Archives 2006
Frivolous commission meeting gives way to new tax on rental cars (1233)
(This piece is a trial article for the Rhinoceros Times, a conservative weekly in Charlotte, NC. It is based on a Mecklenburg County Commissioners Meeting.)
The Nonaligned Movement is aligned against freedom: This collection of Third World countries are aligned in promoting authoritarianism, genocidal government, and communism. (559)Acts of an Enemy: Recent news stories indicate why we are at war with Islamic fanatics. (606)
Beelzebub Speaks: Bin Laden speaks for all Islamic fanatics, even those who don't want to admit it. (514)
The Case for the Court System: Rape allegations at Duke indicate why we try the accused in criminal court, instead of the court of public opinion. (740)
Dying for an Abortion: Deaths related to the abortion pill expose hypocrisy among the "pro-choice" and "women's health" activist groups.
Coming to America: Immigrants should adopt our culture and learn our language if they want the benefits of becoming an American.
Just Take a Pill: Ritalin and its sisters have become the cure for the common child.
Dissecting a Nut: Colorado high school "educator" teaches Marxist indoctrination.
There's only one way to deal with bugs
December 29, 2006
Let's suppose there are insects in your home. Really, there is very little supposition involved. Most of us have experienced an invasion of termites, ants, flies, or some form of bug. It's an aggravating experience. Now, what do you do about it?
The first step is to reach out to the insects. Establishing a dialogue is vital to solving the situation. You must communicate with them; find out what you did to incite their invasive anger. Only then can you correct your errant ways. Once they realize that you are reaching out and mean them no harm, their animosity toward you will wane. They may even halt their incursion altogether.
What if talks are unproductive? What if the process is slow and the results are inconclusive or unsatisfying to the involved parties, both you and the insects? There is another way.
Incentives are a workable alternative. You can provide what the insects want, and what they want will be evident by what they do and where they go. If the problem is termites, your home's framing will suffice. Just let them eat it. For fly or ants, put sugar or honey in the cabinets, on the countertops, and on the floor. You can reach out to them in this way.
Your willingness to feed the invaders will demonstrate your goodwill toward them. How can they continue their attacks once they are confronted with your generosity? By your benevolence the antagonists will know that you aren't their enemy. It is likely they will be overcome by shame for having invaded your home and will withdraw immediately. The insects will leave you alone.
“Mister,” you say, “You've lost your mind.” Well, then how do you deal with the insect problem?
Most of you will see but one usable action… the bugs must be killed. You'll swat. You'll stomp. You'll bait, spray, and fog. You'll do whatever is needed to get rid of the bugs, even if it means killing every last one of them and destroying their homes. If this is a workable solution for bugs, why can't it work for jihadists?
Most of you recognized where this was going before now. Perhaps some didn't. Either way, the predictable response is that jihadists aren`t bugs but human beings. Granted, but in a generic sense only.
Humans do not target civilians without provocation merely for the cause of spreading fear. Furthermore, talking with irrational people produces very little in the way of positive results. We have talked, compromised, and negotiated with militant organizations before and what do we have to show for it? Hezbollah is the perfect example.
Last summer they crossed Israel's border, much like bugs invade your home, and captured two soldiers. Very little was said. When Israel retaliated the “world” jumped to the microphones to proclaim its condemnation. Israel bowed to the pressure, stopped spraying the bugs, and the area was re-infested.
Hezbollah has since staged protests intended to force Lebanon's government from office. They took to the streets of Beirut to demand -at the very least- increased power and greater influence over Lebanon's politics. Could their success mean anything other than increased influence for Iran and Syria? Is the situation not similar with other groups of self-proclaimed “holy warriors?”
If Lebanon's somewhat pro-West government falls it will be due in large part to the West's timid approach to militant Muslims. We are too fearful of offending our enemies and we are paying a price. Perhaps a new approach is in order. Maybe it's time we deal with jihadists the same way we deal with other insects.
A few questions and thoughts about recent events
December 26, 2006
Iran and Syria are known to provide weapons and support to our enemies in Iraq. It's also known that many foreign fighters arrived in Iraq across their borders. Even in the face of these circumstances there are people who insist that we involve these nations in stopping the violence in Iraq. How is that different from asking Nazi Germany to help stop the violence in France during World War Two?
Pundits point to the 14th Amendment to support automatic citizenship for children born to illegal aliens while on U.S. soil. Suppose a soldier from an invading army fathered a child with a woman of a foreign country while on U.S. soil. Would that child be considered a citizen since it was born in America? If citizenship is denied due to the parent's illegal presence, shouldn't it also be denied to children of aliens whose presence is just as illegal?
If Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) were a pirate, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) would be sitting on his left shoulder.
Congratulations to me! I have been selected Time Magazine “Person of the Year” for creating internet content. Of course, this “honor” applies to everyone -all untold millions of you- that created web content this year. Time's spokesman explained the decision by pointing out that selecting an individual meant having to justify the decision. But selecting millions of people meant no justification was required. Typical liberalism. No one's feelings are hurt, no one is left out, and no thought is needed. Somehow, my award seems hollow when viewed from that perspective.
An old Porky Pig cartoon depicted a Rosie the Riveter-type character saying, “You want those Nazis and Japs bombed off the face of the earth, don't ya'?” That archaic attitude produced victory in WWII. Today, we are enlightened enough to charge our soldiers with murder.
Judges are considered highly intelligent people. But how intelligent is it to conclude that the Constitution prohibits capital punishment for murderers but protects the aborting of innocent babies?
