"I think the surge is working…and the surge is working for a couple of different reasons. And one reason is the increase in troops.”
So says Congressman John Murtha (D-PA), one of the most outspoken anti-war advocates. He goes on to say that the surge is, “only one element”, but also calling it “a window of opportunity.”
Well now we’re getting somewhere.
A few weeks ago, the New York Times leads with “A Winnable War?” Conservatives will argue that it is only at the New York Times that this is debatable; all wars are winnable for the United States. The question was never whether or not we could win, but whether or not we would choose to win. Meanwhile, I’m going to give Harry Reid (D-Nevada) a chance to retract his statement that “the war is lost.”
Look, we have a long way to go. The Iraqi government in particular has a lot to live up to. But for the first time, there is hope. The media in the Middle East has turned on Al Qaeda. People there are sick of innocents getting blown up. No longer do the terrorists have a monopoly on what true Islam is in the area.
Iraq is now a neutral issue, with the potential to become something truly special for Republicans next November; a wild card. First, Hillary Clinton fumbles the question about illegal immigrants obtaining drivers licenses. Next, scientists announce that they are moving in a direction that would all but eliminate the debate over embryonic stem-cell research (namely that we wouldn’t need to use them). And now repeated good news from Iraq? Maybe the election isn’t all but lost for the Republicans just yet.
Everyone has been talking about the problems for conservatives for a long time. Iraq was unpopular, stem-cell research was popular, immigration reform couldn’t get done, and universal health care was seen as a must. The tide is turning. Iraq is once again being seen as a front in the war on terrorism. The scientist working on stem-cells announced that they had “successfully reprogrammed human skin cells into cells indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells.” The leader of the research, James Thomson, had expressed reservations in the past about creating new stem cells to use for the research and this helps relieve that controversy. Immigration has been a winning issue for conservatives for a long time, and always will as long as Democratic governors and mayors keep coming up with new ways around the law (i.e. Eliot Spitzer). Health care is a winning issue for Democrats usually, but not if the leader of your party is someone known for their failed health care bill. Americans may want health care reform, but that is a long way from the universal care each of the leading Democratic candidates has offered. Even Hillary Clinton’s new plan is filled with many Republican talking points; the word “choice” is repeated often.
A few months ago, most pundits were writing this election off as a loss for Republicans (Newt Gingrich) and arguing over just how many Congressional seats would be lost. But for Republicans, just like the people in Iraq; there is finally hope.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
The Modern-Day Feminist Movement: How Women are Selling-Out Women
“In a certain sense it was almost accidental—coincidental—that I wrote The Feminine Mystique, and in another sense my whole life had prepared me to write that book; all the pieces of my life came together for the first time in the writing of it.” So writes Betty Friedan years after writing the book that probably launched modern-day feminism. In the late 19th and early 20th century, women like Elizabeth Stanton and Susan B. Anthony kicked off the feminism movement in America, and yet remained true to the roots that they grew up with. With the publication of The Feminine Mystique, women all over America latched on to something new; and those new ideas have produced some very dangerous actions. What once started out as a group of down-to-earth, pro-life, pro-family women has become the complete opposite of what the founders intended. Most of the material that will be dealt with quotes American feminists and considers their views, and this is a problem in itself. However, it should be noted that the opinions of women and feminist governments overseas, particularly in Europe, are far more advanced and dangerous than those in the United States. This short essay deals with the long, hard-fought battle that women have been fighting, how modern-day feminists have sold out the women of America, and in the process have made men, women, and children all weaker from their attempts.
In January of 2001, the president of Harvard University, Larry Summers, did something outrageous. He put forth a hypothesis (backed up by decades of scientific data) that men and women are inherently different. Unfortunately Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was in attendance. Hopkins said later that if she hadn’t left, “I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.” Very few credible biologists, sociologists, or psychologists will attest to the idea that men and women are innately exactly the same. However, the belief that men and women are mentally, spiritually, and emotionally identical is at the bedrock core of the modern-day feminism movement. Feminist Patricia Adair Gowaty writes:
"…statements about the evolutionary source of typical differences between women and men, it seemed to many a convenient, untested ‘just-so-story’ that buttressed status quo notions about sex roles that were sometimes used to confine women to their ‘natural’ roles as mothers and subordinates to men."
One must wonder if these women have ever had children, as it seems most parents with a boy and a girl realize how different the genders are. To this day, feminists resist arguments that evoke the significance in children’s development of “salient” sexual differences between men and women and instead argue that these differences are brought on by institutions rather than nature. At the core of this belief is the idea that men and women can raise children equally. And why not, for if both genders are essentially the same, then a child can get from each gender separately just as easily as it can from both sexes. This if often the basis for the belief of feminists supporting same-sex marriage and resisting such things as the “family –friendly” tax reduction policy. It is ironic to note that modern-day feminists want absolute equal rights until the idea of women being drafted is brought into the conversation, at that point they really begin to recognize the differences in the genders. Feminists want equal representation in the workplace, but as they say; every woman’s a feminist until they see one of their own climbing up the fire-escape to rescue them. Is it really that radical to prefer a 200-pound man carry you down six stories rather than a 110-pound woman?
In the end, Larry Summers was forced to resign from his job at Harvard. One of the main reasons for this is the result of his comments at a private conference regarding the commonly-held belief of nearly every expert in the field; that men and women are different.
Also, the modern-day feminist movement has taken on topics that are either not relevant to most women, or just simply too out of the mainstream to be taken seriously. Feminism used to be about equality for women, but it has turned into something far different. Such modern-day feminist beliefs include: pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality (and homosexual marriage), the rejection of the belief in gender differences, and even taking on far-left issues such as animal cruelty. By far, the most important of these is the idea that abortion should remain legal at all stages of pregnancy. In 1991, feminists groups in Rochester, New York were planning a month of programs to protest violence against women. The group Feminists for Life planned to participate, but was barred because of their beliefs about abortion. Feminist leaders sponsoring the event said that the denial of abortion constitutes the single greatest form of violence against women.
