, if people would just let go of their prejudices...
Show Comments »
August 27, 2004
What happens if the Democrats lose?
It seems all too likely to me. It could be an uncomfortable four years for everyone.
Show Comments »
August 18, 2004
A false dichotomy between safety and freedom, created by the Left.
Show Comments »
August 17, 2004
After handling my petulance with grace and aplomb, check out how Michelle Malkin handles this one. She sends traffic over, with minimal self-defense and mostly compliments.
And I can understand the angst Shelley Powers is feeling, at least as far as feeling like you are getting less attention than you deserve. (although now I feel I get more than I deserve...I guess it evens out)
Other thoughts and reactions:
I suspect that Ms. Powers didn't realize that Michelle Malkin was already a well-known and widely respected columnist, author, and talk-show guest/pundit who already shaped conservative thought long before she began blogging. Which is why she got so many hits so soon...it really had little connection with her book publishing, methinks.
I found Michele Catalano's response to the post highly intriguing. She talks about the 70s as being just as sexualized as the 00's. I disagree. I strongly disagree. Heck, I strenuously object! The 70s appeared to be a time of excessive sexualization, but it was only in comparison to the 50s and early 60s that preceded it. The sexual activity was mixed up in the drug culture and widespread rebellion against authority that were also prevalent at the time. And so I find it interesting that Michele feels she must apologize for her impulse running counter to that, now that she has gained both experience (wisdom, maturity) and a child. Michele has obviously learned that such a focus and emphasis on sex is not good for the individual spirit, despite how much the body may enjoy it. But even though the sexual revolution was born of questioning authority and rebelling against conventional wisdom of morality and status quo, Michele feels uncomfortable questioning the authority of purveyors of sexuality and rebelling against conventional wisdom of immorality. Freedom should be more free, right? Why does Michele feel uncomfortable drawing her own conclusions from her own experiences...?
And our times are far more sexualized. As a later poster indicated, you can find all sorts of things on TV that you couldn't in the 70s. Heck, you could find more simulated sex on TV in the 80s than in the 70s, thanks to HBO and music videos. Nowadays, you can find graphic pornography with just a few clicks of the mouse, junior high school students perform oral sex in the classroom, and it is difficult to find clothes for your 10-year-old girl that are less suggestive than the average hooker wears.
The message of the 60s was "Self-Actualization and Enlightenment Through Sex."
As a society, we tried it out throughout the 70s and early 80s until we got the AIDS epidemic. Yay. We had teen pregnancy. Yay. The left fought to popularize abortion, so now we have teen pregnancy at higher rates and abortion at higher rates. Yay.
One solution? Stop brainwashing our kids into thinking that sex is the ultimate expression of love, or perhaps teach them that attraction and love aren't the same thing.
Instead, as a society, we denigrate anyone who suggests kids should wait until marriage to have sex. Keep setting low expectations, right? That way you don't make anyone feel bad for not even meeting those...
Maturity means figuring out what actually works. Wisdom means being able to apply those lessons to other situations. Compassion means helping our youth understand the costs and the choices without having to go through the pain themselves.
...and I'm rambling. Ah, well, I mean what I say, and I think it is worth saying, but I doubt anyone really wants to listen. Either you agree and I'm wasting my breath, or you'll never agree and I'm wasting my breath. Er, fingers energy. Whatever.
In any case, I can ramble if I want to.
Show Comments »
August 12, 2004
And a fine one, too. Anyone care to dispute it?
Show Comments »
August 11, 2004
I can't believe it's actually real.
Click, if you dare. It's that cheesy.
Found via The American Thinker, who seems to be taking it seriously, and whom was found via Dean Esmay. (Dean's link points to the piece I read first, before browsing the main page to find the second).
Show Comments »
August 09, 2004
Remember this article regarding weaselly announcements from the CDC that appear designed to inspire confidence in a method of protection that fails 15% of the time even when used absolutely correctly?
In that post, I said:
Or even more importantly, it might reduce government funding...Bottom line: Is an attitude political correctness intimidating the CDC from giving us the facts?
In today's Kausfiles, we read:
there's a new twist: The creation of a permanent, self-perpetuating AIDS bureaucracy that has a vested interest in maintaining the disease but little interest in curing it. [Emph. added]
Now, two people coming to similar conspiracy-theory conclusions proves nothing at all. But an understanding of human nature indicates why it is far too easy for the conspiracy theory to already be reality...
Show Comments »
July 27, 2004
You know what I hate about this report from the CDC?
Two things:
First: The phrase, "...latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier..." Well? Is it an impermeable barrier or not? The addition of the word 'essentially' makes it sound like it...but the meaning is the opposite. It's not an impermeable barrier, or they would just say so. 'Essentially' is a weasel word.
Second: Despite lots of words implying lots of knowledge on the performance of comdoms in a variety of situations, they can't seem to offer one, single hard number/percentage for the effectiveness of condoms in preventing any STD. Do they have any actual statistics to look at? If not, then they have no basis for their statements. If so, why can't they tell us? Why can't they share it with us? For all the tax dollars going to support the CDC, they can't tell us whether condoms are generally 97% or 99% effective in preventing Syphillis? Is it far worse? Would the percentage actually make a lie out of the earlier weasel word 'essentially'? What are they afraid of?
Because if we had the statistics, we could make better choices, right?
...but then, if we had the statistics, it might show just how irresponsible extra-marital sex really is, might it not? That might lead to the condemnation of certain lifestyles as inherently risky, and reduce sympathy for people willingly and knowingly playing with their health. Or even more importantly, it might reduce government funding...
Bottom line: Is an attitude political correctness intimidating the CDC from giving us the facts?
Show Comments »
In light of the tenor of my recent posts saying that the liberal fantasy of "costless" sexual intercourse has multiple, unfortunate repercussions, Matt Drudge points out this article that describes how STDs in Great Britain are rising significantly.
What about the United States?
For the most part, you reap what you sow.
Show Comments »
And everything I wrote in the preceding posts was written before I even read one word of this piece by Michelle Malkin.
Excerpt:
From the way the mainstream media covers your generation and mine, you would think that it’s normal to dress up in Hooters outfits at 5 years old, to wear sex bracelets and discuss oral sex at 10, to flash your breasts for the cameras at 15, to get paid for anal sex at 20, to keep Excel spreadsheets of sexual conquests, and to use abortion as birth control until menopause.When conservative women say “Have some self-respect,” liberals in the media call us self-righteous.
When conservative women say promiscuity is degrading and self-destructive, liberals in the media call us prudes.
When liberals won’t shut up about their sordid sex lives and we object, they call us rude.
When liberal women raise their voices, they are praised as “passionate.” When conservative women raise their voices, we are condemned as “shrill.”
Liberals and libertines who can’t complete a sentence without using gutter profanity have turned modesty, monogamy, faith, and self-restraint into dirty words.
I consider Planned Parenthood's Teenwire to be a significant part of the problem Ms. Malkin describes. Read the whole thing, k?
Show Comments »
» Blind Mind's Eye links with: Rethinking the sexual revolution: a libertarian's perspective
Since I'm discussing social issues, I'd like to add that much of the disagreements you might have with me or see among the posters here probably has something to do with viewpoint and worldview.
For instance, I was born in the 60s. My father was a Lutheran minister. I was the youngest of several children (so I learned alot from watching their mistakes). I'm male, so the idea of the immediacy of finding yourself pregnant is foreign to me...but I'm a male, so the idea of being forced to pay child support for 18-20 years without a choice seems very immediate to me.* Furthermore, I am an unexpected/unwanted child myself, and my daughter was unexpected (and not really wanted by my wife), so that affects my views. My wife now agrees having her was good...but the resentment affected our marriage for a few years, and her life has certainly made things more difficult for us. And if the sexual freedom enabled by contraception and abortion and encouraged by Planned Parenthood and feminists had existed 20-30 years earlier, you wouldn't be reading this because I wouldn't be here. So you can't really say I don't have a stake in this issue, can you?
That doesn't nullify the opinion of a woman who had a unwanted pregnancy and was really scared about the difficulties she faced, no. I don't pretend it should. I do think this is a battle for ideas in our society, and I am battling for a moral standard that will build a better, stronger, more mature and responsible society...but one that I recognize will mean a significantly harder life for some people.
And I recognize that if I get what I want, one of the victims of it could be my own daughter. But I'd rather have her face the difficulties from facing the normal consequences of failing to act responsibly than have her face the pain and heartbreak of being fooled by today's "Do what you want because there's always a way to avoid pain and/or the consequences of willing acts" mentality.
Read More "...and Another Thing!" »Show Comments »
Here are some major assumption that I use in almost all my thinking:
When you cannot control your circumstances, you can still control how you react to those circumstances. That's character.
Difficult situations are part of life. We grow during difficult situations. Most of the things worth achieving in life require sacrifice, effort, pain, toil, sweat, tears, and blood. Deal with it.
Morality (as opposed to religious morality) is simply what works in life to achieve happiness, contentment, and inner peace. It means taking long-term gain over short-term gratification. Morality is the collected wisdom of the ages. It isn't perfect, and is continually growing...but ignoring wisdom is a sure way to avoidable pain and suffering.
Pain and suffering themselves aren't bad. Getting in physical shape and staying there requires pain and suffering of your body. Well, guess what? Getting in emotional, mental, and spiritual shape and staying there requires pain and suffering of the mind. The key is to differentiate between what is "damaging" pain and suffering, and what is the pain and suffering of growth.*
There's more, but this will do. It gives you an idea of the way I approach life, and thus the way I approach social issues.
