Have We Forgotten?

With the elections of November 2006, the overall victorious party, the Democrats, claimed they’d been given a “mandate” regarding many issues, particularly the War on Terror. They claim the American people have spoken and that the only allowable course now is withdrawal and defeat. Though they speak specifically of the Iraqi War, their master policy is reflective of their general disenchantment with the whole war against terror. This belief in a “mandate”, the word du jour for giving credence to the questionably credible, does seem to be born out by the recent polls, as reported on CNN and the BBC, showing 2/3 of Americans don’t see a good plan for winning the War in Iraq.

While it is only barely debatable that the Iraq War is not going the way we’d hoped, not even complete failure is a viable reason for ever giving up, especially in this war where it is our homes, families, businesses, our way of life, and our lives themselves which are at stake. After all, this war began, at least this current phase, with the enemy attaching us, on our turf, killing our husbands and wives, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, sisters, brothers, innocents all. Even many jihadists agree that non-combatants, civilians, and innocents are off-limits to any kind of attack. But attacked we were, and though it has now been several years since that attack we vowed we’d never forget, it was neither the first nor will it be the last, the danger is little abated. Is there then reason for throwing up our hands collectively, defeated?

Liberals would say emphatically “Yes!”

The current strategy, according to liberals, is not working, and therefore we must tuck tail and run. Defeatism leading to disengagement, with the ultimate goal of isolationism. An island we will be, literally and figuratively. And we having cried “uncle,” the rabid dogs hounding us around the world will allow us a gracious defeat and will let us be, alone. A final Vietnam this will be, America will no longer find the will to project itself and then indeed others will take the reins of power in the world. Except for several things, but first: Where in our governing documents and illustrious history do we the people determine the minutiae of war policy?

We expressly give the President power to direct and wage war as necessary and as he sees fit to protect our interests. This is, in part, why it is so very important that there be people of Character in high office leading this great nation. There cannot be a part-time person of character, for if at the first change of wind that person reassesses and changes their position, they are not truly a person of character. President Bush, for all anybodies disagreements with him personally and politically, has not changed course. He has stated his goal simply: to defeat terrorism whenever and wherever it is found, and has not changed. Whether agreeing with him or not, one can know what President Bush will continue to do. And the job is not finished. Far from it. The very fact of our experiencing difficulties in Iraq should be cause for us to redouble our efforts, reaffirming the need for such a battle now, before it is too late. And resolving to continue the fight we did not start in order to destroy the enemy who would destroy us.

For that is their goal whether we leave or not. The militant, radical, extremist Muslims, or Islamo-Nazis or Islamo-Facists, who began this war have a very public goal which they are not loath to tell, yet which we seem to have forgotten, it would seem. That goal is shouted by radical Imams (preachers or prayer leaders) and written officially as Fatwahs (edicts) and published to their adherents around the globe. America is the Great Satan and it and other nations which do not submit to their extreme Islamic theology, philosophy, and government must be destroyed, period. For them there is no discussion, no arguing the points and possibilities of peaceful coexistance. If we give up in Iraq and the other fronts of the War on Terror we are signing our own, our childrens’, and out entire futures’ death warrants. They will be utterly defeated or they will rule the world, there is no third option for them, and therefore there isn’t for us either.

So then, the only choice for us must be to continue to face them in classic American projectionism. To battle evil is the calling and constant duty of the good. Evil at different times and places takes different faces. Consider the World Wars of the last century. What if we’d given up because too many were dying? What if we’d accepted defeat at the hands of the Nazis? It is likely all of Europe would be enslaved to this day by them or another despotic regime along with most or all of Africa and the East. Prior to our engagement in that war it was the Republican Party arguing for isolationism against engagement, just to show how times and ideas change.

Just as in the World Wars, others are depending, both admittedly and unadmittedly, on our success. The United Kingdom continues to be our staunchest ally, showing classic British, Scottish, Irish and Welsh pluck and courage and an indomitable spirit. Mr. Blair has perhaps been more eloquent in his defence of the War and has used his bully pulpit more often explaining the rationale for our continued involvement in this fight than President Bush. Spain has given up after suffering great pain and loss of its own on its own shores. Instead of steeling its resolve as the London Train Bombings did for the United Kingdom, Spains’ Madrid Train Bombings broke the resolve of Castilla. Regardless of the allies individual or collective spines, though, if we fail, Spain will once again become a Moorish conquest, and this will not be an Islamic Kingdom such as that of the Moors of old who valued art and learning and to whom we owe a great debt for their careful preservation and translation of many priceless works of knowledge and beauty.