Sex is another big issue that modern-day feminists have taken on, and their ignorance about sex is what has driven them away from mainstream women. Susan Rose, a professor at Dickinson University, writes about love and sex, “(Love) is not a word to be thrown about easily. Sex, on the other hand, is not a big deal. It’s fun, but you need to take care to use protection so you don’t get AIDS or an infection.” This statement is rather ridiculous; Rose may want to interview some more girls who have been negatively affected by sex. The arrogance from Rose in her article and her condescension towards the “Religious Right,” seeps from the pages.
Another common issue taken up by some feminist groups is the cause of animal rights. This sounds like a noble cause until one really examines the extremes of the movement. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the largest animal-rights group, and their stunts are well documented. Josephine Donovan writes that it is “…a matter of caring for animals as mothers (human and nonhuman) care for their infants…listening to animals, paying emotional attention, taking seriously—caring about—what they are telling us.” Donovan feels that there is good reason the feminist movement has taken up with PETA and other animal rights activists,
"Feminists—indeed most women—are acutely aware of what it feels like to have one’s opinion ignored, trivialized, rendered unimportant. Perhaps this experience has awakened their sensitivity to the fact that other marginalized groups—including animals—have trouble getting their viewpoints heard."
This quote could just be left alone as it is with no explanation, and nearly everyone would get the point. This idea of attempting to portray animals as equal to humans seems to never grow old. The true irony is: Why do feminists have such an easy time seeing an animal as a human, yet such a hard time seeing an eight-month-old fetus as the same?
The issues that concern feminists are just radically different from what most women are willing to accept. This has caused the term ‘feminism’ to lose its meaning. USA Today interviewed several people about what has happened to the word, and Janice Hedstrom, a twenty-seven-year-old registered nurse from Minneapolis said, “The feminist movement has made it a word that carries a negative connotation. And while I believe the movement has done a lot for women in helping them to become more equal to men, it has pushed an agenda that has been negative toward the family.”
The modern-day feminist movement has simply lost touch with the American woman. In the last 10 years, the percent of stay-at-home moms has risen by 15%. This number puts a smile on the face of conservatives, and yet is seen as a major problem for the leaders of the feminist movement. A well-known feminist lawyer, philosophy professor, and author, Linda Hirshman had this to say:
"These women are choosing lives in which they do not use their capacity for very complicated works. They are choosing lives in which they do not use their capacity to deal with very powerful other adults in the world, which takes a lot of skill. I think there are better lives and worse lives."
Hirshman is the classic example of what the modern-day feminist movement has become; someone who claims to speak for the majority of American women and yet doesn’t share their values. The arrogance of this statement is astounding. Most women wonder, what is more important than raising children? At what point in our history did the most important job become something to look down upon? Feminists are constantly complaining that women are seen as less then their male counterparts, but it appears that they are the only ones looking down on anyone.
Feminist Jackie Brookner writes, “We have developed much activism for woman’s causes: for abortion rights, equal job opportunity, rape counseling, battered women, day care.” For each of the things she lists, one can point out the problems that occurred. Abortion rights led to a rapid spread of such evils as partial-birth abortion, infanticide, and a loss of respect for human life. Equal job opportunity has come at the expense of well-qualified men, pushing them out as businesses hire women for fear of being sued. Rape counseling has led to a rape epidemic; many women have been credibly accused of lying about being raped, most notably in the Duke lacrosse scandal last year. Real rape victims become victims all over again. Day care has led to fewer stay-at-home moms and children being raised in less healthy home environments.
When researching the works of modern-day feminists, one is also struck by the fact that they simply no longer relate to the views of the common woman. “You know, last week I attended the NOW convention and, out of hundreds of sessions, only one focused on children—and it was on lesbian mothers.” So relates Elizabeth Fox-Genovese in her new book.
In conclusion, feminism as we know it is dying out. It has simply become too radical. I was struck by how mean the feminist movement sounded while I was reading about it, and so I decided to do some investigating myself. At Easter dinner this past year, I asked women on both sides of my family if they would classify themselves as feminists. My family is a good mix of conservatives and liberals on both sides, so I hoped it would be a good sample of opinions. This diverse group came together in one area though, and that is in its condemnation of the feminist movement. It was universally condemned as both man-hating and against stay-at-home mothers; and this did not sit well in a family in which most of the female members shared this occupation. A grimace came to the face of whoever I was talking to regarding today’s feminist movement. Mary Hawkesworth writes:
"The women’s movement has lost its bearings, cut itself off from American women, and abandoned its original purpose…Rather than acting in concert to produce social change, the feminist movement factionalized, devolving into highly specialized individuals and cliques, each cultivating ins arcane little patch of ground…"
What started out once as a true and just cause has morphed into something different. With the passage of Title IX and affirmative action programs, feminist organizations began gaining ground; but with the increasing problem of male failures in school and extracurricular activities, what have they gained? It’s no wonder that currently only a third of women define themselves as feminists. As that number drops every year, it is becoming clearer and clearer that the modern-day feminist movement has truly abandoned women. At Grove City College, feminism is a curse word, and that trend is sure to continue as long as organizations like Planned Parenthood and NOW continue to ignore values truly important to American women.
In January of 2001, the president of Harvard University, Larry Summers, did something outrageous. He put forth a hypothesis (backed up by decades of scientific data) that men and women are inherently different. Unfortunately Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was in attendance. Hopkins said later that if she hadn’t left, “I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.” Very few credible biologists, sociologists, or psychologists will attest to the idea that men and women are innately exactly the same. However, the belief that men and women are mentally, spiritually, and emotionally identical is at the bedrock core of the modern-day feminism movement. Feminist Patricia Adair Gowaty writes:
"…statements about the evolutionary source of typical differences between women and men, it seemed to many a convenient, untested ‘just-so-story’ that buttressed status quo notions about sex roles that were sometimes used to confine women to their ‘natural’ roles as mothers and subordinates to men."