Will someone explain why it's intolerant to refuse dialogue with Islamic jihadists whose sworn goal is our destruction?
As long as humankind survives there will be people who choose evil over good. As such, there will be people who choose violence over peace. As long as the good and peaceful people do nothing, the evil and violent people will rule. That's the reason “we can't all just get along.”
A 4-year-old Texas student was cited for sexual harassment when he snuggled a female teacher's chest while hugging her. The offense was later changed to “inappropriate physical contact”. It seems to me that any teacher who would interpret a 4-year-old's hug as a sexual encounter is the person we need to keep an eye on.
The Council of Islamic Court's security chairman, Sheik Yusuf Indahaadde, said, “Muslims are brothers and help each other.” We in Western Civilization fight among our selves.
Rape charges against three Duke Lacrosse players were dropped when the accuser told investigators that she is no longer certain whether she was raped in the alleged incident. Kidnapping and sex offence charges remain. But how can those charges be credible when the accuser doesn't even know whether or not she was raped?
President Bush has received criticism for not increasing the active duty strength of our armed forces, something he likely should have done before now. But when you look at charts depicting troop levels you find that the decline began in the early 1990s and leveled off around 2000. Who was president during those years, and why was he not criticized for depleting our active duty numbers?
Sen. Ted Kennedy may be the most shameless politician in American history. “Minimum wage workers have waited almost 10 long years for an increase,” lamented the Democratic Senator. How stupid does he think we are? Does anyone seriously believe that a worker who took a minimum wage job nearly ten years ago has remained at that job waiting on the government to increase the wage?
Tara Connor's underage drinking and alleged romps hit the headlines like the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I wonder what percentage of the population would have recognized Tara Connor's name or knew that she was Miss USA before the revelations? For my part, I didn't even know there was a Miss USA.
What was it like on the outskirts of Bethlehem?
December 22, 2006
Modern living has provided us with so many conveniences. Before us is an endless buffet of entertainment, distraction and diversion. Shopping centers and malls are everywhere, each surrounded by a cadre of restaurants. We attend this club meeting, rush to that kid's practice, then to the covered dish supper at the church.
Satellite television provides hundreds of crystal clear channels, although just a few are fit to watch. Movies, music, and information are instantly accessible via the Internet. A world of information and entertainment is only a mouse click away.
This is a different world in which we live. And what change there has been in the last forty years alone.
When I was a boy, going to a restaurant meant a trip to the fish camp. There were no family steakhouses at that time. And there certainly wasn't a restaurant at every corner of the mall parking lot. In fact, there wasn't even a mall.
The Internet was a military secret. Television stations were few, and color sets weren't the norm. I saw Neill Armstrong become the first man to set foot on the moon… and I saw it in black and white. I think we could tune in two channels at the time.
Just as today's world is far ahead of then, so was then advanced over the previous generation.
Television itself was rare. Most people received their entertainment from the radio voices of Amos and Andy and Jack Benny, or they read books and magazines. It's only a short jump from there to the 19th Century, where horses were the main source of transportation. Just think, less than 100 years from the heyday of the buckboard man walked on the surface of the moon.
Now, you may be saying, “This is all well and good. But it has nothing to do with Bethlehem.” Perhaps that's true in a direct sense. But I wonder if we, with all the advancements of modern living, can imagine what the primitive shepherds of Luke's Gospel saw unfold before their eyes. The thought came to me as I read the Christmas Story for the umpteenth time, not that you can read it enough.
Some translations place the shepherds “in the same country”; others say they were “in the fields nearby.” Either way it is evident that they were on the outskirts of Bethlehem. Yet, it wouldn't be similar to our being on the outskirts of a nearby town today. There would be no radiant glow of the city lights reflecting against the night sky. There would be a darkness that most of us can't appreciate.
Perhaps they had kindled a small campfire and a torch or two. But they wouldn't have been very close to that light for it would have compromised their night vision, making it difficult to spot thieves or predators. And wasn't that the reason they were there? The only prevailing light came from the stars and the moon.
No distant train whistle pierces the night. No car horns honk and no jets pass overhead. There are no blaring stereos, no blinding televisions, and no ringing cell phones. The only sound of this “Silent Night” would have been their conversation and the bleating of the sheep. They are all alone.
Suddenly, there appeared from nowhere a figure whose presence illuminates the night sky with the glory of God. The angel makes a startling proclamation and is joined by a multitude of heavenly beings. Try to imagine how these men, so unaccustomed to brilliant displays, would have reacted.
With the rapid societal transformations and technological advancements we know today it can be difficult, if not impossible, to relate to the lives of those shepherds. When we consider black and white television archaic, it's unlikely we appreciate the gravity of what they witnessed on the outskirts of Bethlehem.
It's easy to sit in front of the fire, open the presents, and discuss the wonderful experience of the Bethlehem shepherds. But with our lives so accustomed to sound, light, and distraction, I wonder how many of us truly consider the frightening power and majesty displayed that long ago night? I wonder if we can consider it at all.
Feminists find fault in the “perfect” female
December 18, 2006
It is time we recognize a successful woman and refute some of her detractors. This woman is multi-talented and has achieved great personal success. She is well-dressed, stylish, and attractive. She has survived the pitfalls of the competitive marketplace. Today, following several down years, she is back on top.
You would think this woman would be the idol of the feminist. Yet nothing could be farther from the truth. Despite the fact that this woman succeeded on her terms, without assistance from a man, she has earned only scorn from the feminine left.
This woman is blamed for every bane of the feminist movement from cosmetic surgery to anorexia. Despite these critics, this 47-year-old is in demand. But you shouldn't expect feminists to welcome Barbie's resurgence with open arms.