So if America were indeed to falter and fail, and retreat within its borders, who would then take the lead in the world? Who has the strength and ability, and more importantly the moral fiber and the national will?

There are few countries indeed who do not have the desire to lead the world the way America has led. The relevant question really is not would they, but could they and should they. The UK has perhaps the nearest moral fiber (nationally) to America. Willing to take unpopular stands around the world in what they see as preservation of good. However, by size they are physically unable to produce enough to lead economically. A leading nation must be able to produce enough to be nearly self-sufficient if necessary. They must be an economic powerhouse challenging all others to give it weight enough for it’s word to mean something. The European Union has shown it does not have the moral fiber to stand against evil at crucial times. Like the UN, when it comes to actual meaningful action, the EU is hampered by it’s own universality, someone is always involved with the enemy and therefore no one can do what must be done. Further, being based on “old-world” economies, it does not produce or consume enough, even collectively, to give it’s word weight beyond it’s member n ations.

In Asia, both China and India have the size, and economic and political/military might and/or potential. However, China is hampered by an immoral, communist quasi-dictatorship, and even if democracy or some less greedily repressive and philosophically backward form of government than comunism were to take over immediately, the people would not soon be ready for world domination and protection. India perhaps has the best chance of becoming a or the world dominant nation, post America, but even they suffer under a socially restrictive religion, social order, and government.

African and South American nations suffer almost universally under corrupt, despotic governments and appear too busy enriching their own upper crusts illegitimately to worry too much about their being the trailing end of the nations of the world. Russia seems unable to throw off cronyism and corruption in business or the siren song of a communist government.

Those nations among our allies in the Middle East have their hands much too full trying to set their houses in order without offending any of their geographical or theological brethren, and many of them officially support ideologies as destructive and evil as any of their more violent neighbors who we’re now in struggle against

So that leaves America. Oh, and not to offend anybody, but who’s heard anything out of our northern neighbor Canada recently? I’m told it’s a beautiful place and the people there are special and nice and kind, but they appear to be content, in a global perspective, being frosting, a whole lot of white stuff, on top of the United States. That and trying to win the title “More Socialist Than France While Still Drinking Beer (Wine Is For Sissies).” So here we are, the lone strongman holdout against the encroaching darkness, to whom all others cling. Some more grudgingly than others. But this is what we are fighting for, the whole world. This is the responsibility that comes with being the nice big kid on the block: We have to face every bully. And if we don’t win, this particularly bully is a rapist.

End Of January Election Links

Obama and Clinton being children:
There’s a bold line between idealism and fantasy,
neither of them have grown enough to know the difference.

With big thanks to Sweetness & Light.

McCain is the front runner, but he’s not won yet. America’s Mayor has endorsed him after ending his own bid to become America’s President. The Governator is expected to endorse him as early as today. (Politico)

McCain will be a “hold-your-nose-and-vote” nominee because even he will be preferable to any alternative.

It is telling that, following exit polls, we know that liberals and moderates voted for McCain in Florida, while conservatives voted for Romney.

Speaking of Romney, he has some tough choices to make: Will he write the big check?

Huckabee needs to get his personal vendetta against Romney out of his eyes, drop out of the race, and endorse the one man who will support a real conservative agenda who still has a chance of winning.

Liberals Anonymous is looking for new members:

Liberals Anonymous (LibAnon) is a nationwide organization of current, former, and recovering American liberals and Democrats. Its sole mission is to establish and maintain recovery programs designed to help similar individuals overcome the plethora of congenital illnesses inherent in postmodern American liberalism with which they are embittered. Liberals Anonymous accomplishes this worthy goal by making the idiosyncratic elemental disease nature of liberalism self-evident to the afflicted individual.

(From the American Thinker)

Back to Romney, and Hugh Hewitt. Ace of Spades apologizes for not getting it right…

I can’t keep knocking Hewitt for being a bit overly enthusiastic about being, ultimately, right. If some of us had seen the lay of the land as well as Hewitt and supported Romney as the best realistic consensus conservative candidate, we might not be in the position we’re in now.

…and endorses Romney.

Jay, do you truly think the media darling candidate is your candidate? Come on, you’re better than that. I know it.

And Orson Scott Card thinks religion may play a bigger part of this than we realize:

After the Iowa caucuses, an African-American friend of mine from Los Angeles wrote to me, scoffing at the idea that Obama’s victory there meant that a black man could now be elected president.

I thought he was too pessimistic. But then came Hillary’s “comeback” in New Hampshire.

I keep hearing about how the pollsters “got it so wrong” and how Hillary’s victory came from the Democratic regulars getting out the vote for her.