One must wonder if these women have ever had children, as it seems most parents with a boy and a girl realize how different the genders are. To this day, feminists resist arguments that evoke the significance in children’s development of “salient” sexual differences between men and women and instead argue that these differences are brought on by institutions rather than nature. At the core of this belief is the idea that men and women can raise children equally. And why not, for if both genders are essentially the same, then a child can get from each gender separately just as easily as it can from both sexes. This if often the basis for the belief of feminists supporting same-sex marriage and resisting such things as the “family –friendly” tax reduction policy. It is ironic to note that modern-day feminists want absolute equal rights until the idea of women being drafted is brought into the conversation, at that point they really begin to recognize the differences in the genders. Feminists want equal representation in the workplace, but as they say; every woman’s a feminist until they see one of their own climbing up the fire-escape to rescue them. Is it really that radical to prefer a 200-pound man carry you down six stories rather than a 110-pound woman?
In the end, Larry Summers was forced to resign from his job at Harvard. One of the main reasons for this is the result of his comments at a private conference regarding the commonly-held belief of nearly every expert in the field; that men and women are different.
Also, the modern-day feminist movement has taken on topics that are either not relevant to most women, or just simply too out of the mainstream to be taken seriously. Feminism used to be about equality for women, but it has turned into something far different. Such modern-day feminist beliefs include: pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality (and homosexual marriage), the rejection of the belief in gender differences, and even taking on far-left issues such as animal cruelty. By far, the most important of these is the idea that abortion should remain legal at all stages of pregnancy. In 1991, feminists groups in Rochester, New York were planning a month of programs to protest violence against women. The group Feminists for Life planned to participate, but was barred because of their beliefs about abortion. Feminist leaders sponsoring the event said that the denial of abortion constitutes the single greatest form of violence against women.
Sex is another big issue that modern-day feminists have taken on, and their ignorance about sex is what has driven them away from mainstream women. Susan Rose, a professor at Dickinson University, writes about love and sex, “(Love) is not a word to be thrown about easily. Sex, on the other hand, is not a big deal. It’s fun, but you need to take care to use protection so you don’t get AIDS or an infection.” This statement is rather ridiculous; Rose may want to interview some more girls who have been negatively affected by sex. The arrogance from Rose in her article and her condescension towards the “Religious Right,” seeps from the pages.
Another common issue taken up by some feminist groups is the cause of animal rights. This sounds like a noble cause until one really examines the extremes of the movement. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the largest animal-rights group, and their stunts are well documented. Josephine Donovan writes that it is “…a matter of caring for animals as mothers (human and nonhuman) care for their infants…listening to animals, paying emotional attention, taking seriously—caring about—what they are telling us.” Donovan feels that there is good reason the feminist movement has taken up with PETA and other animal rights activists,
"Feminists—indeed most women—are acutely aware of what it feels like to have one’s opinion ignored, trivialized, rendered unimportant. Perhaps this experience has awakened their sensitivity to the fact that other marginalized groups—including animals—have trouble getting their viewpoints heard."
This quote could just be left alone as it is with no explanation, and nearly everyone would get the point. This idea of attempting to portray animals as equal to humans seems to never grow old. The true irony is: Why do feminists have such an easy time seeing an animal as a human, yet such a hard time seeing an eight-month-old fetus as the same?
The issues that concern feminists are just radically different from what most women are willing to accept. This has caused the term ‘feminism’ to lose its meaning. USA Today interviewed several people about what has happened to the word, and Janice Hedstrom, a twenty-seven-year-old registered nurse from Minneapolis said, “The feminist movement has made it a word that carries a negative connotation. And while I believe the movement has done a lot for women in helping them to become more equal to men, it has pushed an agenda that has been negative toward the family.”
The modern-day feminist movement has simply lost touch with the American woman. In the last 10 years, the percent of stay-at-home moms has risen by 15%. This number puts a smile on the face of conservatives, and yet is seen as a major problem for the leaders of the feminist movement. A well-known feminist lawyer, philosophy professor, and author, Linda Hirshman had this to say:
"These women are choosing lives in which they do not use their capacity for very complicated works. They are choosing lives in which they do not use their capacity to deal with very powerful other adults in the world, which takes a lot of skill. I think there are better lives and worse lives."
Hirshman is the classic example of what the modern-day feminist movement has become; someone who claims to speak for the majority of American women and yet doesn’t share their values. The arrogance of this statement is astounding. Most women wonder, what is more important than raising children? At what point in our history did the most important job become something to look down upon? Feminists are constantly complaining that women are seen as less then their male counterparts, but it appears that they are the only ones looking down on anyone.
Feminist Jackie Brookner writes, “We have developed much activism for woman’s causes: for abortion rights, equal job opportunity, rape counseling, battered women, day care.” For each of the things she lists, one can point out the problems that occurred. Abortion rights led to a rapid spread of such evils as partial-birth abortion, infanticide, and a loss of respect for human life. Equal job opportunity has come at the expense of well-qualified men, pushing them out as businesses hire women for fear of being sued. Rape counseling has led to a rape epidemic; many women have been credibly accused of lying about being raped, most notably in the Duke lacrosse scandal last year. Real rape victims become victims all over again. Day care has led to fewer stay-at-home moms and children being raised in less healthy home environments.
When researching the works of modern-day feminists, one is also struck by the fact that they simply no longer relate to the views of the common woman. “You know, last week I attended the NOW convention and, out of hundreds of sessions, only one focused on children—and it was on lesbian mothers.” So relates Elizabeth Fox-Genovese in her new book.