In her most recent work, noted feminist playwright Eve Ensler expressed the hope that “… we will all refuse to be Barbie.” The National Organization of Women website sells a “This is what Barbie ought to look like” t-shirt. It is modeled by two women in obvious need of a gift certificate to Jenny Craig.
Feminists blame Barbie for fostering an unattainable, dangerous image that promotes teenage anorexia, all in pursuit of Barbie's “perfect” figure. But these activists are promoting an equally dangerous concept to young girls with the idea that being overweight is normal, natural, and wholesome.
Let's not discount the dangers of anorexia and bulimia, the two best known eating disorders. Both problems can cause physical harm to the body. Some people literally starve to death pursuing this unrealistic, unhealthy and unattractive “thin”. One percent of female adolescents are anorexic and four percent of college-aged women are bulimic. That's lamentable, but not comparable to the flip side.
Thirty-one percent of teen girls are overweight. Fifteen percent of girls under age 11 are clinically obese. That's four times the amount in 1974. The obesity numbers for teenage girls is similar. And being overweight carries its own set of health problems.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, overweight and obese individuals are at increased risk for hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke. The risk of breast cancer is also increased. These health problems are more widespread, if not as immediate, as those posed by anorexia. And obesity is far more prevalent among girls and young women than self-starvation. By encouraging adolescents to become comfortable with weight problems feminists are far worse influences than Barbie.
We need not accept that a little girl playing make-believe with a doll will fuel feelings of inadequacy. No, women won't naturally attain the measurements of a real-life Barbie. But the doll can have a positive influence on kids, if handled properly by parents.
There is a middle ground between anorexia and obesity. Why isn't it proper to encourage girls to present their best appearance, whatever it may be? Why not encourage them to be well-dressed and to pursue success? Adults constantly use the best examples to inspire greatness in their children.
Not every Little Leaguer will grow up to be Albert Pujols. Not every Pop Warner quarterback will be Payton Manning. Yet we use their good qualities to inspire young athletes to give their best effort. Obviously these are real people and Barbie is a toy. But that doesn't make her the devil in blonde hair and high heels. In fact, being a toy she is of less influence than the real life people young women are exposed to.
Largely, this is a matter of common sense. No parent with half a brain would teach their young daughter that they must become Barbie to live a worthwhile life. But if Barbie is the “perfect” woman, in terms of success and appearance, then why not use that perfection as inspiration?
Yes, perfection is an unattainable goal. But its pursuit can propel us to levels of achievement and accomplishment never thought possible. When a person sets their sights on mediocrity they shouldn't be surprised when their achievements are average at best.
Here is an undisputable fact: Barbie isn't real life. There are, however, many real-life people influencing girls and teenagers these days. On one hand we have Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and Madonna. On the other are the “I'd rather be a man” feminists. Seems we'd be better off with a world full of Barbies.
Will the blame game debut alongside PS3?
December 13, 2006
Video games can have detrimental effects on children and I'm not shy about saying it. The near virtual world of today's advanced gaming systems produces kids far lazier than those of yesteryear. They become addicted to the instant entertainment and artificial stimulation available on the television screen. Imagination deteriorates and attention spans shorten.
Is it mere coincidence that the advancement of video games follows the same timeframe as the “epidemic” of ADD and ADHD? Of course, these assertions are merely anecdotal. But the foolish displays surrounding PlayStation 3's debut were anything but anecdotal. From sea to shining sea customers pushed, shoved, and fought for access to the newest artificial reality.
In Manchester, CT, a group of five thugs beat and robbed a new PS3 owner as he left a mall. Authorities closed a Palmdale, CA, Wal-mart when customers became overzealous, to put it mildly, in their pursuit of the PS3.
The heartland wasn't immune to such idiocy. A Wisconsin man was racing 50 other customers for a preferred spot outside a store. He was injured when he ran into a pole. You know, maybe there is a link between video games and dwindling attention spans. And in Kentucky four people were shot with BB guns while waiting in line to buy the PlayStation.
The worst example comes from Putnam, CT, where Michael Penkala found him self on the business end of a shotgun. He was shot in the chest and robbed of $2500 while waiting in line outside a Wal-mart. Three men were arrested and face multiple charges ranging from threatening to attempted murder. Now we need someone to blame.
It's fashionable to blame Wal-Mart for everything. Why not begin with the world`s largest retailer? Perhaps Best Buy and the shopping malls are the culprits. They should have provided better security to the stooges camped on their sidewalks. And what about Sony? Did they not create the hysteria when they went to market with a product that was under produced?
Maybe we can blame the buyers. Is it logical to blame the people who were stupid enough to camp outside stores to buy a video game? If the purchasers were buying for their own use I somewhat agree. It's likely that the PS3 will be readily available in a month or so, and at a lower price.
What of customers who were buying the units to resell? Can we blame them? Maybe, but they have a plausible excuse for camping in front of stores. They were trading their time for an in-demand product with the expectation of turning a profit. That is the spirit of capitalism. And capitalism is the economic system of our country, at least until Nancy Pelosi takes charge.
There is blame for a system that isn't truly serious about crime. Although the Connecticut judge who arraigned William Robertson -one of the Putnam suspects- called him a “threat to the public”, Robertson had just been placed on probation November 22nd on burglary-related charges.
Another area for blame is a quasi taboo on self-defense. When concealed weapons legislation began its sweep through the states it was met with hysterical warnings of a return to the Old West. The same can be said about the current “castle doctrine” law in Florida, which recognizes a person's right to self-defense in lieu of retreat from criminal activity.