Read More "Assumptions" »Show Comments »
I understand where Jo is coming from, mostly, in this discussion. Maybe the best way to summarize it is that abortion is so necessary in some rare situations that it justifies all the ways it is misused. A good analogy is in our criminal system, in which it is so important that we do not convict innocent people that we willingly accept the guilty who misuse the system, who take advantage of the loopholes we establish to provide the innocent a way out. Thus, Jo (along with other pro-choice advocates) is not advocating the misuse, she is advocating the loophole as necessary and worth the cost.
Well and good.
I admit I like to think outside the box. I like to challenge conventional wisdom. I like to confront assumptions. I like to shake things up and see what falls out. I also have tested out both religion and atheism, and spend a great deal of time observing humans...especially noticing when people lie to themselves about who they are and what they think they want.
One thing that forms the basis of my opposition to Jo's view: I don't think there is anything wrong with pain, difficulty, and struggle.* I can understand the viewpoint that it is worth the misuse just to make sure that no girl is ever forced to raise a child in a situation that seems impossible...I just don't agree. One thing that I don't like about abortion is its permanence...if you stick it out, there will be tough times, yes, but there will also be joys. Having a child as a young, single mother does not mean you are destined to doom, failure, or poverty. But if you abort, that's it. The child is dead. There's no going back, no knowing what the child might have been, might have done, what joy or beauty they might have added to the world. If you end up childless, you can't change your mind and have the child you killed. But if you have the child and give it up for adoption, you can someday find the child again.
Part of the problem is that feminists, liberals, Planned Parenthood, and pro-choice advocates do not recognize the opportunities and potential inherent to having a child. They see only the burden and responsibility as closing doors.
And let's not sugarcoat it: having a child is a burden. It is hard. It changes you. If you keep the child, it is an unavoidable responsibility. It makes it difficult, if not impossible, to complete high school, college, or keep your job.
But let's not sugarcoat it the other way, either: two people did engage in a voluntary activity, and should accept the responsibilities. Having a child is not an insurmountable obstacle to a high school diploma, a college degree, or a successful career. Aborting the child does not mean the girl will automatically obtain all these things, and keeping the child only makes them more difficult, not impossible.
So. More difficult. Is that a bad thing? When you work out, you get tired. Your body hurts. Your muscles are sore for a few days. So what? It's good for you. Achieving good things requires struggle, and working hard only makes you stronger. It is the same way with people and the difficulties added by trying to succeed in life with a young child. At worst, having a baby should only mean a delay in reaching goals of no more than five years. Any longer than that, and it is still the individual who should be blamed for the failure, not the baby. Again, there is no justification in killing the child for the parents' mistake/irresponsibility.
And here's the reason for the title of this piece:
My argument might be disjointed, and objections to it will certainly be disjointed, precisely because liberal policy has made a complete mess of the situation. Liberal solutions to social problems seem to always make the issue more complex, rather than resolving the situation.
For instance, the overall problem was that women were considered by feminists to be second-class citizens; careers were for men, sexual enjoyment was for men, financial independence was for men, etc. The liberal solution was to make it easier for women to divorce, encourage women to enter the work force, shame/discourage women from staying at home (and don't try to tell me that didn't happen), encourage women to experiment with sex and seek out greater quantities of partners (and simultaneously, discourage women from trying to be sexually attractive...an interesting schizophrenia, to be sure), and develop/promote the use of birth control to give women more control over reproduction so they wouldn't end up trapped in marriage through pregnancy.
So far so good. Except that the results were an increase in pregnancies, a rise in STDs, more single-motherhood and a resultant increase of poverty for such households. So could the solution be to discourage girls from having sex? Or to encourage them to persevere in obtaining education so they will always have more options? Nope. The solution was to greately expand welfare so that the young mothers don't suffer. But welfare didn't end poverty, it only encouraged it. So they encouraged abortion to take up the slack where birth control pills couldn't work. But some girls wouldn't get abortions, even tho liberals and feminists touted it as "the thing to do", and welfare wasn't really getting anywhere. So they cracked down on "deadbeat dads". Yes, the same men that aren't allowed to have a say in whether their child is actually born or murdered can be forced to give up substantial amounts of money for 18-20 years. The logic that insists women should have choice over the bodies is hypocritically thrown out the window when before it can be applied to men. Even worse, men are told "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" and thus held to a far greater level of responsibility for fulfilling what conventional wisdom says is a far stronger natural urge. Try to tell a pro-choice advocate that the same standard should apply to a woman sometime and see what reaction you get...
So now we have men suffering involuntary wage-garnishing based on no evidence other than one woman's testimony (and in some cases, in opposition to scientific evidence) to pay for women who get pregnant because liberal society says it's okay to go ahead and have sex because everyone else is and you can always get an abortion anyway, and our tax dollars go to pay for these abortions, for the propaganda that encourages it, for the condoms that are supposed to protect from pregnancy and STDs, for the treatement of the STDs, for the welfare the women earn if they decide not to abort, for the legal battles fought to keep all this amoral activity legal...
...or, we could just say that abortion after week 4 is not allowable except to save the life of the mother, period.
But what about rape and incest?!??! comes the cry. What about it? Most people know they are raped and are in a position to make sure they don't get pregnant long before 4 weeks. Incest, as well, although it is more problematic. But I posit that if a girl is pregnant from incest, she has far more extensive and more pressing problems than what to do about a baby. If she can't stop the incest from occurring, it's unlikely she will have the freedom to seek out a taxpayer-funded abortion, either.
And out of the 40 milllion babies who have been killed in the name of the sexual revolution and "freedom" for women and so women can have control of their own bodies, exactly how many have been due to rape or incest?
So, yeah. Call me a bastard, or unfeeling, or a monster. I am saying that it's not worth it. I am saying that there are better ways to help someone who has been raped or the victim of incest than allowing 39 million plus other women avoid responsibility for their actions. I am saying that while it might not be a good idea to totally outlaw abortion again, it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the current situation causes far more misery. I am saying that if abortion were severely restricted, life would be better for everyone, including the people who would then be forced to have babies, because those babies would be the direct result of their own willing actions.
You want control of your body? Take control earlier.
With that restriction, everything else makes more sense. Planned Parenthood can no longer encourage people to have sex on the excuse that "everyone else is doing it", because the only honest thing to say is, "Don't have sex unless you are in the right situation to have a baby, because you never know..." The welfare rolls would shrink dramatically if 50s era morality were returned. Please note: I'm not talking religious morality, merely the morality of what works, and a society-wide acknowledgement that sex has inherent risks, along with a full expression/explanation of that risk would result in far fewer STDs, far fewer pregnancies, greatly reduced welfare rolls, a correspondingly substantial reduction of poverty, an eventual, corresondingly impressive reduction in criminal convictions and prison population, and all that would inevitably mean that more people would be happier and more fulfilled.
Yes, it would be worse for some people. The people hardest hit would be the people unable to change their attitudes to align with the new standards. Over time, the people hardest hit would be the people who refuse to act in accordance with the risks, the people who deliberately refuse to act with responsibility and maturity, the people who, consciously or unconsciously, ignore the risks to do what they want. But isn't that the way it should be...? Shouldn't people be rewarded for making the smart choice rather than the selfish choice?
And if you find yourself reacting to that negatively...ask yourself: to what extent am I influenced by modern attitudes? To what extent to I believe that extra-marital sex is a right? To what extent do I believe that the risks should not exist for me?
I don't expect my view will be popular. I oppose Jo's viewpoint, not because I think she is the aberration, but because I recognize that the world's way brings more of the pain and misery it purports to help you avoid. I admit my view is based on the teachings of Christianity...but they work well for achieving peace, happiness, and contentment nonetheless. Rejecting a method that works just because of the person who tells it to you is the height of foolishness, wouldn't you say?
Read More "LiberalShow Comments »
July 26, 2004
So when did "rare" get redefined as, "Let's advertise the heck out it!", hmmm?
Just in time for Planned Parenthood to market pen holders advertising RU-486 and, even worse, pens that say, "Because Accidents Happen...Planned Parenthood".
Not to mention the "I had an abortion" T-shirts.
(Thanks to Bill at the INDC Journal for the Google cache of the T-shirt)
Show Comments »
» Sharp as a Marble links with: Four Words that Sum Up Why I am Pro-Life
» Swanky Conservative links with: The New Planned Parenthood Shirt Design
July 23, 2004
You've seen the symbols on the back of cars: the fish representing Christianity, and the snarky response from evolutionists of a fish with feet.
One could point out the idiocy of the Darwin symbol: since there are no fossil records of fish with feet, they are actually highlighting a major problem with their theory. But that's not the point of this post.
No, I'd like to discuss what the fish symbol really means. It is quite possible that the evolutionists don't realize that the fish symbol actually is an acronym.
But since they came up with their own symbol, complete with the word "Darwin", as a deliberate response, I guess that means their symbol must be based on an acronym, as well.
What could it be, then?
"Duplicitous Atheists Require Widespread Idiotic Nonsense." Yep, that describes the way they've pushed a weak and internally inconsistent Evolution Theory as fact. Although, I guess it could just as easily be "Dumb Atheists Really Want Ignorance Nationwide." I'm not sure, but either one will do.