And Mitt Romney’s defeat was also laid at the feet of many causes, none of which sounded particularly solid to me. Yes, McCain is something of a “favorite son” in New Hampshire now. But he also has another “virtue” that Romney and Huckabee both lacked: He’s not openly religious.

I suspect that racial and religious prejudice are both playing more of a role than anyone is willing to admit.

Read Card’s latest WorldWatch.

Riehl ponders:

Has anyone stopped to think that if McCain gets the GOP nod, there will come a time when the party has to draft a platform with an obstinate, if not defiant, McCain - an often angry man with a history of holding conservatives in disdain?

We need speeches like this more often. Bob Corker, Senator from Tennessee, in debate on the tax rebate checks said:

“What I see in this package is nothing but a political stimulus,” said Corker. “It’s a stimulus to make the American people think that we, as a body, are doing something to actually cause the economy to be stronger.”

(From Copious Dissent)

My chief argument against this package is that it is not tied to taxation. Those who pay no taxes will get as much as those who pay taxes. That is wrong.

This will tie economic stimulus and government largess together irrevocably. Government is a burden. A necessary burden, but a burden nonetheless. The way the government to affect the economy meaningfully is to lighten itself, not to quixotically throw money back to us who were compelled to surrender it to them in the first place. That is adding insult to injury.

Back to Romney. American Thinker asks why the other candidates hate Governor Romney. Some of the answers:

• He can win
• He isn’t beholden to special interest groups
• He believes America’s best days are ahead of it

And once more, from the American Thinker: What does that ACU score really mean for McCain?

So where did McCain differ from the ACU?  The big areas were taxes, campaign finance reform, the environment and, most recently, immigration.  There was also a smattering of support for trial lawyers; federal intervention in health, education, safety or voting issues; internationalism; and some social issues.

Why Us?

A friend asked me a question last night which caught me by surprise. I had honestly never considered this question and am still digesting it’s implications.

Rather than give an answer right away, let me pose the question to you:

Why did such wide forms of progress (societal, scientific, medical, moral, religious, economic, governmental) occur in Europe (during times such as the reformation or the renaissance) and not in Africa?

This question is of especial importance for several historically cultural and certain current events. The legendary Dr. Watson (not of Holmsian fame but of DNA) has recently raised news and hackles with his claim that Africans have lower intelligence. (If you want an opinion of this event showing the ugliness of the evolutionary philosophy and relativist philosophy while making several very valid points, read here). And radical Islam, in it’s eons-old battle against light and right, spread rapidly across North Africa, preventing much exploration based on over-land expeditions.

Is this just an ethno-centrist or xenophobe who doesn’t appreciate the fear which prevented most Europeans from learning more about the dark continent or the difficulty of mounting a meaningful expedition to enlighten the interior? I think not. While there was general human progress, the tribal structure enjoys a mutually supportive relationship with human evil, allowing jealousy, avarice, and greed to rule. There were medicinal benefits, but none along the lines of antibacterial discoveries and exploration of the human body such as Europe enjoyed. It would seem that scientific and cultural progress happened in spite of, instead of because of, any passing of time in these two vast cultures.

And what of Asia? How does Asia affect this question? Was Asia a superior culture to Europe or not? Why?

I don’t have answers to all these, but as I continue to ponder the nature of this beast I hope to write a few bits here and there.

Quick Takes, October 15th, 2007

Democrat House staffers recommend getting full immunizations before going to NASCAR events. Recommended immunizations include the Hepatitis B (an STD) vaccine. Apparently their caricatured idea of NASCAR fans include homosexual and promiscuous hicks of varying degrees of uncleanness openly engaging in sexual acts in the stands and infield.

…either that or they think conservatism is transmittable. Heh, they have no idea.

(Ain’t worth a)Hill(of beans)ary Clinton says that for African Americans, she’s going to be Clinton.

…and how long ago did she drop Rodham?

…and that means they should vote for her, why? The inscrutable logic simply does not follow.

…and for all the Chinese- and Mexican-, and German-, and British-, Australian-, Swedish-, Spanish-, Brazilian-, and every other (hyphen) Americans, who will she be? Urkel?

Run, Al, run!

…anything to give the nutroots more choices. They are pro-murder “pro-choice”, right?

Speaking of running: Harry Reid may want to start running, along with Clinton, Schumer et al.

Democrats push through bill making sure we all know the Turks committed genocide 60 years ago.

I don’t deny it’s a good thing to be accurate, especially about such heinous events and crimes as genocide. But they’re our staunchest ally in the Mid-east region. And we need some clout with them to keep them from beginning a war on the northern border of Iraq with Kurd rebels who are taking shelter among some of our strongest supporters inside Iraq, the Kurds.