What if the people who were beaten or shot had been armed? They would not have been such easy marks for their attackers. Of course, this position will surely incite claims that arms would have led to violence among frustrated customers outside the stores. But we had that anyway and it was the criminal element that benefited.
I place the blame on the people who committed the acts, whether mere irresponsibility as in California, or the criminal behavior in Connecticut. Let's blame the “I want it and I have a right to get it” attitude that allows people to justify any act that serves their desired end.
You're free to accept or reject any or all of these possibilities. But there is one requirement of civil society that cannot be denied. We would all benefit from a more mature, respectful, and responsible population. Those virtues proved to be in shorter supply than the PS3.
A Merry Christmas to all… with no apologies
December 12, 2006
Each year Christmas becomes more “PC” than the year before. Seattle's airport is this year's nominee for the gutless wonders of December. Twenty-five years of displaying Christmas trees at airport entrances came to a halt in one night. According to airport spokeswoman Terri-Ann Betancourt the trees were removed “because we didn't want to be exclusive.”
Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky sparked the impromptu tree-trimming. The Rabbi threatened to sue the airport authority if a Jewish menorah wasn't added to the tree display. But even Bogomilsky seemed surprised when the Christmas trees were removed.
Menorahs and Christmas trees are fundamentally different. Menorahs are undeniably religious while the origin of Christmas trees is as wide as the kinds of trees used. In fact, the religious meaning of Christmas trees is debated even in Christianity.
Ancient Romans decorated trees with strips of metal during a festival honoring Saturnus, their god of agriculture. Is the Christmas tree based on this pagan celebration? Perhaps our version of Christmas trees dates to 16th Century Germany, where a small fir tree was decorated with apples, nuts, and the like. Children received those goodies on December 25th. Or could the Feast of Adam and Eve, where the “original sin” was reenacted on December 24th, be the source for our tree? An evergreen, hung with apples, was used as a prop for the play.
No matter; Christmas in America has become a season of offense more so than a time of joy. Remember last years flap over “holiday trees” and official policies governing what greeting a retail cashier could offer? Those instances, like the one in Seattle, indicate that political correctness and “sensitivity” have run amok.
Are people offended by Christmas greetings, or are they seeking a reason to be offended? In this world of war and misery you have to wonder why expressions of hope and happiness offend. Perhaps a person consumed with their own despair cannot suffer someone who isn't defeated by life. Maybe the joy in the expression and message of Merry Christmas reminds them of the emptiness in their souls.
Let's put this in perspective. If a Jewish man were to offer me a greeting of Happy Hanukkah I would accept his wishes in the spirit they were offered. I would not become mortally offended and allow the good wishes to be overshadowed because the greeting reflected a holiday not of my own faith.
The proper response should be to thank the man for his good wishes and respond with a cheerful Merry Christmas. If he is sincere in his expression to me he will accept my greeting without reservation.
People are now too sensitive for courtesy, and that vulnerability is magnified at Christmas. Such attitudes have led businesses, trying not to offend clients and customers, to extend the "happy holidays" greeting. It's a shame that the term Merry Christmas is succumbing to the tide of political correctness and multiculturalism.
America has a Christian heritage whether anyone believes it or not. As such we are entirely within the realm of good taste and etiquette to wish someone a Merry Christmas even if that person is of another faith or no faith at all.
This said I will wish each and every reader a safe and Merry Christmas. This greeting is extended without apology to the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, the Sikh, the Buddhist, the Wiccan, the agnostic, the atheist, the environmentalist, and whoever else happens to be out there. If you are a rational person you will graciously accept these good wishes in the spirit they are offered.
However, there are some people bound to take offense. With this being a season for peace I shouldn't openly offend them. If you resent my wishes and are offended by Merry Christmas, then I rescind that greeting. Have a Wretched Christmas if you like, and toss is a Dismal New Year.
Animal activist's present dismal argument on bear hunting
December 6, 2006
Animal rights activists will stop at nothing to prevent animals from being treated like, well, animals. Their reaction to a bear hunting season in a portion of Virginia's Great Dismal Swamp Wildlife Refuge is a perfect example.
In Defense of Animals (IDA), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) joined forces to stop the hunt. They accused refuge management teams of severely miscalculating the bear population. AWI biologist D.J. Schubert was especially critical saying, "The foundation for the hunt is extraordinarily fragile," But the bear population in the refuge is between 275 and 350 animals. And the possibility of a hunt has been studied since the late 1990s.
The hunt itself was well-regulated. According to Fish and Wildlife Service rules the hunt could last only two days. Only 100 permits were issued and only twenty bears could be taken. Furthermore, there were stringent guidelines covering who could enter the hunting area and by what means.
None of these rules stopped animal rights groups from their demagoguery. In Defense of Animals claimed, “Only after 20 black bears are reported dead will an order be made to stop hunting.” This statement is patently false. Had the first day's hunt produced more than ten kills a reevaluation was specified that could've cancel the season's second day. So, hunters would not be sitting in stands with machineguns until 20 bears were mowed down like last spring's hay, as animal activists would have you believe.
It is true that bear hunting on the refuge is a unique occurrence. But bear hunting in Virginia is far from extraordinary. Hunters tagged 23 bears on private land bordering the refuge last year, and 1440 statewide. The foundation for the Dismal Swamp hunt doesn't seem so “fragile” now. But that's not enough to satisfy animal rights activist D.J. Schubert.
Since Mr. Schubert is a biologist we can grant his intelligence. But intelligence does not preclude partiality, and Mr. Schubert has proven his biases before.