"Dead Ancestors Really Weren't Indigenous Neanderthals" Again, that's an accurate statement. So maybe that's it.
Any other suggestions?
Show Comments »
Go read this Protein Wisdom Public Service Announcement.
Well worth your time.
Excerpt:
In my personal estimation, the elevation of group identity politics—helped along by the PC handmaidens who actively champion it—is the biggest threat to individual liberty in this country, as Wood is correct to suggest. Which is why I’d like to see a whole lot less handwringing over the pragmatic PATRIOT Act, and a whole lot more resistance to the diversity movement, which truly does threaten to rob us of our liberties by forcing on us a Balkanizing mindset that can only lead, legislatively, to legally enshrined relativism. Which. y’know, would totally suck.
Show Comments »
July 22, 2004
Dean asks: What ways do you match or deviate from gender stereotypes?
Now that's a dang good question. First, you probably have to define exactly which stereotypical behaviors go with which gender, though. For instance, I think a rich fantasy life of "what I'm going to be when I grow up" is more typically male than female, and that it leads directly into typically-male hobbies; whereas a rich fantasy life of "who I'm going to marry or what life I will lead when I grow up" is much more female than male. That kinda forms the basis of my "Every Boy a Hero, Every Girl a Princess" theory that I'm going to turn into a book someday.
So, here's mine:
I embody maleness by:
1) I have gone through a succession of typical male fantasies: Sports hero, rock star, war/armageddon hero, and I bought the equipment I needed to fulfill the second two (lots of guitars, recording equipment, and bunches of rifles)
2) I tease my kids whenever possible
3) I love football, particularly the Kansas City Chiefs
4) I love war movies and karate movies and westerns
5) Boobies. Yep. The female body in general holds a fascination akin to a cat mesmerized by a fluttering insect or a wiggling string
6) I don't usually have a hankerin' to fix something automotive or around the house, but when I do, I'm good at it and I enjoy it immensely
7) Shopping sucks
8) Shopping for guns, ammo, guitars, or karate movies doesn't suck
9) Computer war games are nearly as cool as "Avalon Hill"-style strategy simulation board games
10) I am the source of both discipline and good financial judgment in our family
I do not embody maleness because I:
1) Cried during Beaches and Joy Luck Club
2) Don't take my identity from my work
3) Have fairly good fashion instincts (I've surprised my wife several times by the reasoning behind which I helped her choose clothing...she has disagreed with me but been forced to admit I was correct)
4) Remote control? Who cares. I only turn on the TV to watch something specific, anyway
5) I like talking about my feelings, and listening to women talk about their feelings
Show Comments »
July 21, 2004
Okay, I'm boycotting Hollywood. I offer a clarification: there are exceptions to any sweeping I might care to make. Thus, not every Hollywood movie exemplifies a "throw away quality to appeal to lowest common denominator to make a buck" mentality. Not every Hollywood movie uses eye candy to titillate and seduce into lower moral standards. Not every Hollywood movie is a waste of time. Not every Hollywood movie corrupts or modifies classic stories.
However, all these trends together are enough to make me swear off of Hollywood, and refuse to support them. Additionally, I refuse to even sponge off the system by watching pirated versions.
All that being said, I guess I'm willing to bend my rules enough to check out a good movie from the library. I did just that with A Mighty Wind.*
This is an excellent, top-notch movie. The music was amazingly good, especially considering that it was all written and performed by the actual actors you see. I am stunned by the quality of Eugene Levy's singing voice, and when Katherine O'Hara joins in....they did some stuff as good as the Indigo Girls, IMHO. I absolutely love the song "When You're Next To Me". I've transcribed it and at some point will record it with me performing.
I am not what you would call a folk music fan. I ended up with a decent emotional connection to the movie, however, because I grew up listening to the New Christy Minstrels' Christmas album that the New Main Street Singers were emulating, because I've heard of the Kingston Trio (and love the musical synergy of the Guest/McKean/Shearer trio playing them), and the harmonies of Mitch and Mickey. In their music, I could clearly hear the same approach to duet singing that I adore in the Indigo Girls. Though, to be honest, I have no idea who Mitch and Mickey were supposed to be representing...
Two complaints about the movie:
1) Even in a quality Christopher Guest improv film, they had to include some absolutely unnecessary lowbrow humor, when a couple (clear implication of a prostitute and John**) in Mitch's hotel had loud intercourse. I consider it unnecessary because it is such a stale joke, and also because Mitch's hotel wasn't an obvious dive. The room was rather clean and looked like your average Regal 8 to me.
2) One bit of improv went flat, when the Folksmen were revealing why some of their albums had difficulty gaining wide acceptance, and Michael said they put the albums out without holes in the center. That prompted Harry to say that the album would teeter on top of the turnstile, but then Michael interrupted and and said No, you had to cut your own... Guys, that was just stupid. It should have ended up on the cutting room floor.
On the other hand, the riff they did on the "Nonny Nonny No Nonny Yo" was truly hilarious, I thought. And the "Never Did No Wanderin' After All" is a great parody of folk music, methinks.
An excellent movie. I may end up having to buy this one on DVD...
Read More "A Mighty Wind" »Show Comments »
2) If your gut sticks out farther in front of you than your boobs do, you might want to rethink the whole bare midriff concept.
You can read the rest here.
Read More "Advice To the World*" »Show Comments »
July 18, 2004
To tell the truth, I'm not sure what else to say about this. It rather depresses me.
Via Warren, who will be added to my blogroll as soon as I get around to it (probably tomorrow).
Show Comments »
Here's a roundup of the most salient verses from the Bible on this issue. It seems fairly cut and dried to me, as well.
One thing I'd like to point out, though: One thing the Bible makes very clear: there are sins of commission, and sins of omission, and sins of the heart. If you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit in your heart without saying a word, you have still sinned. However, I think homosexuality is more equivalent to lying and adultery: you can have the urges, but it is the action that is the sin. Furthermore, any sin can be repented. Repentence means recognizing your sin, asking God for forgiveness, and then attempting to not commit that sin again. If you do, you can always go through the process of repentence again, but it's not repentence if you don't even resist the temptation.
Thus, I think it is fairly clear that it is unrepentant homosexual behavior that separates homosexuals from God, not their urges. I have urges to have wild heterosexual sex with every pretty girl I see...especially when I was younger. When I am closer to God and recognize my sin, I repent and try to turn away; over time, I have grown in wisdom, maturity, and holiness that seeing a pretty girl now usually doesn't result in lust. Most of the time. I'll never be free of it, but I certainly don't give in to it by cheating on my wife, and usually don't even give in to it with a sexual fantasy.* If a homosexual wants to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, s/he must likewise attempt to resist, reduce, and eventually eliminate the homosexual behavior and lusts...
Read More "God Talks About Homosexuality" »Show Comments »
July 15, 2004
..and probably should be said over and over again until more people get it.
The world doesn't revolve around you. You may know you aren't a terrorist, but the cops and flight attendents and those charged with keeping all non-terrorists safe don't. Have some patience and understanding.
Show Comments »
Are there some situations in which it is a waste of time to attempt to ensure a fair trial?
I mean, every time I try to think of a situation in which a person could be slam-dunk convicted enough that we don't really need to offer them a trial in order to bring about justice, I think of the movie F/X. Sure, someone can be framed even in our legal system, but a trial at least provides a chance for intelligent people to try and find minor flaws and inconsistencies that might indicate the appearance of guilt is due to a frame attempt. I always conclude that we are better off with things the way they are.
But what about Saddam? I really think that if we merely grabbed and put him up against a wall and shot him without another word, it would still be justice. In fact, the only injustice might be that we could possibly miss out on a full accounting of his atrocities...maybe.
Is it worth the risk of a successful escape or rescue or an intimidated jury to actually put him on trial? Regardless of the issue of determining his guilt/innocence, is the benefit more just in allowing the new government to confront, accuse, and execute him for the potent symbolism involved?
The only reason I'm asking is because if there is even one definitive circumstance in which we can say that there is no need for a trial, then we should consider that in light of our legal system, and see if there would be any way to safely implement and even expand the circumstances in which a person may be convicted without a trial, in the interests of justice. Could top-notch DNA analysis ever provide the necessary accuracy required (such as being able to not only identify the person through DNA, but also able to tell when the DNA had been planted by pouring a vial of bodily fluid after the fact)?
Lawyers and law students, specifically, are invited to weigh in.
UPDATE:
I'm not saying Saddam is our responsibility, just that his crimes are well-documented enough that Iraq doesn't really need to try him. If any case can be said to make a trial unnecessary, I'd say it was this one. (Or Hitler's...but Hitler is still living in Argentina or Bolivia, and so outside the scope of our discussion) So, if Saddam doesn't really need a trial to establish his guilt, is there any possibility of any case in the United States legal system in which we don't have to assume innocence before proven guilty? If not, well, then question answered, end of story. But if so, what are the circumstances? And would it be advisable or even possible to adjust our legal system toward that direction at all?
Show Comments »
I found this opinion piece to be nearly 100% in agreement with what I think about the current state of the battle over SSM.
Dunno if it needs a subscription or not. I had no problem with accessing it.
