A Second Bill Of Rights?

In his Annual Message to Congress, delivered on January 11, 1944, FDR proposed a second bill of rights. He acknowledged the roll the first Bill of Rights played in the founding of the nation and bringing it successfully to that day:

“This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.”

But he also believed “these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.” Therefore, in his mind, a second bill of rights was necessary.

Why did FDR believe the first Bill of Rights were inadequate? Simply because it permitted people to fail.

FDR, and the rest of the world witnessed how failure in Germany through the 20’s and 30’s, a byproduct of European leaders desire to make Germany pay for WWI (reparations), gave rise to Hitler and his fascism.

To FDR, “People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.” Therefore, to avoid WWIII, he believed that the U.S. should fight against poverty, and nothing could fight it better than create a second Bill of Rights guaranteeing jobs, food, a home, medical care, education. In FDR’s words, “All of these rights spell security.”

But can a nation’s constitution guarantee a “right to success” in the same breath as it guarantees a “right to free speech”? Should a nation guarantee a “right to security” in the same line as it guarantees a “right to equal protection”?

No. To do so is impractical (there are as many definitions of “success” and “security” as there are people because we are all unique individuals) and strikes at the heart of the sovereignty of God and the inherent choice God has given man to determine his own destiny.

Today’s Interesting Stuff

Israel is an amazing nation. To the list you’ll read at this website, you can add that the Intel-Israel R&D group developed the current generation Core2 microprocessor core, which currently heads all charts in desktop performance while using significantly less energy and producing significantly less heat.

I won’t give the any of the list here, but read the list and see that Gods touch on the land still has not worn off. And yet you see the hands of the enemy still trying desperately to destroy the land and its people:

All the above while engaged in regular wars with an implacable enemy that seeks its destruction, and an economy continuously under strain by having to spend more per capita on its own protection than any other county on earth.

AND THE FRENCH AMBASSADOR IN ENGLAND SAYS :

“ISRAEL IS NOTHING BUT A S****Y LITTLE COUNTRY”

Gender-Pay Inequality Isn’t

Listening to Michael Medved on the radio on my way home from work recently, I heard him interviewing an author of a study regarding the disparity of pay between male and female workers. A major tenet of the feminist ideology is that men make more than women, universally. Apparently it is true that on average, women do make less than men. But sexist policies and male-run workplaces are the least of the causes, if at all. I do not recall the name of the author Michael was interviewing and not having a MedHead subscription I was unable to look through the archives. But…

In an article in Reason Magazine, Steven Chapman writes on the study:

On its face, the evidence in the AAUW (American Association of University Women) study looks damning. “One year out of college,” it says, “women working full-time earn only 80 percent as much as their male colleagues earn. Ten years after graduation, women fall farther behind, earning only 69 percent as much as men earn.”

But read more, and you learn things that don’t get much notice on Equal Pay Day. As the report acknowledges, women with college degrees tend to go into fields like education, psychology and the humanities, which typically pay less than the sectors preferred by men, such as engineering, math and business. They are also more likely than men to work for nonprofit groups and local governments, which do not offer salaries that Alex Rodriguez would envy.

As they get older, many women elect to work less so they can spend time with their children. A decade after graduation, 39 percent of women are out of the work force or working part time — compared with only 3 percent of men. When these mothers return to full-time jobs, they naturally earn less than they would have if they had never left.

Steve goes on with additional and interesting facts and findings by other researchers and concludes:

June O’Neill, an economist at Baruch College and former director of the Congressional Budget Office, has uncovered something that debunks the discrimination thesis. Take out the effects of marriage and child-rearing, and the difference between the genders suddenly vanishes. “For men and women who never marry and never have children, there is no earnings gap,” she said in an interview.

That’s a fact you won’t hear from AAUW or the Democratic presidential candidates. The prevailing impulse on Equal Pay Day was to lament how far we are from the goal. The true revelation, though, is how close.

Steve does include one paragraph in which he discusses the varying expectations and general responsibilities of men versus women in society. He ponders whether the men in families are compelling their wives to stay at home with the children while they go work. While I’m sure there are cases of this, as a general fact, the differences in nature between men and women are such that women do a better job, generally, at raising children as an at-home parent than men. Women are not necessarily compelled to stay home to raise children more than they desire to stay home.

And even those arguments have no standing in the presence of the damning question: Is not motherhood a high calling equal to or greater than nearly any other calling a woman could choose? Why are stay-at-home mothers considered second class (mostly by freakishly feminazi fem-bots)? My dad fixes peoples telephones, he has done this and other work for the phone company for around 30 years. My mom went to college to study nursing and spent several years as an RN working with premature babies. Then she stayed home and raised us. She’s spent 27 years of her life now (that’s over half) raising a new generation, pouring herself into our education, our relationships, our joys and sorrows, our friends, our lives. What is second rate about that.