Schubert has worked with animal rights organizations to curb the use of snowmobiles in national parks and referred to Montana's first bison hunt in 15 years as “blatant animal cruelty”. Admittedly I grind the axe of hunting on the side of support. But Mr. Schubert is grinding that same axe just as hard on the other side.
The fact is that while animal activists preen and crow about saving wildlife and habitat it is sportsmen who do something about it. The Pittman-Robertson Act took effect in 1938. This law levies a federal tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery supplies. In other words, the tax is paid by hunters or people generally sympathetic to the sport. The revenue generated -over $3.4 billion since its inception- protects, restores, and improves wildlife habitat for both game and non-game species.
What's more, hunters and hunting organizations support Pittman-Robertson. Thus, while activists boast about supporting animal welfare it is hunters who actually promote the long-term survivability of wildlife. But facts will not deter the animal rights proponent from spewing nonsense.
Kristie Phelps of IDA said of the bear season, “The only reason to allow the slaughter is to appease a small minority who take pride and pleasure in killing defenseless animals, and it's just not right.”
Miss Phelps' ignorance of why people hunt is exceeded only by her ignorance of bears. I suggest she corner a black bear and discover just how “defenseless” these critters are. As to the “pride and pleasure in killing”, remember that 100 permits were issued but only 20 bears could be taken. Thus, 80-percent of hunters entered the Dismal Swamp knowing they would emerge empty-handed. Furthermore, the “slaughter” ended December 2 without a single bear being killed. So much for the fallacious notion that successful hunting is as simple as walking through the woods.
Which would an animal appreciate more: elitist rhetoric spewed by animal rights organizations, or nearly 40-million acres of habitat preserved by sportsman? Ultimately, hunters put their money where the animal activist's mouth is.
“Lactivists” expose more than their breasts
November 29, 2006
Who would think that the simple act of nursing a child could cause a stir? Untold billions of babies and mothers have performed this act since the inception of humanity. Why did it recently become big news?
The responsibility belongs, in part, to Emily Gillette. She was removed from a Freedom Airlines flight for nursing her baby on the plane. It wasn't long before a “lactivist nurse-in” -activist mothers participating in a staged public breastfeeding event- was organized at the Burlington, VT airport. Among the participants was Chelsea Clark, smartly attired in her “Got breast milk?” t-shirt. Clark said of the staged protest, “It's about raising consciousness about our culture's sexualization of the breast.” Oh, really? Let's see.
Available for purchase at this very moment on a “lactivist” website is a sweatshirt for husbands of nursing mothers. It reads, “I play with my baby's food.” The implication is obvious. Now, what was that about the “sexualization of the breast?”
Of course, once an activist begins to crow about “raising consciousness” nothing else on the face of the earth matters. Not facts, not evidence, not anything. But, just for fun, we'll address the subject anyway.
The fact is that Emily Gillette wasn't removed from her flight for the act of breastfeeding but for not covering her breast. What's more, a flight attendant offered Mrs. Gillette a blanket so she could nurse inconspicuously. The offer was promptly refused.
While this cause du jour recently gained widespread attention it is far from its -pardon the expression- infancy. The New York Times reported a similar protest in June, 2005. Approximately 200 “lactivists” staged a nurse-in at the corner of Columbus Avenue and West 67th Street. They were angry with Barbara Walters, who had voiced an opinion about public breastfeeding on ABC`s “The View” a few weeks earlier.
Starbucks was the target in 2004. Lorig Charkoudian was asked to cover her breast while nursing her baby inside a Maryland Starbucks. Next thing you know Charkoudian is posting an activist website, petitioning Starbucks corporate office, and organizing public feedings.
Am I detecting a hint of self-centeredness, or is it just another of my unreasonable intolerances?
No doubt there are women readers now questioning my motives, since I obviously haven't nursed a baby. But the fact is I fully support breastfeeding. Mother's milk contains all the necessary vitamins and proteins for infant development. It is non-allergenic and protects infants against various diseases and infections, since the mother's antibodies are transferred through the milk. And it's believed to lessen the chances of future breast and ovarian cancers in women. There's no doubt that nursing is a natural and wise choice for feeding a baby.
I was breast-fed, and my wife nursed our two children. But it was done discreetly, with respect to established social standards. Whatever happened to decorum? Perhaps it has become as antiquated as respect and responsibility.
A mother knows when she'll be in a public place for an extended period and has several options for feeding her child. Breast pumps can be bought for under $40. Fill a few bottles and store them. Breast milk keeps up to 10 hours at 70 degrees and is easily warmed. It shouldn`t be too much of a burden for mom to find some warm tap water.
Furthermore, it's doubtful people will have a problem with tactful public nursing. Why not use a blanket? Lactivists accurately describe nursing as an intimate act of mother and child. And doesn't intimacy demand a certain degree of privacy?
As with most protesters, the nature of the protest causes the curious mind to question the motive behind it. In this case it is apparent that the activism itself outweighs all other factors. Nurse-ins aren't about nursing a child, for there are many ways to feed a baby in public without drawing attention to the activity. The lactivist isn't as concerned with feeding the child as about calling attention to themselves via in-your-face activism.
As for my part, I have no problem with a woman nursing her baby in public. It is far better than being confronted by a pack of teenagers with their pants around their knees. But I do have a problem with exploitation. Lactivist moms are exposing more than a breast or two; they are exposing a self-promoting agenda. It is the attitude behind their protests that dishonors the natural act of breastfeeding.