In any case, I'd like to point out that I don't think being a Christian (or an atheist, for that matter) should dictate your support or opposition to SSM. The sinfulness of homosexual behavior really has no bearing on whether or not marriage between two men or two women should or should not be legal. There are some arguments for SSM that a Christian should support, if they can be demonstrated to be more than mere wishful thinking, such as that legal SSM could provide a stabilizing/calming effect on homosexual activists so we see fewer Gay Bars with sodomy in the back rooms, less extreme promiscuity, lower HIV-infection rates, etc.
However, I do find it disturbing when a Christian argues for the legalization of SSM on the basis that homosexual behavior isn't a sin. I flatly cannot understand this sort of argument; it seems like the best example of a non-sequitor for our modern times. You might as well argue that we no longer consider murder to be a crime because it is in the 10 Commandments and we must have separation of church and state to eliminate the corrupting influence of religion.
Personally, I currently oppose the legalization of SSM on the grounds that:
1) a significant number of homosexuals are seduced/influenced/corrupted into declaring themselves homosexual beyond return. The legalization of SSM will further establish homosexuality as an equally-valid "lifestyle choice" and whitewash the very real damaging consequences of homosexual behavior, minimizing or concealing the substantially higher risk of engaging in homosexual behavior than heterosexual behavior.
2) the hypocrisy, dishonesty, presumptive (moral) high ground and general opportunism displayed by the pro-SSM advocates is despicable. I cannot believe that a goal worth achieving is worthwhile if achieved through such means. The pro-SSM advocacy as a whole is marked by a distinct lack of maturity, and that being the case, I conclude their arguments are mostly baseless and wishful thinking.
Show Comments »
I blogged a little on the International AIDS conference and the perfidy of the AIDS industry here. My good friend Dawn Eden blogs about it here and here. A slightly different take, yes, but essentially the same outraged reaction to the garbage they try to pass off as fact in their quest to undermine morality and societal standards.
Some excerpts:
But most AIDS activists refuse to consider the U.S.'s "ABC" program—which stresses, in order, abstinence, being faithful, and using condoms—because they refuse to adhere to a worldview that requires people to take personal responsibility for their actions. Likewise, since sex is their god, they wish to completely strip it of all its Judeo-Christian associations, detaching it from committed relationships.
She uses the term "AIDS Industry" in the first linked piece, so I used it here as well. I'm sure I've heard the term before, but in the context of Dawn's writing, it struck me cognitively as: "Industry committed to spreading and promoting AIDS", and with the advocacy of condoms only to prevent HIV infections, I think that's a perfectly accurate description, since it is:
A choice. Yes, that's it. A 15 percent choice of dying from AIDS. That is the probability that a person will be exposed to HIV while having sex when using using a condom. The high probability occurs because, as anyone who has used condoms well knows, those barrier contraceptives are prone to slip, leak, and break.
Show Comments »
July 14, 2004
Over the past decade movies have gotten more violent, and loaded up on sex and swearing, leading a pair of researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health to conclude that the Motion Picture Assn. of America (MPAA) is guilty of allowing "ratings creep" in its film classifications.
From this article.
The prosecution rests. I ain't gonna watch Hollywood no more. I really don't need more graphic violence, nudity, and adult situations.
Show Comments »
Make all liberal arts professors live in 4-family compounds, and all students live in 6-person suites; each with a single, shared kitchen and recreation area.
In short, make them live it before they can advocate it.
UPDATE:
Should have been labeled "Snark". Sorry for the confusion.
However, there are three aspects of humanity I take to be generally universal:
One: humans tend to the minimum necessary. Sometimes that's the minimum necessary to be able to feel smug, rather than the minimum required by rule, but when people aren't completing assigned tasks to everyone's expectations, resentments build.
Two: humans tend to overestimate their own contributions/efforts/difficulties, and underestimate those of others.
Three: when "the public" owns something, 99% of the time no one takes responsibility for it.
When I was in college, young students tended to be idealistic. It was always, "Wouldn't it be cool if...?". Heck, I dreamed of the idea of living in an artists' commune at one point. In my imagination, I saw it all being cool and a better use of efforts. But after nearly 2 decades of life and observation of human nature, I understand a little better how hard it is to get people to really work hard for the common good when they don't see a personal benefit of going beyond taking care of their own needs. "Good enough" is important: it's why you don't spend 18 hours cleaning your toilet every day. But it is also subjective, and "good enough" for me isn't good enough for you in some things, and vice versa. If nearly a third of arguments in marriages are based on disputes regarding division of labor, how can you expect friends/colleagues to be able to negotiate such pitfalls with less difficulty?
Few people are willing to work 100 hours a week for the comfort of an acquaintance who works only 10 hours a week. Living in a communal situation tends to make those situations more clear than the invisible nature of modern US socialism (until a newspaper article pulls back the curtain to highlight the "plight" of a woman on total support from the government being upset that she'll have to pay $5 to enroll for medical coverage because it will force her to choose between internet access and her cellphone...). I'm convinced that people who claim that "true" communism has never been tried have probably never tried to live it themselves for a long-term. I'm convinced that people who can support Castro have never been without their comforts. I'm convinced that the people who advocate higher taxes for the rich don't pay a penny more than they are required by law...and enjoy their comforts, as well. Seattle is a very liberal city, but when given the chance to add a mere $.10 to each cup of coffee to increase spending on early child care and education, 68% said no. Oregon is a liberal state, but refused to increase taxes even in the face of oh-so-typical blackmail from the Governer ("If you don't vote to raise your own taxes, I'll be forced to cut education while keeping all my perks and not doing a thing to reduce entitlement spending").
Simply put, most liberals want their compassionate platform only if they can get someone else to pay for most of it.
Show Comments »
July 13, 2004
Okay, you caught me. The last post wasn't just about writing, it was also a way to introduce the main theme of this entry.
It's not a strong post, because while I feel strongly about my point, I'm having a hard time expressing it adequately and succinctly. I'll probably have to revise it, and may well end up re-attacking it in another post entirely. But in any case, what the heck, here goes:
Read More "Freedom Within Limits" »Show Comments »
July 12, 2004
Excerpted from my reply to comments on the previous entry:
Read More "Hollywood Boycott, the Sequel!" »Show Comments »
I'm now pretty much totally boycotting Hollywood. I will not watch television programs, see movies in the movie theater, or rent movies. I reserve the right to purchase some movies on DVD, but even that will probably just be classic hits of the past, and there's a good chance I'll just buy pirated copies on trips to foreign countries.
Hollywood sucks. Their collective idea of what constitutes a good story sucks. Their collective idea of what constitutes morality sucks. Their politic sensibilities, as a whole, suck.
In retrospect, if motivations and actions of a significant character like Farimir can be changed to make what Hollywood considers a better story, who needs it? If "smoking" can and is changed to "gun industry" (because the dramatic world lives on cigarettes?) to change the whole focus of a dang good book, Runaway Jury into a mediocre movie, doesn't that say something about Hollywood's incompetence? Read The Bourne Identity, then watch the movie. There's little in common besides character and setting, is there? The movie didn't add a single thing to what was already present in an excellent book, and actually eliminated most of the story for the sake of Hollywood time norms.
Hollywood is all but worthless to me as entertainment. I refuse to contribute any longer.
Show Comments »
I have no idea what to make of, or how to respond to, this.
About the most I can muster is the realization that these people have been so consumed by their selfishness that they no longer understand what love is: putting the needs of others ahead of your own. Those T-shirts represent a morally bankrupt culture.
Show Comments »
They are so committed to tearing down values, morals, and standards, that they are willing to allow homosexuals and Africans to die one of the most horrible deaths possible to further their goals.
And they want your taxes to pay for it.
Don't believe me? Read this.
Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni [insisted] abstinence was the best way to stem the spread of the killer virus.The remarks by Museveni, whose country is a rare success story in Africa's war on AIDS, were at odds with health experts who back condoms as a frontline defense against the incurable disease.
"I look at condoms as an improvisation, not a solution," [said] Museveni.
Uganda's "ABC" method (Abstinence, Being faithful and Condoms) is a model for the AIDS policies of the administration of President Bush and which are under fire at the conference for advocating sexual abstinence to stem infection.
The liberal response?
U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) [...] accused the Bush administration of using ideology, not science, to dictate policy.
Fascinating. When a conservative method works and is demonstrably better than anything else, it's dismissed as being merely ideology. When a liberal method doesn't work (as they usually don't), they are deemed "science badly implemented" and must be tried again and again and again until everyone is dead (see: Communism and Socialism).
Show Comments »
July 10, 2004
One tactic in the Liberal War on Standards and Morals is to insist on legalities. Legalities are black or white. You can or you can't. A right is a license. If you can do it at all, you can do it anywhere.
Thus, the argument from the Left/Liberals is: "Stay out of my bedroom!" Actually, I have no problem with that argument in and of itself. Except that it is used to overturn rarely-if-ever-enforced laws...and once the laws are overturned, they drag their bedroom into the middle of the street. They come over to my house and try to do it my bedroom, and I can't stop them because their actions are legal.
Far from merely protecting their privacy, they seek these rulings and judgments so they can invade mine. In their obsession with sex and physical gratification, they want to make the entire nation their "bedroom".
Abortion was ruled legal on the idea of a right to privacy. But that "privacy" now means the daughter of my neighbor can get an abortion without notifying her parents. And my taxes have to pay for it. How does that protect anyone's privacy? The liberals dragged their "bedroom" into doctor's offices, my neighbor's house, Congress to pass the laws and get the funding, and even my workplace where I earn the money they snatch to pay for this abortion borne of (pun intended) the same low moral standards they themselves pushed for in the name of "freedom".