Either intelligence on the left side of the isle is lower than even I thought, or ego is even larger. Do we really have to lose at all costs?

It was aliens, I knew it.

Quote:

You do not negotiate peace until you’ve kicked somebody’s rear end.
~Rush Limbaugh

Hiding A Bloody Face

Abortion mill parent company Planned Parenthood, progeny of the racist white supremacist Margaret Sanger, has encountered an unexpected roadblock in the construction of a new abortion mill (aka. Planned Parenthood Clinic, or reproductive health clinic) in a suburb of my own beautiful Chicago.

The planned clinic in Aurora was being constructed by Weitz Construction when pro-life activists found they’d lied in their permit requests to the city. The structure was bought and paid for by Planned Parenthood, and was to be used exclusively for that purpose. But on the permit filings Gemini Office Development listed the tenants as “unknown”.

In this city, opinion is never very far away, and there are a few telling opinions on this issue.

First, from the pro-abortion side. Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn (the Tribune ran the original article revealing the true nature of the building project) begins his piece on the conflagration this way:

Well of course Planned Parenthood representatives didn’t tell the truth to Aurora city officials while they were building a new clinic in the western suburb.

Why is it such a matter-of-fact thing, Mr. Zorn?

Their goal was straightforward: To open a reproductive-health clinic on land zoned for such purpose.

Indeed, no one denies their goal, but still, why the secrecy?

But they had to use a certain amount of stealth because abortion is one of the services Planned Parenthood offers. And foes of abortion rights, longtime losers in the battle for public opinion, traditionally raise all kinds of rukus when Planned Parenthood comes into a community.

“Longtime losers”? If, as you say, the pro-life ideology is such a loser in the battle for public opinion why the hiding, the subterfuge, the concealment? There have indeed been cases of crazies causing physical harm to abortion doctors, in some cases killing, and destroying clinics. Such actions on the part of individual vigilantes are wrong and the perpetrators have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Those few cases are not a suitable excuse if, as Eric claims, abortion is such a universally accepted procedure. Hey, it’s only a baby.

In his smug pride, assured of the moral superiority of his position, he implies that Planned Parenthood and the services is provides ought to be as amoral as a Best Buy or Walmart. As if the killing of babies and the emotional and physical damaging of mothers, the admitted genocidal aims of abortion as issues are anywhere near the moral level of a big box store selling baubles and gewgaws. It makes me want to scream.

(P)oll after poll shows that, even after all the picketing and haranguing and hurling of moral opprobrium in the last 34 years, roughly 2 out of 3 Americans still support Roe v. Wade — the 1973 decision establishing a woman’s constitutional right to choose to have an early-term abortion.

Reading the other polls on the page, I see, not a losing pro-life ideology, but a closely divided America leaning to the side of further limiting the availability of abortions.

Responding to the news, the Reverend Dr. Johnny M. Hunter, DD. National Director of LEARN Inc., which claims to be the largest evangelical pro-life black organization, compares racial tragedies of true similarity. Unlike the sad Mr. Zorn, Dr. Hunter understands the proper order of morality and compares things which really ought to be compared.

Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 Blacks were lynched in the U.S. That number is surpassed within 3 days by abortion.

Abortionists snuffs out the lives of 1,452 African-American children each day. This is womb-lynching, the implementation of black-genocide.

LEARN has been instrumental in providing an alternative voice in the African American community, speaking the truth when so many of their self-proclaimed moral leaders seem to fall completely for the thinly veiled eugenics plans of Sanger and her confederates.

Do they not have the wisdom, Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson, to know what Kimberly Jane Wilson’s father knew? That “not everyone who smiles in your face is your friend”?

Is their ignorance willful or blissful?

Racism in a white person is bad enough, but when you subscribe to a belief system whose known and stated goal is the control or extermination of your own race, is it racism still?

Back at the clinic building, the sides wait for the court hearings to proceed deciding whether Planned Parenthood broke the law in concealing their intent and what, if any, punishment there ought to be for such duplicity.

Mr. Zorn believes, as a good relativist, that there is no moral condemnation for breaking the law in order to achieve what he believes to be the greater good, the opening of a Eugenics Clinic. Also, as every relativist must, he believes he is right.

UPDATE: A Federal judge has just ruled that Planned Parenthoods rights are not being denied as it is being prevented from using it’s new clinic until the legal battles are over. The clinic will stay closed until all appeals are completed.