Confidence performs while arrogance boasts
November 23, 2006
Everyone knows someone who is so sure of their abilities that they overcome every obstacle to success. But we often confuse that confidence with arrogance. Those two words, and the attitudes they represent, are as different as night and day.
Confidence originates from the word “confidere”. The prefix “con” means to know how and is related to the word “can”, which means to be able. “Fidere” means “to trust”. So, confidence indicates knowing how or being able to trust. This ability is generally expressed as trusting in self or others to succeed or act reliably. Synonyms include self-assurance, belief, and certainty.
From this brief review we learn that confidence is the power to believe that success is attainable and goals are reachable. Such a person also accounts for the possibility of negative results. Therefore, the confident person makes plans to overcome setbacks and failures. This attitude, combined with an attention to detail, is essential to success in any endeavor. What's more, a free society cannot function without confidence in one's own talents and in those of their neighbor.
Perhaps confidence is best expressed, and perfected, in faith in our Creator. The Book of James says that one who wavers “is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.” Confidence acts as an anchor against those waves. When we have faith in our talents we are driven to use them, and this reflects not only self-assurance but also faith in God, the provider of our abilities.
It should be noted that confidence in God and self isn't expressed in loud, boisterous, or brash behavior. There is where arrogance begins.
Arrogance comes from the Latin word “arrogantia” and means contemptuous pride and disregard for others. An arrogant person acts with an air of superiority towards those they consider inferior. This leads to reckless behavior and a lack of planning. They are blind to possible setbacks and assume all outcomes will be as perceived.
Such an attitude is dangerous not only to the arrogant person but to anyone who may be affected by their decisions. Arrogance in practice leads a person to continue pursuit of a single direction despite evidence that the promised results aren't being achieved.
I'm not raising this issue to introduce anyone to etymology or to enhance vocabulary. I simply intend to highlight the contrast between confidence and arrogance. There are two main ideologies vying for acceptance in our country. Confidence abounds in one movement and arrogance in the other.
One philosophy is defined by a faith in people to succeed and accomplish. Adherents recognize their talents and their ability to reach their goals however lofty or modest they may be. But that's not all. This group understands that the same is true for each and every American regardless of their status, class, race, sex, or other contributing factor. They are constantly working to promote that attitude.
The second group perceives their influence as essential for others to survive at all. They see people trapped by circumstance with neither ability nor opportunity to improve their situation. Therefore they, moved by their superior intellect, must guide these unwashed masses.
They devise and implement programs to “help” people who lack their genius. Then, when those programs produce no results, they demand increased funding. So sure is this group of their rightness that they refuse to admit the failures of their ideas, even when those failures are demonstrable.
Instead of changing course they prescribe more of the same. This requires them to convince other people that there is no opportunity for improvement without them. It is the ultimate condescending attitude and a perfect example of arrogance.
Conservatism represents confidence, in self and in others. It recognizes the talents and worth of individuals, and their ability to achieve goals, far beyond the reach of the latest government program. It teaches that what lies inside of each American is stronger than any barrier, real or perceived, that lies in the way of accomplishment.
Liberalism represents arrogance, expressed in condescending attitudes. It holds that success is unattainable without their guidance. It defines success for others instead of seeing each person's ability to define success on their own. But liberalism best exemplifies arrogance in its refusal to recognize the failures of its core programs to produce the promised results.
Taking all matters into account it becomes obvious that liberal arrogance grows government and shrinks liberty. As such, it poses a grave threat to the core principles of our republic.
A few thoughts on the election and its aftermath
November 17, 2006
The elections are over, in most districts at least, and the pollsters were proven correct. Democrats will control Congress for the next two years. It now seems appropriate to offer a few thoughts and observations on what happened.
Democrats campaigned on a “new direction” for America. In the first 100 hours of control they pledge to “break the link between lobbyists and legislation”, enact the 9/11 commission's recommendations, raise the minimum wage, negotiate drug prices, and install a “pay as you go” system of federal spending.
What will we have when we boil this political rhetoric to its basic element? We will find our ability to join with like-minded individuals to influence our representatives curtailed. We will negotiate with an enemy that openly desires our destruction. We will artificially inflate wages and socialize pharmaceuticals. And we will raise taxes, for we surely won`t consider reduced spending. Overall it sounds like the democrats old direction for America.
Nancy Pelosi is an appropriate San Francisco liberal to serve as speaker of the House for the democrat controlled congress, especially since Timothy Leary, Andy Warhol, and Dr. Spock are dead and unavailable.
People who believe the economy is stagnant, Bush lied, 9/11 was an inside job, and voted democrat are “open-minded” and “issue-oriented”. Conversely, conservatives disgruntled with the GOP's lack of overall direction but still happy with enough of their positions to vote republican “can't rise above party politics”.
Rep. Pelosi's second act as speaker should be the completion of a course in capitalizing on momentum, since her first act -supporting Pennsylvania's John Murtha for majority leader- was such a resounding failure.
While we're on the subject of John Murtha let's remember how democrats promised a transparent and ethical government. Rep. Murtha was investigated in the 1980 Abscam bribery sting and is considered a top player in the “you scratch my back, etc.” world of beltway politics. In other words, it will be business as usual.
Before the election liberals were complaining about the new electronic voting machines, voter fraud, tampering, disenfranchisement, cheating, and other irregularities. It was the same thing we heard in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Then, as if by magic, we discovered that everything had worked just fine when the results came in.
Pre-election polls indicated democratic victories in the mid-term election and a preference for a democratic president in 2008. The first part came true. If a democrat wins the White House, will conservatives threaten to leave the country like Hollywood liberals do when Republicans are elected?