Lawrence vs Texas was ruled unconstitutional based on the right of bedroom privacy. But some of the statements from those judges are now being used as the basis to argue for SSM. Apparently the liberals now think their "bedroom" encompasses churches, justices-of-the-peace, bridal boutiques, the wedding announcement page of newspapers, spousal benefits from work, even adoption centers and fertility clinics.
That's one dang big bedroom.
That's why I'm not proposing a legal fix for this problem that liberals don't even see as a problem. The solution is not to criminalize activities people perform in their bedroom so they stop doing it in public! Obviously, the solution is just to get people to take care of their business where it belongs. Societal pressures, standards, and norms are perfect for this. We need to be telling our kids it is wrong, foolish, unhelpful, and self-damaging to have sex before they get out of college. We should be telling them that attraction is not destiny, and to stop worrying about or trying to lock in their sexuality before the same age of 21 or so.*
Kerry and Edwards are correct in the words they use: we need to restore traditional American values, but the way they mean those words is a sad travesty. We need to return to conservatism, personal responsibility, returning sexual behavior in the bedroom, telling our children they are forbidden to have sex until they are married. We need to stop taxing people who create wealth, stop giving handouts to people who refuse to make an effort to improve themselves or take responsibility for themselves, stop using class warfare to pander to the willfully uneducated, and stop giving in to the most shrill minority activist groups.
Read More "Legal vs Societal" »Show Comments »
July 09, 2004
But you knew that. Go read this article by him.
The portion I'm most applauding? INterestingly, it happens to dovetail nicely with my recent them of sexual morality. All you have to do is substitute "Liberals" for "Mr. Moore":
But before we move along, I’d like to echo what Dennis Prager said about this today: child poverty is closely tied to unwed motherhood. You want a poor kid, have one when you’re young and the father’s contribution consists of bimonthly Pamper drops. If Mr. Moore wishes to lead society back to a place where unwed motherhood is frowned upon and men are expected to marry the women they impregnate, I’ll be right there with him.
Show Comments »
This began as the second half of a response to Mad Mikey in this post. I think it deserves its own entry, so here you go:
The fundemental viewpoint of this present darkness is that sexual pleasure is a right, and so sexual activity is a foregone conclusion. It forms the basis of so many liberal assumptions, but even worse, it has become ingrained in the mindsets of even conservatives who don't want to dictate behavior to anyone. Since pretty much everyone enjoys sex, and since even moral and religious leaders have stooped to engage in extra-marital satisfaction of sexual urges (to the glee of liberals everywhere, who use that as justification for the erosion of standards), it is difficult for anyone to stand up and say: "Kids should stop having sex."
Well, I'm saying it now. Kids should stop having sex. Our society should stop glorifying sex. Sex is not a fundamental human right, and pornography and vulgarity should not be protected under the 1st Amendment.
Sexual intercouse is a powerful sensation. No other single act or experience can be so influencing for positive or negative as sex. Being so powerful, it should be carefully controlled. Not by government, but by standards and morals.
Too many Christians have broken God's law against sexual immorality, and enjoyed the resulting sensations. They cannot seem to understand how something so powerful could be denied someone who is not married. If they have not been sexually pure, they have a difficult time preaching sexual purity to their children or friends without feeling hypocritical*. God's restrictions on sexual activity represent the main stumbling block many Christians have with His teachings. The moral compromises Christians make on this issue are usually the first step Christians take in watering down their faith and disregarding the teachings of Jesus and the plan God has for us.
Let's get one thing straight: we all sin. No Christian is perfect. The test of your Christianity is, when you recognize you have failed to follow God's plan for you, do you turn away from your sin or embrace it? Too many Christians embrace it, and then try to find justifications in the Bible, or even worse, disregard clear teachings in the Bible about it.
Sexual immorality is a sin. Having sex with your boyfriend/girlfriend is a sin. It is a sin which will be forgiven through repentence, of course, but if you make no attempt to regain innocence and purity after giving in to your bodily urges, you are not repenting. I don't see how Christians can ignore this, because Paul discusses it extensively, and Jesus directly addresses the issue, as well. Once a person's faith in God cracks enough to allow a person to justify not repenting of a sin clearly expounded in the Bible, it becomes even easier to ignore other things the Bible says clearly.
Homosexual behavior is also clearly a sin. The Bible is eminently clear on this. Actively and continually engaging in homosexual behavior is just as incompatable with Christianity as actively and continually engaging in murder, theft, swindling, anger, covetousness. But I understand the logical problem many people have in condemning homosexuality: if you have compromised your faith to continue doing what you want, it is that much harder to maintain standards in the face of what other people want. If you justify your sinful behavior on the basis of the power of sexual desire, then you have basis to not justify other people's sexual desire. If fulfilling your bodily urges are a fundamental right, then how could theirs not be?
But it is the assumption that is wrong. Even aside from the very specific and clear passages that say that a life-long commitment before God and Man is a non-negotiable prerequisite to sexual intercourse between a man and woman and any other sexual activity is sinful (damaging to the individuals involved), the overall message of Jesus is that you should not be focused on temporal experiences, you should not be trying to fulfill carnal urges, that carnal sensations distract from your relationship with God. God wants us to be focused on Him, on the afterlife, on spiritual sensations.
This is going to anger many Christians, including many friends who might read this. They will say, "I had sex when I was 14, and it didn't hurt my relationship with God," or "I am sleeping with my girlfriend/boyfriend, and I'm still a strong Christian", or "How dare you say I'm not just as much or more a Christian than you! Your being judgmental is more unChristian than my sexual activity!" But I'm not judging anyone. I'm not pointing to a person and saying, "YOU are not a Christian". I am reminding everyone what the Bible says, and what God says. If you feel accused, it is God who is judging you. I am using the words and ideas of the Bible, of Jesus, of Christianity, to condemn unChristian behavior, just as the Bible says we should.
Why don't I leave well enough alone? Because I've stayed largely silent long enough. I feel I must exercise my moral courage to help it grow, and I must exercise my faith to help it grow, as well. Because sexual immorality is damaging to the individuals involved. It is not automatically damaging with one act, no, but that merely lulls people into a false sense of security. I use the word "erosion" a lot, because it is an erosion of standards and of the soul itself. Each act of sexual immorality strips away a microscopic layer of your faith and your spirit, unnoticeable. Just look at the consequences of immoral sexual behavior: STDs, pregnancy, AIDS, broken hearts, loss of self-esteem, fetishism, greater depravity to repeat the strength of earlier sensations. The more you commit acts of sexual immorality, the greater chance you will experience one of these terrible consequences. But these things can only happen within a marriage if extra-marital sex is already a factor.**
But even if you are lucky enough to avoid the direct, temporal consequences of sexual immorality, the accumulation of microscopic erosion of those layers of the soul becomes readily over months, years, a lifetime.
They can be regained. Innocence can be reacquired. I'm living proof of that. The first step is repentance. The second step is the re-establishment of sexual morality for society. It may never happen, but that's no reason to shirk the duty God has charged me with.
Read More "Sexual Morality" »Show Comments »
July 08, 2004
Arthur is pretty good, as is Jakers, the Adventures of Piggly Winks.
Jay Jay the Jet Plane and Caillou are abominations, however, and even Clifford can turn your stomach with its sappy feel-good messages.
*Although I will admit it was quite amusing hearing the adult female who plays 4-year-old Caillou try to pass off "redistributionist economies are a necessity for a just social system" as normal speech for that age level. And I also found the new Sesame Street character intriguing as well: it's a fertilized lump of tissue that's going to hang around for a few months until it suddenly becomes a human baby, as if by magic, and at no discernable point of change. The character was introduced with the new musical number, It's Not a Baby Until NARAL Says It Is.
Read More "Conservative-Safe Children's Programming on PBS" »Show Comments »
Okay, I'll grant you that some teenagers will have sex no matter what you tell them or teach them. But why not try to tell them to not have sex until they are out of college, anyway? If even one person listens, it will be worth the effort. But liberals apparently would rather that we have a widespread problem of teen pregnancy, teen abortion, and STDs than risk hurting the self-esteem of teenagers by telling that it is a bad idea to have sex before full adulthood.
Heck, I'd still prefer social castigation for not waiting until marriage, but I recognize and readily admit I'm a Christian social conservative. Telling kids to wait until they stop being kids to have sex, i.e., graduate college and/or support themselves in life, would be a step in the right direction.
See, the normal result of sexual intercourse is pregnancy. We have championed sexual gratification to the point of perversional fetishes, we have improved contraception technology to the level that the risk is small...but it is still a risk.
Personally, I do think liberals deliberately, if unconsciously, encourage immorality and other harmful behaviors because it increases the dependency of the individual onto government, and, by extension, onto liberals. Ever notice how self-control and responsible decisions never result in the need for liberal programs...
But there's one point that liberals miss in all their attempts to manipulate social expectations to their benefit.
Sexual gratification is not a human right, basic or otherwise.