In conclusion, feminism as we know it is dying out. It has simply become too radical. I was struck by how mean the feminist movement sounded while I was reading about it, and so I decided to do some investigating myself. At Easter dinner this past year, I asked women on both sides of my family if they would classify themselves as feminists. My family is a good mix of conservatives and liberals on both sides, so I hoped it would be a good sample of opinions. This diverse group came together in one area though, and that is in its condemnation of the feminist movement. It was universally condemned as both man-hating and against stay-at-home mothers; and this did not sit well in a family in which most of the female members shared this occupation. A grimace came to the face of whoever I was talking to regarding today’s feminist movement. Mary Hawkesworth writes:
"The women’s movement has lost its bearings, cut itself off from American women, and abandoned its original purpose…Rather than acting in concert to produce social change, the feminist movement factionalized, devolving into highly specialized individuals and cliques, each cultivating ins arcane little patch of ground…"
What started out once as a true and just cause has morphed into something different. With the passage of Title IX and affirmative action programs, feminist organizations began gaining ground; but with the increasing problem of male failures in school and extracurricular activities, what have they gained? It’s no wonder that currently only a third of women define themselves as feminists. As that number drops every year, it is becoming clearer and clearer that the modern-day feminist movement has truly abandoned women. At Grove City College, feminism is a curse word, and that trend is sure to continue as long as organizations like Planned Parenthood and NOW continue to ignore values truly important to American women.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Ivy League Lunacy
I’d thought I’d seen it all. Just when parents thought that Ivy League schools couldn’t break away from mainstream thought anymore, Columbia University pushes the envelope even more. It was announced earlier this week that Columbia plans to go ahead with plans to host Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for a speech. Ahmadinejad and Iran are said to be the chief sponsor of terrorism in the world; both in Iraq and with their funding of Hezbollah last year in its war against Israel. Ahmadinejad has also angered Jewish groups by calling the Holocaust a “myth” and saying that Israel should be “wiped off the map.”
I suppose that it’s about time Columbia joined its Ivy League counterparts by allowing more of this so-called “free speech.”
First, Princeton University promoted Bioethicist Peter Singer to the head of its department. For those who aren’t aware, Singer is an ethicist whose views have been compared to eugenicists. WORLD Magazine has him on the record supporting bestiality (“…not inherently wrong in a moral sense”), necrophilia (“…no moral problem with that”), and infanticide. When asked if there is something wrong with a society that breeds children for spare parts on a massive scale, Singer answered, “No.” WORLD also reports that he “reaffirmed it would be ethically OK to kill 1-year-olds with physical or mental disabilities…” Oh wait, he did say that ideally the question of infanticide would be "raised as soon as possible after birth.” Thanks.
Next, we have Yale. To go along with rejecting the ROTC, Yale decided to accept and help enroll a former terrorist. Former "ambassador-at-large" of the Taliban regime, Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi is now a student at Yale. First brought to New Haven in 2001, Hashemi spoke as an apologist for his government. Not too worry…Hashemi applied and was accepted in 2004. Yale Dean Richard Shaw reportedly came away from the interview, “with a sense: Whoa! This is a person to be reckoned with and who could educate us about the world.”
The examples of Ivy League disconnection with the rest of the country goes on and on. All of these examples are defended by these college administrations and they all boil down to the same thing: Free speech! Diversity!
Interesting.
In January of 2001, the president of Harvard University, Larry Summers, did something outrageous. He put forth a hypothesis (backed up by decades of scientific data) that men and women are inherently different. Unfortunately, Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was in attendance. Hopkins said later that if she hadn’t left, “I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.” Because of his shocking view, the Harvard faculty voted that they had lost faith in him as a president and soon after he was asked to resign. Free speech?
The New York Times published a piece titled, “Republicans Outnumbered in Academia, Studies Find.” The piece is based on two studies done on professors at the collegiate level based on their voting records. The study found that Democrats outnumber Republicans at least 7 to 1 (9 to 1 at Berkeley and Stanford). At Harvard, $19 was given to John Kerry in 2004 for every $1 given to George W. Bush. The field in which the political leanings was closest was economics (still 3 to 1), furthest was anthropologists with a 30 to 1 difference. Diversity?
Getting back to Columbia, my problem with this is the stupidity of it all. Let me see if I get this straight: ROTC (which has been banned from Columbia since 1969 despite student approval of it) isn’t allowed to set up stands and recruit students…but the president of a country that state sponsors terrorism is allowed to come and share his views? And elite academia is wondering why they’re being called anti-American?
President Ahmadinejad has cited Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as one of his favorite reads. Columbia University should treat the Iranian terrorist the same way Hitler would be treated if he had asked to come speak at one of our nation’s top universities in the midst of WWII.
I suppose that it’s about time Columbia joined its Ivy League counterparts by allowing more of this so-called “free speech.”
First, Princeton University promoted Bioethicist Peter Singer to the head of its department. For those who aren’t aware, Singer is an ethicist whose views have been compared to eugenicists. WORLD Magazine has him on the record supporting bestiality (“…not inherently wrong in a moral sense”), necrophilia (“…no moral problem with that”), and infanticide. When asked if there is something wrong with a society that breeds children for spare parts on a massive scale, Singer answered, “No.” WORLD also reports that he “reaffirmed it would be ethically OK to kill 1-year-olds with physical or mental disabilities…” Oh wait, he did say that ideally the question of infanticide would be "raised as soon as possible after birth.” Thanks.
Next, we have Yale. To go along with rejecting the ROTC, Yale decided to accept and help enroll a former terrorist. Former "ambassador-at-large" of the Taliban regime, Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi is now a student at Yale. First brought to New Haven in 2001, Hashemi spoke as an apologist for his government. Not too worry…Hashemi applied and was accepted in 2004. Yale Dean Richard Shaw reportedly came away from the interview, “with a sense: Whoa! This is a person to be reckoned with and who could educate us about the world.”
The examples of Ivy League disconnection with the rest of the country goes on and on. All of these examples are defended by these college administrations and they all boil down to the same thing: Free speech! Diversity!
Interesting.
In January of 2001, the president of Harvard University, Larry Summers, did something outrageous. He put forth a hypothesis (backed up by decades of scientific data) that men and women are inherently different. Unfortunately, Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was in attendance. Hopkins said later that if she hadn’t left, “I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.” Because of his shocking view, the Harvard faculty voted that they had lost faith in him as a president and soon after he was asked to resign. Free speech?
The New York Times published a piece titled, “Republicans Outnumbered in Academia, Studies Find.” The piece is based on two studies done on professors at the collegiate level based on their voting records. The study found that Democrats outnumber Republicans at least 7 to 1 (9 to 1 at Berkeley and Stanford). At Harvard, $19 was given to John Kerry in 2004 for every $1 given to George W. Bush. The field in which the political leanings was closest was economics (still 3 to 1), furthest was anthropologists with a 30 to 1 difference. Diversity?