When Harold Ford, Jr. -a black democrat- lost the Tennessee Senate race to Republican Bob Corker -a white republican- Time magazine wrote, “if he were white, he would have won.” I could find no “mainstream media” charges of racism in Maryland where a black republican (Michael Steele) lost to a white democrat (Benjamin Cardin).
While we're on the subject of Michael Steele, let's see how he's been treated on the campaign trail. When Steele announced his candidacy earlier this year, a popular liberal blogger depicted him as a minstrel and described him in racially stereotypical terms. In 2001, a Maryland Senator called Steele “an Uncle Tom.” And during a 2002 campaign debate, Steele opponents tossed Oreo cookies at him. This is worth remembering the next time democrats accuse republicans of racism and intolerance.
Republicans lost largely because they abandoned their principles. They did little to control government growth, instituted new levels of bureaucracy, opened new entitlement spending, and ignored America's call to secure our borders until late in the campaign. They gave undecided voters little reason to vote for them. The result of those choices was apparent. The answer should be just as clear.
No matter which side of the vote you were on there is one thing that is beyond debate. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. Americans exercised their ability to overthrow their government without firing a shot. In two years time we'll have the opportunity for peaceful revolution once again. That's something to be thankful for when you sit down to dinner tomorrow.
The basics of ignorance, stupidity, and liberalism
November 14, 2006
The words “ignorance” and “stupidity” are generally treated as synonyms in modern English. They are used to indicate similar mental conditions and capabilities. In reality, these words represent different concepts.
“Ignorance” is defined as lacking knowledge or education; being unaware. “Stupidity” is lacking intelligence or perception. The use of a simple example brings this difference into stark contrast.
An ignorant person is someone who doesn't know but can be taught. Suppose there is a man who doesn't know that two plus two equals four. If I place two oranges in his right hand and two more in his left I can prove to him that he holds four oranges. He is no longer ignorant of the sum total of two plus two. What's more, he can apply this to future scenarios. If he buys two oranges, then you come along and give him two apples, he'll understand that he now has four pieces of fruit.
There is no shame in ignorance itself. Everyone is ignorant of something. I am ignorant of mixing the fuel that can propel a spacecraft to orbit. Conversely, even the most educated doctor, scientist, or engineer may be ignorant of how to change the oil in their car.
Stupidity is a radically different condition, best articulated as a person who refuses to learn. If we distribute oranges to a stupid person as we did above, that person may deny the total is actually four. This individual may claim the total is three, or five, simply because they prefer it that way. They may even claim that the oranges aren't oranges at all, but pears or peaches.
This illustration isn't as extreme as it may sound. The stupid person is rejecting an obvious conclusion. And being stupid is to deny a fact without offering a plausible alternative. Surely there are people with mental aptitudes that preclude learning. But for the most part stupidity is a chosen path and represents someone that simply refuses to accept absolute facts.
Conservatives are often the worst offenders when it comes to misusing both words. We often dismiss liberals as being ignorant or stupid. Neither situation is the case. Let's go back to the oranges.
Liberals fully understand that two oranges plus two more will total four oranges; they just don't think it's fair. Liberals operate under the assumption that the two oranges they have plus the two you give them would've totaled six had the “greedy rich” not stolen two other oranges somewhere along the line. But don't worry; there's a progressive solution to this miscarriage of justice.
The liberal will insist that their elected representative procure two oranges from the public orange fund to replace what they should've received. Then they will lobby the district attorney to prosecute the “greedy rich”, forcing the return of the two “stolen” oranges, which will be added to the two from the public orange fund and the four they originally had. So, in the liberal world of wealth redistribution, two plus two actually totals eight. This is fair.
However, a word of caution is in order. When using this teaching tool you should carefully conceal your stash of oranges, for it may be larger than your neighbor`s stash. If a liberal notices this unfair condition they will call on you to “give something back” to the community. The “Equitable Citrus Distribution Tax Act” will be passed and your oranges be given to someone more deserving that you.
Don't bother to complain. The fact that you harvested oranges while your “underprivileged” neighbor sat on his duff watching American Idol has nothing to do with your abundance or his shortfall. You have merely been the winner of life's orange lottery.
So sit back and enjoy your oranges while you can. Don't be as ignorant or stupid as to think a liberal won't use the power of government to take them away from you.
GOP defense proves to be a bad offense
November 9, 2006
You win a few and you lose a few. On November 7 the Republican Party lost and lost hard. Now the GOP leadership must decide why it happened. Were they outflanked on the issues? Was the conservative agenda rejected? Perhaps the party strayed too far from the message that led to their ascension to power in 1994.
Frankly, substance mattered little in this election. The Democratic strategy was to sing the “new direction” and “change” mantra without specifying what that directional change would be. Liberal Democratic leaders kept a low profile while more centrist candidates carried them to a majority. Now, Nancy Pelosi will chart the course of the 110th Congress. Did America turn out Republicans because they favor the Pelosi dream of San Francisco liberalism? It seems the GOP lost more so than the Democrats won.
When Republicans took firm control of Congress in 2002 I wrote a column stating that the party faced two governing choices. First, they could go forward with the party's main theme of adherence to the Constitution and limited government, promoting the worth of individuals and free markets over the intrusion of government. Second, they could simply not rock the boat.
Sadly, GOP leaders eventually chose option two. They largely abandoned the conservative ideas that produced their 1994 rise to power and governed as a light version of Democratic socialism. At the first sign of difficulty, adversity, or negative press the GOP abandoned its principles.