More Gender Roles Musings

My English critical thinking class seems to be in the full swing of the gender roles discussion; it is our first essay! This follows a rhetorical analysis paper we did on an excerpt (from “Gender Blending: Confronting the Limits of Duality) about what is ‘masculine’ and what is ‘feminine’ in North America and the social schemas of man and woman; authored by Aaron Devor (published 1989). I honestly have no issues with his writing because it is well organized with an introduction, arguments, body defining ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ and a conclusion. He makes real observations and sound contrasting between the gender roles but it is with his conclusion that I have issue as it is far too short. He takes all of time to set the reader up properly and he concludes that the gender schemes are a matter of, “systematic power imbalances based on gender discrimination.” While I can tolerate his lack of articulation with such a huge idea, and agree with him, I believe I better sum it up with (keep in mind I’m writing it to context):

“In conclusion America was originally established as a patriarchal system in which male attributes were valued more than women attributes and because of this women have been wrongfully discriminated against. Still to this day in the 21st century America witnesses to the discrimination of women in the workplace, politics, civil rights and religion because of the gender schema placed on each sex. While there is still more work to be done in releasing ourselves from these gender schemes we must appreciate how far America, and even the world, has come and it is important to look back over the past to see what successes have been made.”

With that said I will jump to the classes’ interaction on this topic. As the except was analyzed in groups you got the feeling that people were mostly in agreeance with Devor but couldn’t quite seem to associate with what he was stating. For example, we could all agree that ‘masculine’ was being powerful, of prowess, forthright and ‘feminine’ was subdued, polite, and reserved but we couldn’t agree to how that actually applied to today. Devor’s writing would have us believe that the sexes are still in competition to one another versus both sexes complimenting one another. The teacher seemed a little concerned we weren’t getting the message as each student spoke up and explicitly or implicitly stated the gender roles have been blended and blurred. Followed was a student’s comment on how old the except was, “Near twenty years,” and how old Devor’s references were, some thirty years old which was agreed makes a big difference in context. I could see the light shining through slowly that everyone wasn’t buying the line. And then it finally hit me and I put in my voice.

“It isn’t that what is ‘feminine’ and what is ‘masculine’ has changed, as if that was the problem all along, it that’s as a society we value both gender roles more equally. Rather than these roles being in competition for value they are viewed today as complimenting one another and thus more equally valued.”

With this you could tell the final nail was sunk into the coffin of any hopes to bemoan the fact that there is such a thing as ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’. Many of the students followed with agreeance in their own ways. The African man piped up and said in his thick accent, “Yes, because with my parents my mom stayed home and cared for the children while my dad worked and fed the family. But it is not like that anymore, because in my family at the end of the month I ask my wife, ‘What bills are you paying and what bills am I paying’?” The teacher voiced her opinion that she was unsure of this fact and readmitted the question testing to see if we were sure the gender roles are more equally valued. Again more students reaffirmed what everyone and myself had been saying. I brought up the example of the show, “Queer Eye For The Sight Guy,” in which men favorably take on ‘feminine’ traits of manners, communication, thoughtfulness, etc and this is far more accepted today. It is also far more acceptable for women to reject men forthright and state their opinions.

Class was coming to a close and our teacher had to hand out the essay one topic. As I packed my items away I listened to her describe the coming writing task. We are to take Devor’s writing and compare it to one of today’s TV shows and see if his observations have remained true. Immediately this took me as very odd. I’d think an honest essay would examine whether or not Devor’s except is applicable at all to today, not some TV show. So I said my thoughts, “That seems a little odd in that Devor’s except is an honest examination of the ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ genders in real life in North America but TV shows are purely an exaggeration of life. This assumes that TV shows actually represent real life today, which is not true as they take the highlights and make a show about it; like Seinfeld.” She replied quickly, “But that’s a comedy what about ‘Gray’s Anatomy’?” Hoping I’d think that was more real. However, I rejected that and replied, “When I was becoming an EMT I was in an ER room and it was extremely boring and the coolest thing that happened that night was a kid came in with a broken arm,” the classroom laughed as I continued, “and there was no such thing as adulterous affairs, arguments, gun shot wounds all in one shift. It is exaggerated and so are ‘reality shows’.” She couldn’t reply to this as we in a previous class discussed how fantastical shows such as Survivor were because of all the editing.

Luckily for the teacher time was up and we were all ready to leave and she dismissed us with the promise to continue this in the next session. Nevertheless, I believe I made a sound argument for not using TV in such an analytical essay. So we shall see, if she will not change her mind I will use such shows as, “Sex In The City” and “Will And Grace” to illustrate how much American has changed. Therefore, in conclusion it is not about the wiping away of what is ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’ the argument that we should be discussing is how each is valued. The fact is there is male and there is female and they are both different and similar and both are needed to complete the circle of life within a family and community. I believe America and other societies, should be more dynamic in their blending of the genders but still respect the fact that we are man and woman. An example of this is in my own house, I often will do the house chores while my wife will tend to her business. I have no problem with it and nor does she. I don’t feel any less masculine nor does she feel any less feminine. There are many example of this in our marriage yet I remain the husband and she remains the wife with love and respect.