Getting back to Columbia, my problem with this is the stupidity of it all. Let me see if I get this straight: ROTC (which has been banned from Columbia since 1969 despite student approval of it) isn’t allowed to set up stands and recruit students…but the president of a country that state sponsors terrorism is allowed to come and share his views? And elite academia is wondering why they’re being called anti-American?
President Ahmadinejad has cited Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as one of his favorite reads. Columbia University should treat the Iranian terrorist the same way Hitler would be treated if he had asked to come speak at one of our nation’s top universities in the midst of WWII.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Surge Politics
This past week marks one of the most important days leading up to next year’s presidential elections, and it was started off with a bang. General David Petraeus, the leading commander of our forces in Iraq, gave his testimony to Congress about President Bush’s surge. For those of you who haven’t been following the news in the past 6 months, President Bush ordered a troop surge of 30,000 troops in hopes of better stabilizing Iraq. According to Petraeus, these troop increases greatly cut down on violence, particularly in the areas around Baghdad. “The situation in Iraq remains complex, difficult and sometimes downright frustrating,” said Petraeus. “(But) I also believe that it is possible to achieve our objectives in Iraq over time, although doing so will be neither quick nor easy.”
Most pundits would agree that the report was rather fair; portraying the surge as working while being extremely critical of the Iraqi government at the same time. Several Democrats praised General Petraeus, from both a personal standpoint as well as his leadership positions. Petraeus also started his presentation by making a point to say that the words were his own testimony and had not been reported to either the Pentagon nor the President.
Unfortunately, this did not stop Democrats from playing politics.
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York) said that to believe General Petraeus required the “willing suspension of disbelief.” Translation: The leading Democratic candidate for president called a 4-star general who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate a liar to his face. And it gets worse.
Moveon.org, one of the leading liberal websites bought a $100,000+, full-page ad from the New York Times (the most popular newspaper in the country) titled “General Petraeus? Or General Betray Us?” People were hung for treason for less than this during our great nation’s former wars.
Neither Clinton, Barack Obama (D-IL), nor any of the other Democrats running for president condemned the ad. Clinton accused Republicans of “generating a political sideshow instead of discussing the president’s failed war policy.” How long does it take to condemn an ad calling our country’s top general a traitor?
None of the Democrats running for president acknowledge the War in Iraq as apart of the global war on terror (which John Edwards called a “bumper sticker”). Obama in particular is set on capturing bin Laden; even warning that he is more than prepared to go into Pakistan after him without their permission. I personally think it’s weird that bin Laden himself speaks out so strongly against the War in Iraq in his latest video sent out two weeks ago…doesn’t he realize that it’s not apart of the war on terror?
Some may wonder why this is going on. It’s very simple. The leading Democrat in the senate is Harry Reid (D-Nevada). In April of this past year he declared the war in Iraq as “lost.” Can you imagine that? Better, can you imagine a United States Senator declaring in World War II that that war was lost? I mean, things were getting pretty bad up until 1942. We lost a tremendous amount of people; we were in a war in a far off country fighting Germany who didn’t attack us…
No, of course you can’t imagine that. This is a time of war. What Senator Reid said is 100% stupid and borderline treason. Al Qaeda would love to get its hands on that tape; it’s a terrorist training video. Osama Bin Laden called the United States a “paper tiger” in the 1990s, what else would we need to do to prove him correct?
The reason the Democrats are rejecting General Petraeus, as well as Ambassador Ryan Crocker, is pure politics. You can’t win an election if your only hope for victory is America’s defeat.
Most pundits would agree that the report was rather fair; portraying the surge as working while being extremely critical of the Iraqi government at the same time. Several Democrats praised General Petraeus, from both a personal standpoint as well as his leadership positions. Petraeus also started his presentation by making a point to say that the words were his own testimony and had not been reported to either the Pentagon nor the President.
Unfortunately, this did not stop Democrats from playing politics.
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York) said that to believe General Petraeus required the “willing suspension of disbelief.” Translation: The leading Democratic candidate for president called a 4-star general who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate a liar to his face. And it gets worse.
Moveon.org, one of the leading liberal websites bought a $100,000+, full-page ad from the New York Times (the most popular newspaper in the country) titled “General Petraeus? Or General Betray Us?” People were hung for treason for less than this during our great nation’s former wars.
Neither Clinton, Barack Obama (D-IL), nor any of the other Democrats running for president condemned the ad. Clinton accused Republicans of “generating a political sideshow instead of discussing the president’s failed war policy.” How long does it take to condemn an ad calling our country’s top general a traitor?
None of the Democrats running for president acknowledge the War in Iraq as apart of the global war on terror (which John Edwards called a “bumper sticker”). Obama in particular is set on capturing bin Laden; even warning that he is more than prepared to go into Pakistan after him without their permission. I personally think it’s weird that bin Laden himself speaks out so strongly against the War in Iraq in his latest video sent out two weeks ago…doesn’t he realize that it’s not apart of the war on terror?
Some may wonder why this is going on. It’s very simple. The leading Democrat in the senate is Harry Reid (D-Nevada). In April of this past year he declared the war in Iraq as “lost.” Can you imagine that? Better, can you imagine a United States Senator declaring in World War II that that war was lost? I mean, things were getting pretty bad up until 1942. We lost a tremendous amount of people; we were in a war in a far off country fighting Germany who didn’t attack us…
No, of course you can’t imagine that. This is a time of war. What Senator Reid said is 100% stupid and borderline treason. Al Qaeda would love to get its hands on that tape; it’s a terrorist training video. Osama Bin Laden called the United States a “paper tiger” in the 1990s, what else would we need to do to prove him correct?
The reason the Democrats are rejecting General Petraeus, as well as Ambassador Ryan Crocker, is pure politics. You can’t win an election if your only hope for victory is America’s defeat.
Iraq and the misconceptions about Darfur
As I sat in my hotel room after enjoying this past weekends’ events at the Conservative Political Action Convention (CPAC) in Washington D.C., I decided to tune in to some of the evening’s news programs to look for coverage. After watching several of the shows, I tuned in to check out Bill Maher’s show on HBO, Real Time with Bill Maher. This was a big mistake for my conservative heart and mind.