They lacked the will to proceed with reform of Social Security and Medicare despite the looming deficiencies of both programs. They passed the buck on a subject that needs to be addressed. A future Congress will have to adopt radical reform in both programs, allow them to default, or increase taxes astronomically as a result.
In direct contrast to the party platform of decreasing government entitlements the GOP gave birth to a federal prescription drug program. The projected cost began rising immediately and will continue ad infinitum. It will feed upon its own largess, just as do all government entitlements.
Congressional leaders didn't expand upon previous welfare reform. Entitlement spending continued just as if it was authorized by the Constitution. The post-Katrina misery was testament to the helplessness entitlement programs instill in their recipients. People are robbed of their independence, their responsibility, and their freedom. But instead of pointing out the failures of the welfare state, Republican strategy was to prove they could outspend Democrats.
The GOP Congress lacked the will to make earlier tax cuts permanent, much less pursue needed overhaul of the tax system. Despite rising energy prices and Middle East turmoil they could not find the courage to expand domestic oil exploration and production. And Senate Republicans folded meekly at the first hint of a Democratic filibuster.
Sure, certain conservative objectives were reached. Two apparent conservative justices were seated on the Supreme Court and frivolous lawsuits against firearms makers were stopped. But by and large little was done to define the GOP as the sole outpost for individual liberty. Party leaders played the game not to lose and we see the result.
To their credit the Democrats ran a campaign designed to capitalize on Republican timidity. They hid the liberalism of the party leadership. Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, etc. were nowhere to be seen the final weeks of the campaign. They rode centrist candidates to victory.
The one high-profile election highlighting the anti-war liberalism of the Democratic Party was in Connecticut. Ned Lamont had defeated pro-defense incumbent Joseph Lieberman in the Democratic primary. Yet this much-hailed darling of the “progressives” could not beat Lieberman in the general election.
Joseph Lieberman is certainly not a conservative. But when unabashed liberalism can't carry the day in the liberal state of Connecticut it speaks well for future of conservatism.
Even so, you have to tip your hat to Democrats for utilizing a successful version of the old bait and switch. But what happens when those moderate freshmen are confronted by the liberals who engineered their victories? They'll have no choice but to fall in line behind Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. What will their constituents think then?
Liberal pundits claim that November 7th was a repudiation of conservatism. That's a false assertion. Republican leadership gave the voters no reliable conservative credentials to evaluate.
Republican moderation was on trial this fall and it came up short. However, when the GOP has presented a conservative alternative to Democratic liberalism they have achieved electoral success. Shouldn't the lesson be obvious?
Kerry suffers recurrence of an old malady
November 8, 2006
If you are a Democratic leader, activist, or party loyalist, and you think John Kerry would make an excellent presidential nominee in 2008 you have only one path toward that end. Lock Sen. Kerry in a closet and keep him there until the election is over. If you let him speak publicly he will surely suffer a flare-up of chronic foot-in-mouth disease.
Everyone is aware of Kerry's latest faux pas, but let's review anyway. Speaking to a group of California students Kerry said, “Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.”
Kerry was roundly condemned and offered something of an apology. He said he regretted that his words were “misinterpreted to imply anything negative” about the military. But it's hard to misinterpret what is stated in plain English. Sen. Kerry's statement wasn't as much a mistake as a Freudian slip, a case of foot-in-mouth disease.
Kerry and his handlers quickly claimed that he had blown the punch line of a joke. He should have said, “you end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq.” The intent was to portray President Bush as a dunce. Even if Mr. Kerry had delivered the joke correctly it cannot stand up under scrutiny. His foot is again in his mouth.
Let's compare the academic achievements of Senator Kerry and President Bush. Bush holds a BA in history from Yale and a Masters in Business Administration from Harvard. Kerry owns a BA in political science from Yale and a law degree from Boston College. That's a wash, as both men hold multiple degrees. Let's compare their grades.
Both men were similarly average students. In fact, Bush fared slightly better than Kerry. Kerry scored four “Ds” his freshman year at Yale. Bush had only one “D” in four years. Kerry's four-year grade average was 76. Bush's was 77. Consider also that John Kerry's Yale photo looks for all the world like Gomer Pyle and it's clear that he has no basis to question George Bush's intelligence.
And this isn't John Kerry's first foray into the land of false witness.
Since he became the '04 Democratic presidential nominee Kerry has made his news by criticizing the Iraq War. If you support his stance that Iraq is an unjust mistake you might consider his position before he won that nomination.
On the floor of the US Senate in 2002 Kerry accused Hussein of breaking his cease-fire agreement from the Gulf War. He assessed Saddam's threat by wondering why the Iraqi dictator was pursuing weapons programs most nations had abandoned, including nuclear technology. He questioned why Iraq was seeking unmanned aircraft for delivering biological agents, why Iraq developed long range missiles, and why Iraq didn't account for their known stockpiles of banned weapons.
Kerry lamented Hussein's disregard for the people he ruled, his history of murder and torture, and his previous use of WMDs. Kerry added, “We should not go to war because these things are in his past but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future.” It is clear that John Kerry believed Iraq threatened America and that pre-war intelligence was accurate. And this wasn't the only time he took such a position.
During a 2003 speech at Georgetown University Sen. Kerry warned of the grievous threat posed by Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction and said, “we need to disarm Saddam Hussein”. Of course, Kerry held these positions while voting “for the $87 billion before he voted against it”.
John Kerry is a true politician; he speaks without thinking. His latest comment reveals what he and other “progressives” -like soon to be Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi- think of our military personnel. It also tells us that Kerry believes Americans lack the perception to notice that foot in his mouth.