It would seem, and this is the greatest joke of all surrounding the whole idea of feminist propaganda, that a feminist ideal woman is a man, climbing the soulless corporate ladder, bringing home the bacon day after day until the day they die. What’s so great about that?

Today’s Interesting Stuff

I’m browsing Bongo which I’ve Stumble(d)upon and find a pithy review of Algores Enviro-fest faux-film, An Inconvenient Truth:

An Inconvenient Truth An exaggerated slide show with the inconvenient truth that Gore is a bore. ~Jack Palethorpe

… and a narcissistic self-loathing (yes I know those are mutually exclusive terms, but he is both self-loving (his own person) and self-loathing (his humanity) at the same time) overweight… well I’ll just keep the rest of the words I was thinking to myself, I’m sure you have plenty that fit just fine.

In case you can’t tell, I’m very angry at the evil Algore is fomenting. Evil, you ask? Yes, his lies, made from a position of carefully studied and purposeful ignorance, cause the creation of policies which cause harm to people without moral justification or even positive outcome. Businesses must spend money enacting meaningless or harmful processes which cost them money with no benefit or return which then forces them to spend less on expanding or improving their own core competencies, creating new jobs or paying workers more. Governments take more money from an already over-taxed populace to use for creating and enforcing restrictive policies which subvert the rights and usurp the responsibilities of the individual.

Because of environmental zombies and their accompanying hard-won policies, DDT is not used in Africa, where it would all but eradicate Malaria, one of the worst killers in that beautiful continent filled with so much trouble. Science says DDT kills? No, a novel, yes, that’s right, a NOVEL spinning a heart rending story of a dream of a silent spring twisted the brainless spineless pointless morons which populate so many government positions and a policy is born. And innocents die.

I’m Not Sorry

NotSorryAboutOurPresident.com is a wonderful site. The problem is, apparently more hateful ignorant people have time to vote at its anti-site. Go, post. It takes like ten seconds. If you already have something to say.

And Two Lists To Top It Off

50 Things Men Wish Women Knew

50 Things Women Wish Men Knew

These are good. Very good. I think. (see below)

##Edit##

The lists are mostly good. They do focus a bit on married couples and the benefits and issues contained in such a relationship. Just so you’re forewarned. I hadn’t read the entire lists before I posted. They’re still worth reading though.

The NEA Gets An “F” For Intellectual Honesty And Consistency

I was reading an article in the April issue of NEA Today about military recruiters in schools. Despite the union’s position on the subject, I was surprised to discover the article is pretty even-handed. It covers both sides of the issue, both the NEA’s and the military’s perspective, and the key parts of the article, the opening and closing, focus on the military’s outreach program to teachers and patriotism… surprising coming from an NEA, which opposes recruiters in schools, etc.

The article praised the Tucson Unified School District’s policy on recruiters: “Tucson Unified distributes a card that lets parents opt in on having their child’s contact information sent to the Department of Defense for recruiting purposes.” This is the opposite from what the NCLB requires. Schools must provide the DOD with student contact info unless parents opt out. The article went on, “Tucson’s more restrictive opt-in approach is the same one that the NEA advocates.”

The NEA understands the power of “OPT-IN” and “OPT-OUT” systems and relies on them heavily. Rather than sticking to intellectual honesty and consistency, however, it supports the option that best serves its interest.

For example, the NEA gets a majority of its political funding through an OPT-OUT system, presuming teachers want to underwrite its political agenda and putting independent-thinking teacher at a disadvantage. Yet, when it comes to the U.S. military, the NEA supports an OPT-IN system that puts the cause of its political opponents at a disadvantage.

In most states, the NEA automatically deducts political contributions from teachers’ paychecks. While the deductions usually have to be authorized, the union hides the authorization papers in the confusing stacks of initial paperwork. Teachers are often rushed or overwhelmed when filling out the forms, so they don’t often scrutinize what they are doing. They simply trust the union and district. As a result, the deductions often slip by without much thought. After all, they are consumed with teaching your kids.

When given a true, clear choice, though, a vast majority of teacher opt out of supporting the union’s politics.
In Washington state, when the union was finally forced to go to an opt-in system, contributions dropped from 80 percent of membership to 11 percent.
In Utah, when the union was forced to do the same, PAC contributions dropped from 68 percent of membership to 7 percent.

This is amazing! While many teachers support the union’s efforts to collectively bargain and help them at the local level, they refuse to fund the union’s political agenda.

But the teachers unions continue to defend their political OPT-OUT programs… with member dues. In 2005, an initiative that would have created an OPT-IN system similar to Washington state’s and Utah’s faced California voters. The teachers union spent more than $100 million in member dues to prevent members from having a choice.