The panel of the show included John Ridley (an author), Joe Scarborough (the host of Scarborough County on MSNBC), and a representative in the House from Massachusetts, Barney Frank. The show started off by first discussing the war in Iraq and what the panel saw as a complete failure. The fact that mistakes were made in the Middle East is undeniable, the president himself has admitted as much. The necessity of the war going on there is what is up for debate. In the minds of the commentators, there is no debate on Iraq as it was presumed that every viewer shared this view (it was Bill Maher on HBO, so they may have been right). The panel briefly discussed Barack Obama’s statement from a week ago (since retracted) that the lives lost in Iraq were “wasted.” Bill Maher and Ridley went on to reiterate this point.
Up to this point in the show, I was doing OK. After all, it was the usual liberal talking points that I was used to, so I wasn’t surprised. However, immediately after the segment on Iraq, the topic moved on to the Darfur region in Africa. Actress and activist Mia Farrow was brought on to talk about the region after visiting the area several times in the last couple of years. Farrow had extremely strong feelings about the treatment of some of the women and children in the region and the overwhelming persecution that they were facing.
The irony of these two segments back-to-back was apparently lost on the Maher’s audience, but I hope not on the rest of the country watching.
How is it that in a matter of minute’s liberals can go from calling our troops lives wasted in Iraq to clamoring for the U.S. and the international community to do something about the civil war going on in Darfur? What do they think would happen there? Somehow we could go in there, wipe out the Janjaweed, and the region would become a peaceful democracy? This is exactly what we are working for in Iraq.
Maher goes on to insinuate that the reason we’re not militarily involved in Darfur, and yet are in Iraq, is because the region of Darfur is completely black. This is ridiculous; if we weren’t in Iraq, would he complain that it was because the people there are Arabic?
Mia Farrow, Don Cheadle, and George Clooney go on talk show after talk show complaining about the U.S. not doing enough in Africa, and in the next breath will endlessly talk about the “disaster” going on in Iraq. The hypocrisy of these comparisons cannot be overstated.
Of course the disastrous problems in Darfur and other regions in Africa need to be addressed, but so do those in Iraq. Even among my conservative friends I’m reminded constantly about the thousands that are killed in Africa; but how quickly we have forgotten the hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.
The recent hyping of Darfur has become popular recently because of Hollywood liberals and politicians looking to jump on the bandwagon of a popular worthy cause, as opposed to Iraq which has become an unpopular worthy cause. The point here isn’t that Darfur doesn’t need attention (both from the United States as well as from the world), but that it is terrible to ignore the comparisons between this region and Iraq. America is having difficulty taking out a government and restoring order, how are we going to control a country that’s in a real civil war? Iraq has become unpopular and weak-willed politicians are looking to jump off what they see as a sinking ship and onto something that is politically a win-win situation; we must not be fooled.
Jarrett Skorup is a student at Grove City College in Pennsylvania. He is a student fellow for The Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College. You can contact him here
The panel of the show included John Ridley (an author), Joe Scarborough (the host of Scarborough County on MSNBC), and a representative in the House from Massachusetts, Barney Frank. The show started off by first discussing the war in Iraq and what the panel saw as a complete failure. The fact that mistakes were made in the Middle East is undeniable, the president himself has admitted as much. The necessity of the war going on there is what is up for debate. In the minds of the commentators, there is no debate on Iraq as it was presumed that every viewer shared this view (it was Bill Maher on HBO, so they may have been right). The panel briefly discussed Barack Obama’s statement from a week ago (since retracted) that the lives lost in Iraq were “wasted.” Bill Maher and Ridley went on to reiterate this point.
Up to this point in the show, I was doing OK. After all, it was the usual liberal talking points that I was used to, so I wasn’t surprised. However, immediately after the segment on Iraq, the topic moved on to the Darfur region in Africa. Actress and activist Mia Farrow was brought on to talk about the region after visiting the area several times in the last couple of years. Farrow had extremely strong feelings about the treatment of some of the women and children in the region and the overwhelming persecution that they were facing.
The irony of these two segments back-to-back was apparently lost on the Maher’s audience, but I hope not on the rest of the country watching.
How is it that in a matter of minute’s liberals can go from calling our troops lives wasted in Iraq to clamoring for the U.S. and the international community to do something about the civil war going on in Darfur? What do they think would happen there? Somehow we could go in there, wipe out the Janjaweed, and the region would become a peaceful democracy? This is exactly what we are working for in Iraq.
Maher goes on to insinuate that the reason we’re not militarily involved in Darfur, and yet are in Iraq, is because the region of Darfur is completely black. This is ridiculous; if we weren’t in Iraq, would he complain that it was because the people there are Arabic?
Mia Farrow, Don Cheadle, and George Clooney go on talk show after talk show complaining about the U.S. not doing enough in Africa, and in the next breath will endlessly talk about the “disaster” going on in Iraq. The hypocrisy of these comparisons cannot be overstated.
Of course the disastrous problems in Darfur and other regions in Africa need to be addressed, but so do those in Iraq. Even among my conservative friends I’m reminded constantly about the thousands that are killed in Africa; but how quickly we have forgotten the hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.
The recent hyping of Darfur has become popular recently because of Hollywood liberals and politicians looking to jump on the bandwagon of a popular worthy cause, as opposed to Iraq which has become an unpopular worthy cause. The point here isn’t that Darfur doesn’t need attention (both from the United States as well as from the world), but that it is terrible to ignore the comparisons between this region and Iraq. America is having difficulty taking out a government and restoring order, how are we going to control a country that’s in a real civil war? Iraq has become unpopular and weak-willed politicians are looking to jump off what they see as a sinking ship and onto something that is politically a win-win situation; we must not be fooled.
Jarrett Skorup is a student at Grove City College in Pennsylvania. He is a student fellow for The Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College. You can contact him here
Pacifism, Capital Punishment, and Saddam
This past summer, I spent a week shingling a friend’s house in central Wisconsin. It could have been the heat (roofing isn’t the best idea during a heat wave), or it may have just been the 12 hours a day spent on the roof, but somewhere along the lines we decided it would be a good way to pass the time by talking about politics.