Show Comments »
Several times during the Clinton years, when some in the media threatened to depart from liberal orthodoxy by focusing on Clinton scandals — Gennifer Flowers, Troopergate, and Monica Lewinsky come to mind — Team Clinton lashed out at the media for being mouthpieces of the vast right-wing conspiracy. The charge was always preposterous, and deliberately so: It was a preemptive strike designed to intimidate the press into compliance. And it worked every time, as the mainstream media responded by either turning their guns on Republicans (the Lewinsky scandal) or dropping the story altogether (Flowers, Troopergate) to prove their liberal bona fides.No serious liberal believes that a conservative bias dominates the news media. Liberals know what this book will prove: Like the old Outer Limits television series, the Left still controls the transmission, still controls "all that you see and hear." Television is not the only domain of the liberal news media: The Left still dominates with the printing presses, and yes, still dominates the "news" programming on radio.
So why the hysterical claims of conservative domination of the media? Because liberals fear that their monopoly on news coverage is in jeopardy. For decades, the liberal hegemony over the news media has provided the political Left with the ability not only to slant news coverage portside but actually to control the public conversation, both political and cultural, in America. Being the "social conscience" of the nation — having the ability to direct the national agenda — is quite a power. Liberals don't want to lose that.
In fact, they are right to be scared. The liberal news media are headed for a meltdown. To be sure, even today the vast power of the liberal media cannot be underestimated. But the days of liberal spin always prevailing are coming to an end. This has nothing to do with some sinister right-wing conspiracy. Rather, the problem lies with those in the liberal news media themselves. So dismissive are they of any claim of liberal bias, no matter how well documented, that they regularly allow this bias to seep into news stories. Even when poll after poll reveals that Americans have lost confidence in the news media, the liberal media elites do not deign to cleanse their industry of the bias that plagues it.
Something else is changing that will speed the collapse of the liberal media's monopoly on news coverage in this country. Conservatives have traditionally accepted liberal bias in the mainstream news media as a fact of life; it has been a given that the Left controls the news industry just as it holds sway over academia and the arts. But this has bred a certain complacency toward the press that has spelled disaster for one conservative initiative after another. Remember the Contract with America?
But conservatives are learning. No longer do we merely have to accept the liberal agenda of the so-called objective news media. Nothing made this point more clearly than a startling statement by President George W. Bush in October 2003. Fed up with the way the national media were covering the rebuilding efforts in Iraq, Bush stated in a Hearst-Argyle interview that he was going to bypass them. "I'm mindful of the filter through which some news travels," the president said, "and sometimes you just have to go over the heads of the filter and speak directly to the people and that's what we will continue to do." The liberal press, predictably, fainted in disbelief. As John Roberts of CBS News put it, "It was the public relations equivalent of a declaration of war aimed at the national media." Many who read this book will have an altogether different perspective. They'll wonder why it took the Bush administration so long.
From the introduction to L. Brent Bozell's new book, Weapons of Mass Distortion: The Coming Meltdown of the Liberal Media
Show Comments »
June 28, 2004
As I was reading through this post, a thought struck me. No, it didn't hurt, and I didn't strike back. Juvenile humor dispensed with, let's proceed, shall we?
Dawn objects to defenders of SSM using Britney Spears' unfortunate brush with matrimony as an example to demonstrate heterosexual marriage has already sustained damage worse than SSM could inflict.
I pretty much agree with her points, but I think the problem with the argument starts even earlier than that, with Britney Spears herself. If the battle-lines are drawn between liberal-leaning pro-SSM and conservative-leaning anti-SSM camps, then she's on their (liberal) side to begin with, not ours (conservative).
Because the gender diversity within a marriage bond was never really the issue. The disagreement is over the nature of society itself. The question is: do we have complete freedom to do whatever we want as long as it cannot be proven our actions harm anyone, or do we have a responsibility to establish and adhere to standards of conduct because the full consequences of potentially damaging behavior may not be observed until years or decades later? Or another way: do we have society only for the benefit for adults, or for children?*
Obviously, Britney Spears is not a part of a society designed to protect and nurture children and help them to achieve maturity safely. Hollywood itself is overwhelmingly aimed at adults. Don't believe me? Then why do children's shows include jokes and entendres that children cannot or should not understand? Because Hollywood knows that an adult (the one with the actual cash) will spend more money on a movie that doesn't bore adults. The entire entertainment industry is based on gathering money.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to outlaw Hollywood. I'm not trying to shame or marginalize anyone or anything for the sake of "The ChildrenTM", because I'm not actually advocating for new laws or programs. But I do want you to stop and think about how liberal and moderate adults want more freedom for themselves, and want to push responsibility for the protection of children off on parents. Rather than a society that is largely safe for children, with "adult"** areas clearly marked and cordoned off, many selfish adults (including the entertainment industry and most liberals) want a society in which anything goes, and parents must withdraw into their homes to try to re-establish some sort of control over what impinges and influences their children.
The Left & Moderates (through Establishment) tells us that if we don't like foul language and unnecessary sexuality, turn off the TV (knowing that most people won't). They tell us if we don't like Howard Stern, change the channel. If you don't want your children to hear curse words, you can always not curse yourself. Then they proceed to encourage situations that escalate, pushing the envelope of acceptability, which culminate in incidents like Janet Jackson's exposure and Bono's foul language and Britney's kiss of Madonna. You can't bring your family to a ballgame these days without hearing pretty much every bad word in the book. It's getting more difficult to go to any public event in large cities without seeing excessive sexuality on display (both hetero- and homo-). The pro-crudity lobby (my term, not theirs) pursues those of us who want to protect our children into every facet of our lives. Why do the the Gay Pride parades Dawn describes have more right to display in public than a nativity scene?
And when a conservative family does withdraw and homeschools their children, or to choose a private school where traditional values are easier to enforce, the Left derides them as naive and reactionary and trying to avoid the "real world". They fight to prevent vouchers and to outlaw homeschooling, mostly because they want to continue expanding funding to public schooling, sure...but making sure children are steeped in the Politically Correct liberal and atheistic ideology is a nice bonus, at the very least, if not the actual goal.
No, Britney Spears isn't a good example for Andrew Sullivan, et al, to bring up. Her marriage is a symbol of what is wrong with American society. Her marriage was the result of the same ideological force that is pushing SSM: a Godless, lawless, standardless, amoral, vapid sub-society that worships the unholy trinity of Money and Celebrity and Hedonism. The pro-SSM lobby using a Hollywood marriage as a portion of their argument is like a socialist saying the United States should be more socialist because Mao's and Stalin's ideas of Capitalism didn't work out.
Update:
Let me put it another way. I'd be willing to bet that if you broke the percentages of support for and opposition to SSM by status of marriage and parenthood, the vast majority of the people against SSM are married with kids, and the vast majority of people for SSM don't currently have any stake in the future beyond their own lives and desires. And what does that say?
Show Comments »
» Mind of Mog links with: Brain Fertilizer Indeed
» The White Peril links with: Send it in a letter, baby / Tell me on the phone
June 26, 2004
...but that was never more than a fallacious strawman argument, anyway.
Maggie Gallagher discusses some of the problems already emerging from the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling.
Excerpt:
The advocates tell us the skies have not fallen in Massachusetts; nothing has changed, they assure us. Romney points out that small things have already begun to change, foretelling the bigger, sadder changes to come. First, the marriage licenses change so they no longer read husband and wife but "Party A" and "Party B." The Department of Health insists that birth certificates also change. The line for mother and father becomes "Parent A" and "Parent B."[snip]
The transformation of mother and father into "Parent A" and "Parent B" is the model of the paradigm shift now underway in Massachusetts. The distinctive features of the union of male and female are going to have to be removed from our notions of marriage and family. The experience of same-sex couples will become the new norm for family life, because the "unisex" idea that gender has no public significance is the only model that can be construed as "inclusive" of both opposite-sex and same-sex unions. The result is not neutrality but the active promotion of a new unisex ideal, in which the distinctive features of opposite-sex relations will be submerged, marginalized, cast to one side, and redefined as discrimination in order to protect the new court-ordered public moral standard of the equality of same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
Some of you will be unmoved by this point. I'm sure that to some, this isn't a bug, it's a feature.
As Maggie points out:
The needs and desires of a tiny fraction of adults in alternative families are becoming the basis of a new moral norm. Anyone who departs from it risks thundering denunciation from self-righteous elites who are no longer satisfied with tolerance and civility — living with our deepest differences — but wish to impose their vision of morality on the majority.
We are in a cultural war right now. I wonder when it will erupt into open violence?
Show Comments »
June 25, 2004
There's much food for thought in this article.
James Taranto hits some of it lightly in this piece from Friday's Best of the Web
Excerpt:
Read More "Liberals Represent the Bulk of Remaining Racism in the US" »Show Comments »
» blogoSFERICS links with: When Real Racism Is Left Unchallenged
Since I'm not actually blogging, go read this.
Show Comments »
June 23, 2004
This kids knows what he's doing, and he's doing the right thing.
Excerpt:
Upon investigating the noise, we found a fellow student tearing the signs from the wall and ripping them into shreds. We made no attempt to stop her, but she quickly abandoned her pursuit when I removed my camera from my backpack. Apparently, her being conscious of her own hypocrisy was not enough to prevent her from forcibly suppressing our dissenting point-of-view. But facing the prospect that others might be made aware of her hypocrisy, and it's cut-and-run. Typical.
Show Comments »
June 20, 2004
And yet, maybe the Press isn't the only group of people that's not being completely honest with us.
Show Comments »
» blogoSFERICS links with: Same-Sex Marriage Advocates on What It Means and What's Next
June 16, 2004
According to a very broad definition, still just 1%.