“What About A Pole Dancer Mother?”

So as some of you may know I’m back to Jr. College to finish up some transfer classes required by the UC system and one of the classes happens to be English critical thinking. I already had a fairly good knowledge of what I was getting myself into but it’s still fun to actually experience ignorance. Let me get to the point which is the little story I have from yesterday.

Our instructor wants to focus on interpretative argumentation which in my opinion is fine because I didn’t want to argument about the existence of god, morality of abortion and whether or not gays have the right to marriage. Her first exercise for us was interpreting a piece of art that was published in “The New Yorker”. You can find it here . We were to determine as a class what the artist was conveying in the picture. We students immediately begin to describe the picture factually with three women, NY subway bench, Catholic, Muslim, Secular, etc. Then we began interpreting. I said, “On either side of the middle woman we have the extreme representation of the world religions and the woman in the middle is obviously someone who is suppose to stand out.” Students bounce that idea around in their own way. And then I pointed out, “She’s clearly meant to be out there because most women don’t wear a halter top and a short shirt.” Immediately a girl next to me says, “Well women do dress that way, so it not like its abnormal.” I took my leave for the moment, let the students continue analyzing and looked about the room to see NOT ONE girl dressed that way. Thankfully the African man came to my rescue. “These aren’t just women they are the extreme forums. This isn’t just a Catholic it is an extreme Catholic, this isn’t just a Muslim it is an extreme Muslim,” all the students paused in adoration of such foreign intelligence and he continued, “and so in the woman in the middle. I do not see one woman in here whose dress like the woman in the middle,” he finished in his thick African accent.

Students came up with other ideas like the three monkeys, “Speak no evil, See no evil and hear no evil.” But nothing really stuck like our first statements so we continued in that direction which led to good old’ feminism. The teacher brought up the idea of the current anti-feminism movement with such figure heads as Dr. Laura. Then an Indian man, though very American, spoke up in reference to feminism and commented that feminism was like when a teenager receives freedom, they don’t know exactly what to do with it. Knowing he was on the right path but would be lynched if it wasn’t finished I stated, “Well yeah, its like a pendulum which swings from abortions and pole dancing to all you’re (as a woman) good for is making babies.” And no sooner than I finished my sentence the later thirty something getting married to PhD in three months over weight woman pipes up and says, “What about a pole dancer mother?” Thankfully the teacher took it from there but I was just shocked at the stupidity of feminism.

Thank you for your patient reading but the point of this of post is how shocking to me hearing feminism spoken from women’s’ mouths. I expect it from the liberal media from the New Yorker, MSNBC, CNN, my local news paper etc, but to hear it for real just strikes me differently and is just shocking. Feminism began in the late 1800s and eventually succeeded in its objective to give women suffrage in early 1900s. This in great numbers was driven by Christian women. But in the wake of this came the second and third feminist movement which as we see today has taken women to the other extreme. I understand the reasons for feminism in regard to men objectifying, raping, disrespecting, insulting and in so many ways treating women like a second class human being. I often think of the “Leave It To Beaver” mother who takes care of everything in the home, the children, the husband and is more of a robot than a person. Often for these 50s women the husband thought little of her and would go out and arrogantly have an affair or two knowing the wife would do nothing. Women have indeed suffered so much under men through out all of history so in this regard I understand the reaction of feminism.
God created man and woman in the beginning and put them as equals to each other and to God. They were equally responsible to keep the covenant; they were partners. However, with the fall of mankind God placed specific curses on man and to the woman he stated:

3:16 “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

So from that point on women were on a hierarchal lower position than man in the world, which I believe has given the fact that “Its a man’s world.” Women do not have a lesser nature and have equal rights to God’s love, forgiveness and grace but as the Father has a position of authority of the rest of the Trinity the husband has the position of authority over women and they have suffered because of this curse. And as my wife points out, this is what happens when women chose another thing to be there God. When Eve chose to heed Satan she was placing herself under his rule and not God’s rule, therefore, God said, “Okay if what you want is to be under another’s headship and not mine then this is what you’ll have.” Since that time women have been under the rule of man. The world of Islam, for example, in Iran is a perfect example of how women are made to be less human than men. Women are stoned to death for dating a man the family doesn’t agree with, they must wear their dress even when swimming at the beach, and they are even segregated at the Mosques because it’s believed they distract the men from their prayers.