Big mistake.
We started off OK: Between the four of us we determined that we agreed on pretty much every issue. Then we got to the death penalty. Six hours and one un-shingled roof later we went inside to cool off from the heat, and the politics.
The death penalty is one of those issues that you just don’t bring up at the dinner table or with close friends, unless you’re 100% positive that they agree with you. Unless you’re a syndicated columnist, because we all just like to argue.
However, this became a big deal this week as it was announced that Saddam Hussein will be executed for his many crimes against humanity (pending appeal). This is a very interesting thing to think about. If I were a betting man, I’m thinking that the percent of Americans against the death penalty is quite different then the amount of Americans against Hussein being executed. As in, a lot less.
The logic of this makes sense; Saddam killed many more people and committed much worse crimes than anyone we have on death row. However, the leading groups opposing the death penalty don’t agree.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) website, “The death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights.” Taking a page from them is Amnesty International stating, “The death penalty is the ultimate denial of civil liberties.” It’s almost like the DNC sends out talking points memos to different organizations instructing them on what to say (i.e. repeating “choice” as many times as you can when talking about abortion, calling our enemies “insurgents” rather than terrorists, etc.).
I don’t expect you to take the opinions of these two organizations too seriously; Amnesty was the group that called the United States a major violator of human rights because of its support of the death penalty, as well as having its secretary general Irene Khan call the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay the “gulag of our times.” Now I’m no history expert (I don’t graduate till 2009), but I recall reading somewhere that the Soviet Union murdered millions in their concentration camps. At last check the United States was hovering around zero.
Anyways though, are these groups right to condemn capital punishment in America? Yes…if they’re pacifists.
If you truly believe that the death penalty is wrong, in this country; then you are forced to take a pacifist position.
A pacifist believes, among other things, that to go to war is absolutely wrong and should never be done because it results in violence and the killing of people. Even guilty people. Is this not the same idea that fuels people against the death penalty? To be against the death-penalty but in support of any war in all of history is inconsistent. Every person facing the death penalty has committed a gruesome murder and/or rape. Very few enemies on the field of battle have done this sort of crime, so to believe we are justified in killing an enemy soldier but not a criminal is inconsistent.
Anti-death penalty advocates will say, of course not. They are against capital punishment because “innocent people are killed” or “Jesus wouldn’t sentence people to death”. But this logic just doesn’t make sense. Innocent people are killed in each and every single action war in the history of the world. Are they against World War II? How about the American Revolution? A lot of people that are against the death penalty are Christians; are they against the wars of the Old Testament that God oversaw and commanded?
When our society puts someone to death, they use every available resource to absolutely prove that that person is guilty; that they’ve committed murder. The prosecutors dig up all the evidence they can find in order to convict them, it is presented to an impartial jury, and the person on trial is given a proper defense. On the other hand, none of this happens when we go to war. In World War II, we sought out and killed German and Japanese soldiers. We also killed innocent civilians from these countries, and we knew we were doing it. And virtually everyone in this country is grateful of that today. There is no trial, there is no jury. We were at war against a great enemy, and we did what we had to in order to defeat them.
We are at war with another enemy in our country today, and that enemy is murderers and other criminals. In this war, however, we grant our enemies defense lawyers and we do our very best to show that they are absolutely guilty. And if there is even a shadow of a doubt, we do not execute them.
Nobody can deny that there is far more doubt about whether everyone we are killing in war is guilty then there is about when we execute someone on death row. We obviously don’t have the capabilities to try every person we kill during war, yet we do when it is a murder in our own country. So when will this country begin to give the benefit of the doubt to our policemen and prosecutors like we do to our soldiers?
Jarrett Skorup is a student at Grove City College in Pennsylvania. He is a student fellow for The Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College. You can contact him here.
Big mistake.
We started off OK: Between the four of us we determined that we agreed on pretty much every issue. Then we got to the death penalty. Six hours and one un-shingled roof later we went inside to cool off from the heat, and the politics.
The death penalty is one of those issues that you just don’t bring up at the dinner table or with close friends, unless you’re 100% positive that they agree with you. Unless you’re a syndicated columnist, because we all just like to argue.
However, this became a big deal this week as it was announced that Saddam Hussein will be executed for his many crimes against humanity (pending appeal). This is a very interesting thing to think about. If I were a betting man, I’m thinking that the percent of Americans against the death penalty is quite different then the amount of Americans against Hussein being executed. As in, a lot less.
The logic of this makes sense; Saddam killed many more people and committed much worse crimes than anyone we have on death row. However, the leading groups opposing the death penalty don’t agree.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) website, “The death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights.” Taking a page from them is Amnesty International stating, “The death penalty is the ultimate denial of civil liberties.” It’s almost like the DNC sends out talking points memos to different organizations instructing them on what to say (i.e. repeating “choice” as many times as you can when talking about abortion, calling our enemies “insurgents” rather than terrorists, etc.).
I don’t expect you to take the opinions of these two organizations too seriously; Amnesty was the group that called the United States a major violator of human rights because of its support of the death penalty, as well as having its secretary general Irene Khan call the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay the “gulag of our times.” Now I’m no history expert (I don’t graduate till 2009), but I recall reading somewhere that the Soviet Union murdered millions in their concentration camps. At last check the United States was hovering around zero.
Anyways though, are these groups right to condemn capital punishment in America? Yes…if they’re pacifists.
If you truly believe that the death penalty is wrong, in this country; then you are forced to take a pacifist position.
A pacifist believes, among other things, that to go to war is absolutely wrong and should never be done because it results in violence and the killing of people. Even guilty people. Is this not the same idea that fuels people against the death penalty? To be against the death-penalty but in support of any war in all of history is inconsistent. Every person facing the death penalty has committed a gruesome murder and/or rape. Very few enemies on the field of battle have done this sort of crime, so to believe we are justified in killing an enemy soldier but not a criminal is inconsistent.