Show Comments »
The kerfuffle over the words "under God" in our Pledge of Allegience has brought out all sorts of opinions regarding the role of religion in our society. In my opinion, the atheists are grasping at any opportunity to eliminate the practice of religion or appearance of religious symbols in public. Several people cite "separation of Church and State" as if it were in the US Constitution, rather than being an opinion of Jefferson mentioned in a private letter, somehow dredged up and turned into law by a 1950s era SCOTUS ruling.
So here's my question: Does every SCOTUS ruling interpreting the Constitution become equal to the Constitution itself? If legal precedents by different judges can end up turning the Constitution against itself, is there any system of priority? For instance, the "Separation of Church and State" precept is rather vague, in that some people seem to think it is wrong for President Bush to use his religious belief and faith to guide him in his decisions as President. It would seem equally plausible, then, to prevent ministers/pastors/priests from ever running for office. It could then be equally plausible to prevent ministers/pastors/priests from voting, because they would be using religious values to affect government...
But, clearly, the separation of church and state was supposed to ensure that religion wasn't affected by the state, not the other way around. At the very worst, if one isn't forced into saying words or participating in a religious rite, there is no "establishment" of a religion, right?
Anyway, the point I'm ever-so-slowly rambling toward is:
Shouldn't the Bill of Rights take precedent over later Amendments? Shouldn't Amendments take precedent over Judicial Rulings? And if that is correct, where does the Bill of Rights stand in relation to the original document? Slightly higher? Slightly lower?
Help.
Show Comments »
June 13, 2004
After watching (because of nothing better to do) yet another investigative report looking into the mysterious death of the mistress of a married man, it struck me that much pain in our society could be avoided if women merely followed two guidelines rigorously:
1) Do not ever date a married man.
=>1a) If you are already dating and find out he is married, dump him immediately.
2) Make it absolutely clear that if he cheats on you, you will absolutely dump him. Remind him of this regularly (once a year or so?).
Interestingly, I couldn't think of such a simple guideline for males. About the best I could come up with was:
1) If you have fame, wealth, or authority, there is only a 2% chance she actually cares about you.
But most guys probably don't care. So I'm left with:
1) Don't cheat on the woman you love. Ever.
=>1a) avoid situations in which a minor lapse could result in you cheating on the woman you love.
Any other suggestions?
Show Comments »
I realize that the language I use normally in talking about the ideology I support vs. that with which I disagree tends to demonize my ideological opponents. It's not so much that I don't like the people...I tend to like almost every person I know, and I actively try to find things to like about people. It's more that I cannot support their premises, their logic, and their conclusions. I use strong language because...because I feel strongly about the issue, I guess. Part of it is that while I do recognize shades of gray, I think you need to clearly delineate the results when they are more black or more white. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and the ends do not justify the means, and so if I state in strong and in no uncertain terms what I expect the fruits of liberal/left/Democrat ideology to be, then when those results appear, I have made it clear I will brook no equivocation about how those results came to be.
But in musing this evening, I think I stumbled across a patch of common ground. And this common ground also helps make the difference between my views and libertarian much more stark.
Read More "The Weak and the Strong" »Show Comments »
June 12, 2004
A nice essay, linked.
Show Comments »
June 11, 2004
I hope you've been taking advantage of the low interest rates to refinance your home, buy a car, transfer your credit card debt, and above all, pay down your debt, because the economic slump arising from 9/11 was probably the best chance you'll get to reduce your debt for some time, i.e., until we get a Democrat again in the White House to destroy the economy to provide a reason to lower interest rates.
Show Comments »
Is there anything in our society as badly misunderstood as College?
Well, I don't think there is.
Read More "College" »Show Comments »
June 08, 2004
I've offered this challenge several times...no one has taken me up on it, that I know of:
I can make my arguments against abortion using abortion terminology (i.e., pro-choice, fetus, etc)*. I would really like to see a Pro-Choice advocate attempt to make their arguments using Pro-Live terminology. I'm thinking that an obvious cognitive dissonance would result, but I'd be interested in seeing the attempt. Anyone got the guts? Post in the comments. I'm not really trying to start an argument, although I will probably challenge specific points if I think you attempt to sidestep/ignore obvious ramifications arising from your words. On the other hand, I might just sit back and moderate any discussions that result.
Read More "The Brainfertilizer Challenge" »Show Comments »
Gallup recently completed its annual poll of the US citizens' confidence in various institutions.
The military is still the top, natch. Here are the top Five, and the percentage of respondents who have a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in each institution:
The Military 75
Police 64
Church/Organized Religion 53
Banks 53
The Presidency 52And at the bottom? Three of the bottom six are traditionally liberal:
Organized Labor 31
Television News 30
Newpapers 30
Yeah, Big Business is down there, too, at just 7%...
But you get more of the story if you read the whole thing
Show Comments »
June 05, 2004
He's got lots of scientific studies that support his position.
There's only one problem with scientific studies: they are only as good as their methodology. And I must assume one thing about these studies: they don't actually control the intake of the dieters. When the study shows that significant numbers of obese people gain weight on a caloric intake and exercise total that would cause non-obese people to lose or maintain weight, I have to assume that the dieters are overestimating their exercise or underestimating the snacks they sneak.
Why? How can I be so positive? How can I sneer so easily at the scientific studies?
Because there is a body of evidence that is being absolutely ignored. If you look in the right direction, you see the simple truth: if you exercise sufficiently and eat properly, you will lose weight rapidly. The proof? Army and Marine Corps basic training programs.
Thousands upon thousands of people, men and women, some who qualify as obese, have entered the training programs. I'd like to say, "not one has failed to lose weight", but I haven't been personally present at every graduation to verify that... Suffice to say that the military controls your exercise as well as your food intake, and even though there is no real attempt made to reduce caloric intake, the severe restriction on snacking does have that effect.
And everyone loses weight. Some put it back on immediately after leaving, but that is due to that person.
Dean has some good tear-jerker stories about people who want to lose weight so badly, but can't, that they start crying when talking about it. He describes the pain they go through as being the equivalent of giving yourself 2nd-degree burns every day with a match, and claims most people wouldn't go that far even if it would ensure they would never get cancer. It's a fallacious argument, because the pain of losing weight is not equivalent to pain undergone in prevention, it is more equivalent to something like chemotherapy: pain undergone as a cure. And most people do undergo the pain of chemotherapy, which is far worse than the pain of hunger and exercise.
Dean's got some good points, and I hardly consider my argument a slam-dunk against his. Heck, most people may still agree with him.
However, I must respectfully disagree with Dean: obesity is largely in the person's mind. Other than the something-less-than-1%-of-the-total-population who actually have glandular/hormonal dysfunction, people who do not lose weight are not willing to change their lifestyle enough to lose weight. They want to lose the weight without the sacrifice. The first step to losing weight is always to change your attitude about food, and these people simply aren't taking that step. I understand their anguish, but the first place they need to look for their failure is themselves, and the way they sabotage their own efforts.
Show Comments »
» Dean's World links with: Embracing Ignorance
» The Queen of All Evil links with: The Few, The Proud...The Obese?
» Michael Williams -- Master of None links with: Disabled By Fat 2
June 04, 2004
Someone has way too much time on their hands...
Presenting:
Generic Names for Soft Drinks By County
Via Big Sky Dave
...and what's the deal with that "soda" aberration right around St. Louis?
Show Comments »
Perhaps. If not, it's dang close to it.
Judge for yourself.
Juliette (Baldilocks) addresses several social ills that are the direct result of liberal "compassion". Her points are made succinctly and strongly and are difficult to dispute. Go read it, comment, consider.
I'm still slightly stunned with the power of her writing on this.
Show Comments »
How many unmarried heterosexuals advocating the legalization of SSM are actually unmarried and living with their girlfriend/boyfriend?
Anyone have any thoughts on the issue? Because it would seem to me that someone living an immoral lifestyle probably would have a more difficult time recognizing immorality in others...
Okay: Bring it on.
Show Comments »
June 03, 2004
Check out the "combat" deaths (murders) from 2002.
And California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.
Gun control advocates and those who oppose our involvement in Iraq on the basis of US deaths are full of crap. IMHO, of course.
Show Comments »
June 01, 2004
Kerry's latest campaign slogan says something about "Let America Be America Again." I think.
Nick Berg's dad said something about America under President Bush not being the American he grew up in.
I've heard it often said that the miracle of the United States of America is an unprecented recognition of rights...
"Progressives" are advocating the expansion of rights as "progress", as if we should be on an inevitable quest to seek out new freedoms and grant/recognize them as soon as possible.
"America: It's a Free Country", right?
I submit that the basis of the experiment was not freedom. The miracle of the United Staes was not in the recognition/guarantee/granting of freedom, it was simply the recognition of the fallibility of humans, and a corresponding structure designed to prevent that fallibility from tyrannizing the citizens.
Stability, not freedom, was the goal. Freedom was always intended to be secondary to stability and power balance. Evidence? Well, originally, the only people whose freedom and rights were guaranteed were white land-owners. Freedoms and rights were expanded slowly over time only when enough people were convinced the expansion would not upset the stability or create imbalances in the power structure.
After a little over 200 years, we've finally gone off the wire, and the system is breaking down from groups of people who have learned to manipulate the system against the will of the majority.
Discuss.