Getting back to the extreme which feminism in America has achieved its understandable why the anti-feminist movement has come to be. Feminism in its blind desire of “freedom” has received it but not known what it would do with it, at least nothing more than abortions, divorce, spousal abuse and pornography (visual in strip dancing or physical in prostitution). Yet all of these things are not forums of freedom but enslavement and self hatred. Freedom for the sake of freedom is dangerous. Often the argument for abortion is “choice”. Choice is placed over the sacredness of life! Insanity! Choice is placed over the sacredness of the woman’s body so you have women who see themselves merely as sex toys and honestly not people. Feminism is clearly not just about getting more legal rights and job opportunities which I believe are good, its been about the freedom to have choice for the sake of choice. The social aspect is a lie because choices have consequences and choice is not the ultimate achievement as I hope people will come to see.

In America the only reason why people such as Dr. Laura are so successful is because there’s a deep need for answers and guidance for women who need to know how to be a woman because what they’ve done in their past has not worked. This is why Dr. Laura is so strict. Women need to date for a certain period of time and need to become engaged and married before they “shack up” lest they become “humped and dumped”. If these feminists would take the time to listen to Dr. Laura they’d realize she isn’t as far off her rocker as they think. Feminism has produced the lie that women are just like men and the truth is we are not the same which is clearly displayed by the fact that we have different but complimenting bodies. Men and women were created for specific purposes and similar purposes. Men are physically stronger and built for hard work and war and do this in great numbers though some women can do this as well. Women are very good communicators and find it natural to give and help, though men can do this also. Specifically though men are designed for humble leadership in all regards of the word (its no coincidence that Jesus Christ was a man) and women are specifically designed for giving life. The fault is when we begin to place priority on certain things over another but the fact is we need both to be fulfilling their abilities and callings because they fit together like puzzle pieces to make life.

The inability of men to teach and disciple their sons and daughters with this wisdom is why feminism and chauvinism came to be. The problem with feminism fundamentally is that it is still placing women under the headship of something other than God. Christian women are not called to be mice who are stuck in a corner of our churches. Women are called to challenge the men in their lives, particularly husbands and their children to become better people. Not to say that one must become married to be fulfilled or feel whole but the fact is we were created to be complimented by the opposite sex in marriage. Therefore, a wise man chooses a woman who he can love and respect. A wise woman is patient and chooses a man whom she can respect and challenge and not a chump. All to often either sex selects another in the hope such things can come to be, but it never passes. I was once told the following which I find very true:

“A man marries the woman he has come to know and the woman marries the man whom she hopes he will become.”

It just illustrates how man and woman are different but how they also compliment one another.

I hope in my class that as we continue in our discussions this white, middle class, blue eyed, Christian male gets a little more credit. Nevertheless, I am thankful that we’re not going to be discussing such hot topics as abortion and homosexuality as they always opens up a can of worms with lots of vitriol.

Peace out.

U.S.-American? At Least She Got That Right!

Is this a product of our education system?

She knew where she wanted to go, but didn’t quite know how to get there. She just had to get South Africa in there somewhere… and, “…such as, um…,” capitalize on the unpopularity of Iraq (Does she really know why we’re there?). Maybe all the detours distracted her.

But she got one thing right; we’re all U.S.-Americans.

[youtube lj3iNxZ8Dww]

Who Reads I, Pandora, And How Do They Get Here?

Who reads I, Pandora? With the wonders of modern technology I can see each visitor to my site, their approximate location (this will be affected by anonymizing proxy services) around the world, which sites they’ve come from and what pages they read, how long they were there. And if you’re a member of the site or on other sites this service monitors I see your screen name.Call it big brother, call it information leverage, it is nice to be able to see what is popular, what search queries reach my site, and just how most of y’all find I, Pandora.

In the days following the bridge collapse tragedy in Minnesota there was a steady flow of international visitors to my site, though the article was little than my brief and heartfelt sympathies towards those affected and those who lost and links to the major news coverage. The international visitors were primarily inbound from google searches where I, Pandora featured prominently in the results. The visitors came from Latvia, the Dominican Republic, Belgium, Hungary, and South Africa. These are not regulars, and they probably left soon after coming through the news links I provided.

No, the real readers of I, Pandora are my friends, the bloggers. Of all the feeds in Google, I do enjoy reading some of these most of all.