Show Comments »
May 31, 2004
Via Drudge:
Those with conditions that can usually be corrected medically - such as deformed feet and cleft lips and palates - are instead being terminated.And the number of abortions of Down's syndrome babies now outstrips live births, despite the fact that those with the condition can live a long and fulfilling life. As screening techniques improve, the trend is likely to grow - horrifying pro-life campaigners.
Shouldn't that horrify everyone? More below:
Read More "Disturbing, If True" »Show Comments »
May 29, 2004
Excerpt:
John became the first person in Britain to be charged with inciting his own murder.
Show Comments »
May 25, 2004
Stumpjumper tries to seize the moral high ground on Same-Sex Marriage here.
Here's his argument:
Gay marriage has been an important topic for me for several years. I have talked it to death both in realtime and here on the blog. Last night, while discussing it with a gay friend, I realized that the entire debate can be reduced to one word. It is in this one, little, four-letter word that the opponents of same-sex marriage will find themselves on the losing side of history. Proponents and supporters of gay marriage use this word every time that they discuss the issue. They consider it to be a cornerstone of the debate. They feel that the debate cannot exist without it. More importantly, it is the reason why this is a civil rights issue. It is the reason why homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexuals. The truth of this lies in the fact that opponents of gay marriage avoid the word. They explain their position and espouse their message of doom-and-gloom while specifically refusing to utter it. They talk around it, they neglect it, and they often deny its obvious relevance and importance to the debate. The word, quite simply, is love.
Normally I'd just leave a comment. But since my response is rather inflammatory, it's probably best if I post it on my site rather than venting my irritation on their blog.
Read More "A Response" »Show Comments »
May 20, 2004
Via The [Liberal] Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid
Show Comments »
Ignore the premise, and pay attention to the insight.
To accept her argument as valid, you have to restrict SSM-advocates to only one aspect of their argument. I don't. However, I do think she does understand what forms the basis of a successful marriage:
Viewing love as mutual affection has created the unrealistic expectation that we can judge the strength of our unions by our feelings. Many straight people hold this view. We stay married as long as we like the way we feel with the other person. But basing marriage upon mere feelings is a recipe for divorce — because feelings are fickle.The alternative is to view love as a decision. To love is to will and to do the good of the other. This understanding of love sustains us, to the benefit of the whole family, children and parents alike.
Oh, yah: the link
Show Comments »
May 19, 2004
"You don't achieve anything by looking backward."
It makes me feel proud to be his fan.
Let me know if the link doesn't work.
Show Comments »
» Emigre With Digital Cluebat links with: A hero of another kind
May 18, 2004
One thing that is near and dear to me:
I want a mature society for our country. I want our society to reverse the trend toward isolation and "privacy" and regain interconnectedness. I want to restore standards of decency and conduct. But please, before you react, read what those words mean to me:
Show Comments »
Great post by one of my favorite thinkers over here. I really think Sean should be a leading voice in our society, and will become so if he chooses that path...
One thing I wish I could get across clearly to the rest of you want to emphasize and make absolutely clear:
1) I don't approve of homosexual behavior; I cannot condone or approve of something I feel is sinful behavior.
2) It doesn't matter if I don't approve, any more than it matters that I don't approve of people trying to get rich using the Stock Market (which I also consider sinful), or that I consider the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to be heretical.
3) Disapproval of a belief or behavior does not equate to disapproval of the person.
4) Get over it, and get over yourself. (getting over myself, first)
Show Comments »
May 14, 2004
I don't agree with all of it, of course. Some of it I do. Some of you will hate it, since it's Derb. Some of you will refuse to read it.
Which would be a shame. There's good food for thought here
Show Comments »
» The White Peril links with: I like the way you cross the street 'cause you're...precious
Who does it better than Susanna?
Read this and this.
And this, too.
Show Comments »
May 09, 2004
In honor of Mother's Day, I thought I'd link the excellent discussion going on in this post, and excerpt the two most salient comments:
Update:Oh, and the discussion continued over here, with some even more salient comments made...but too many to continue to excerpt.
Read More "Mother's Day Post" »Show Comments »
Ah, Mother's Day! Today is the day that we give our Moms breakfast in bed, take them out to brunch, buy them jewelry, or nice clothes, let them have the entire day off...whatever we can think of to indulge our maternal figures.
And appease them, I'm thinking.
Read More "Mother's Day Payoff" »Show Comments »
May 07, 2004
Emily asks a good question. Here's my answer:
Free speech should be the expression of a free mind. Thus, I think the guarantee to free speech should be limited to being able to express your religion, political view, and criticisms of government and religious leaders without fear of censure or censor.
That's it. Other speech need not be regulated, necessarily, but I think there is no compelling argument to guarantee the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or to stand outside an elementary school shouting profanity, or to sell pornography.
I'd really prefer we started considering our rights in light of whether or not it contributes to a strong and safe nation, rather than just being dependent on what you want to do without interference....
...but that's just me. And that's why I don't agree with Libertarians.
via Jay Solo
Show Comments »
May 06, 2004
Great stuff from Dawn Eden on Curves and more on Planned Pregnancy.
The best part?
Read More "Must Read" »Show Comments »
...although I don't agree with his conclusions.
But you can see a down-n-dirty of my opinion in the comments.
Show Comments »
May 05, 2004
I stopped watching baseball in 1985, just after the Royals won the World Series, and, incidentally, the last year the Royals were competitive.
Football has been my sport, and I've considered Major League Baseball to be silly and a waste of time.
Apparently, so does Major League Baseball.
[There are two different link there. --ed. Yeah, so?]
Show Comments »
Somebody has to do something asinine like this.
It's blackmail. It's idiotic. It's a waste of everyone's time.
Show Comments »
May 04, 2004
April 28, 2004
Your assignment? Name the location, type, and entry requirements for other institutions of higher learning named after and established in honor of other politicians.
Read More "Ronald Reagan University" »Show Comments »
» resurrectionsong links with: How Freakin' Cool is That?
April 25, 2004
There's an important piece of journalistic research over here.
It's a glimpse into a teen-targeted website the Social Engineers would probably prefer remained in the back room, where teens can explore it below parental radar.
Excerpt:
Planned Parenthood does more than offer abortions. It offers sex advice for underage teenagers. Not just pregnancy advice or birth-control advice, but advice on every aspect of sex, given from a celebratory "everybody's doing it" standpoint, as may be seen in the organization's official teen Web site, Teenwire.If you or someone you know is sending money to Planned Parenthood, that money is going to some adult sitting at a computer, who writes detailed instructions for underage teenagers on how to pick up lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender sex partners online.
This deserves an Instalanche. Based on the subject matter, it probably won't get one...
Show Comments »
» blogoSFERICS links with: Planned Maybe -- Parenthood, I Don't Think So
» The White Peril links with: In my book of dreams
It may just be my personal impression seeming like a societal shift, but it really seems to me as if there was a shift in eating habits in the late 70s...and that was about the time that obesity in the US really started a significant rise.
Maybe it was simply the advent of the Microwave, and with it America's attitude about food changed from "nutritious meal you make effort to prepare" to "something you eat that tastes good to feel full now". Maybe it was that more mothers were working and thus concentrating less on balanced, home-cooked meals, and turning more to take out meals and fast-food drivethru. It was definitely in the late 70s and early 80s when portioning began to significantly increase, particularly soft drink sizes.
Probably all those things.
Show Comments »
April 23, 2004
I thought I was done posting for the day.
Nope. Not until I link this post.
Baldilocks says it well. Here's an excerpt of her saying it well:
Around the Internet, I see a recurrent theme among men in commenting on the death of Pat Tillman: “I wish I were half the man that he was.” So be half the man that he was, then; plus some, if you can. You’re still alive and have the chance to do so. I’m not necessarily saying that you should run out and join the military and volunteer for Ranger school as Mr. Tillman did. I am saying that there are many other ways to be a real man and if you want to do it, stop talking about it and get on with it. Be advised, however, that to be the type of man that he appears to have been requires faith, integrity, strength and, yes, some sacrifice. Lunch isn’t free, not unless it’s day-old and spoiled.
Oh, and I already am half the man Tillman was. I'm trying to reach 62.37684693206% at this time....
Show Comments »
April 14, 2004
Lest anyone think my earlier post about correlations of unfortunate consequences is some sort of homophobic witch hunt, let me assure you that my main purpose in life (and this blog) is to try to help bring about the maturation of our society.
I think it is always best to aim for the long-term good. If you only care about what you want or what you think is good for you now, then you often encounter disaster. It's like trying to drive by not looking more than 10 feet beyond the grill of your car.
Read More "On Homosexuality and Other Things" »Show Comments »
This post highlights the fact that some people like to risk other people's lives in playing their political games.
Please understand this: homosexual behavior is risky and costly, both to the individual engaging in it and the society that condones it.
If you get past PC group-think and accept that uncomfortable fact, you can actually get to the next question: Is it worth the risk and cost to condone homosexual behavior? The answer to that question is not as automatic as Andrew Sullivan or Jerry Falwell might think. That is where you get into the realm of personal choice with risk, and society taking steps to encourage/discourage or even circumscribe certain behaviors. It is a discussion in the realm of facts and statistics rather than distortions and feelings and "should be"s. It's too bad the debate is absolutely controlled by people who ignore inconvenient facts like the ones Susanna discusses in her article.
Show Comments »
April 12, 2004
But you'll have to read the whole thing to know what I'm talking about.
Show Comments »
HammerHead