• There’s Grit, the yankee half of the dynamic duo at Conversations With Brit & Grit. His humor and the cross the pond banter make his site a real jewel and a pleasure to read.
• There’s Neil from 4Simpsons, which name, I assume, refers to his family. He has a sharp mind and a sharp wit and beats them regularly against all comers.
• There’s Barb, from Barb’s Blog, a small and cozy place where you are as likely to read about her latest photography trip as about the latest in political opinion.
• There’s J Ingersoll, a friend I met many years ago at a music class. There were four of us, including the teacher, in that class and we had good times (I didn’t pass). J writes sporadically as PrinceParavel, yes, that would have to refer to Lewis’ Narnia.
• There’s our friend Random (whose name is only a little less conspicuous than anonymous) who I first found (or maybe it was that he first found me) when he comment spammed on I, Pandora, advertising for his own blogs (which are several and bare of original content). Random copies articles that suit his fancy at freestate.tv, faction3.us, and congresscheck.com, that I am aware of.
• There’s John Kaiser, from totaltransformation and the new JJKaiser blog. I must admit I’ve not read his sites often, but when I do I appreciate his breadth of topic and the humor with which he approaches the topics.
• A brief visit from the Mercurial Scribe, after I found we were born the same month in the same year.
• Steve, from NextStopLauderdale, which I assume means he’s one of my Floridian readers, or that he wishes he were one. His brief shots on primarily political issues are always easy to read and fun to comment on.
• A late shot from blogger UrbanConservative (last post as of this writing was last November. His articles have promise and he has corrected me regarding the content schedule of his blog. He posts twice monthly and the top post is “sticky” meaning it “sticks” to the top of the page and you have to scroll past it to get to the regular content.

This is by no means an exhaustive listing either. I’ll post tomorrow on my current blogroll. But this is for all y’all out there who make me want to keep writing here.

Here’s to you.

He Saved A Billion Lives, And Other Interesting Stuff

Dr. Borlaugh disproved global paranoids such as Dr. Ehrlich and saved a billion lives, by most estimates. He has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Congressional Gold Medal, ushering him into the noble company of only five who have been given all three. Arguably, he ought to be better known than Paris Hilton, but such is not the case in this fickle culture we live in. But what did he do?

He was an optimist. While Dr. Ehrlich spent his years arguing that, due to overcrowding and population explosion, starvation would increase proportionate to population growth, Dr. Borlaugh worked to develop new methods of agriculture and new strains of wheat which were heartier, more disease and drought resistant, with greater yield. Because of his work, scientists estimate that a billion people in India, Pakistan, and other third world nations have not starved to death. You can read more about this man who decided that instead of throwing up his hands, defeated as he surveyed the dismal future of fewer fields and far more mouths, he would make those fields grow more.

Global Warming Most Boring Topic

It’s official, the topic of global warming is more boring than Al Gore himself:

The issue of global warming far out-performed other contenders for the title, such as the production of goat cheese, the musical genius of the artist formerly known as P Diddy and media speculation over the likely outcome of the upcoming federal election.

Read all about it.

Edwards’ Wife Says He’s A Girl Where It Counts

We all knew it was true, but Presidential Power Puff Contender Edwards’ wife says Hillary is not woman enough to be President, implying, of course, that her husband is.

In Case You’ve Forgotten What Is At Stake

The Democrat Presidential aspirants are tripping over themselves trying to hand out a bigger slice of pie to more people. In this case, the pie is a bloody gruesome mess of severed limbs and contorted faces of children who will never see the light of this the sun or the beauty of this earth.

From The Pachyderms Archives, One For The Ages

Over at the Helvidius Pachyderm blog Theo pulled this jewel out of the depths of memory, a priceless, if slightly linguistically risque, rebuttal to every argument by every liberal everywhere. (apparently the Firefox dictionary does not contain “risque” by default):

That is so f’in hilarious. Who these pantywaists? Lemme shrink their heads real quick: they identify with the deer. Like the deer, they have been allowed to overpopulate because their natural predators have been hunted into extinction by the big, bad, unenlightened conservatives who fight and win wars. But here’s where they show their lack of fitness for survival: in their panicked fear of the “hunters” with guns (equivalent to the big, bad conservatives who are actually their protectors), they would rather see the return of their “natural” predators (Nazis, Communists, Fascists, crazy African warlords, and poor, misunderstood Islamofascists).

Stepping outside the metaphor for a second—does anyone know what has happened where the natural predators of deer (i.e., mountain lions and wolves) have been allowed to breed unmolested? Anyone? Anyone? Thaaaaat’s right! They’ve started attacking and mauling/killing humans in those areas, correctly identifying them as easy prey. That’s the problem with “solutions” offered by liberals—they get everyone else killed along with their dumb asses.
How’d ya like that?

You have to read where it came from.