Anti-death penalty advocates will say, of course not. They are against capital punishment because “innocent people are killed” or “Jesus wouldn’t sentence people to death”. But this logic just doesn’t make sense. Innocent people are killed in each and every single action war in the history of the world. Are they against World War II? How about the American Revolution? A lot of people that are against the death penalty are Christians; are they against the wars of the Old Testament that God oversaw and commanded?
When our society puts someone to death, they use every available resource to absolutely prove that that person is guilty; that they’ve committed murder. The prosecutors dig up all the evidence they can find in order to convict them, it is presented to an impartial jury, and the person on trial is given a proper defense. On the other hand, none of this happens when we go to war. In World War II, we sought out and killed German and Japanese soldiers. We also killed innocent civilians from these countries, and we knew we were doing it. And virtually everyone in this country is grateful of that today. There is no trial, there is no jury. We were at war against a great enemy, and we did what we had to in order to defeat them.
We are at war with another enemy in our country today, and that enemy is murderers and other criminals. In this war, however, we grant our enemies defense lawyers and we do our very best to show that they are absolutely guilty. And if there is even a shadow of a doubt, we do not execute them.
Nobody can deny that there is far more doubt about whether everyone we are killing in war is guilty then there is about when we execute someone on death row. We obviously don’t have the capabilities to try every person we kill during war, yet we do when it is a murder in our own country. So when will this country begin to give the benefit of the doubt to our policemen and prosecutors like we do to our soldiers?
Jarrett Skorup is a student at Grove City College in Pennsylvania. He is a student fellow for The Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College. You can contact him here.
Why teach sex-education?
Your government spends over $200 million of your tax dollars every year teaching kids about sex-education. And in the last few years, this number has gone up about $22 million per year. As the new Congress and new legislators grapple with what to do with the federal minimum wage, where to go with Iraq, and how to get along with one another, I have a suggestion for them.
Cut off government funding for sex-education in schools.
Whether you belief in abstinence-only education or comprehensive, everyone can agree that this is a waste of money. People in favor of abstinence say they aren’t getting enough help from school districts, while people in favor of comprehensive education feel that they aren’t getting the money. This will all be put to rest once the government adopts my plan.
First off, I should come clean. If I really had to pick a side, I would have to argue for abstinence-only education. The statistics on the effectiveness are all over the board, but from personal experience I feel that it is the best way to educate students. And I do want them to be educated.
So where, you wonder, are students supposed to learn about sex? The mere fact that anyone has to ask that question anymore is a real concern. Kids need to learn about sex from their parents.
I’m not real sure how parents gave up their right to educate their children on this issue in the first place, but then again, I’m also not real sure how schools came away from focusing on reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic and got onto condoms and contraception. This could probably explain why the U.S. is at the back of the pack in many subjects compared to the rest of the world. The student’s in Thailand are learning math; our students are learning where to pick up the cheapest condoms.
Did sex just become too awkward for parents nowadays? Are the kids just too embarrassed? I’m not really sure how having a half-hour conversation with your parents every once and a while is more embarrassing than taking a whole semester of health classes learning how to put a condom on a banana, but then again, I guess I have been out of my teenage years for nearly 2 months. Times sure are a changing.
Anyways, I’ve been hearing a lot of statistics on sex-education. People in favor of comprehensive teaching seem absolutely certain that the general public favors their side. Some abstinence-only advocates even concede that point, but say that the general public just doesn’t understand what kind of things will be taught once our government starts handing over all that money to the other side. This can all be solved if we just allow the parents to deal with the issue.
Lockport, New York tried comprehensive sex-education for awhile. The Wilson Central School District’s school board eventually had to meet up over the continuing of the program because of legitimate concerns from the community. Several parents voiced concerns about a program that teaches fifth graders about homosexuality, masturbation, and abortion. How could they possibly do such a thing! Don’t they understand that comprehensive sex-education is the only kind that works? When I was in fifth grade, I wondered which girls I would have to run away from on the playground so as not to get cooties; what is this district possibly thinking?
Masturbation seems be a hot topic lately as several districts in Massachusetts were getting criticized for teaching about it to students as young as third grade. I would certainly love to put the issue of what type of education our children should have up for debate. This will never be voted on, however. Do you think supporters of comprehensive sex-education are going to allow parents to hear horror stories like these?
The bottom line is that parents need to be more responsible. It may be difficult to find the time (or the patience) to talk to your kids, but it needs to be done. I don’t understand why most parents wouldn’t want to do this anyways; regardless of what your values are, they’re your values, don’t you want to share them with your children? This debate isn’t even a slippery slope; there is no slope. We have parents on one hand who are educating their children and keeping them away from the type of education they might otherwise be getting in public schools, and on the other hand we have parents finding out that their 8 and 9-year-olds are learning how to come out of the closet.
A reoccurring theme in our countries history is that when you let the government control something it gets screwed up. I’m not here to debate economics, but the examples of this are easy to come by; education, health care, businesses…the list goes on and on. The government controls how children are educated in most aspects; they don’t need to decide what your children need to know about sex.
Cut off government funding for sex-education in schools.
Whether you belief in abstinence-only education or comprehensive, everyone can agree that this is a waste of money. People in favor of abstinence say they aren’t getting enough help from school districts, while people in favor of comprehensive education feel that they aren’t getting the money. This will all be put to rest once the government adopts my plan.
First off, I should come clean. If I really had to pick a side, I would have to argue for abstinence-only education. The statistics on the effectiveness are all over the board, but from personal experience I feel that it is the best way to educate students. And I do want them to be educated.
So where, you wonder, are students supposed to learn about sex? The mere fact that anyone has to ask that question anymore is a real concern. Kids need to learn about sex from their parents.
I’m not real sure how parents gave up their right to educate their children on this issue in the first place, but then again, I’m also not real sure how schools came away from focusing on reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic and got onto condoms and contraception. This could probably explain why the U.S. is at the back of the pack in many subjects compared to the rest of the world. The student’s in Thailand are learning math; our students are learning where to pick up the cheapest condoms.
Did sex just become too awkward for parents nowadays? Are the kids just too embarrassed? I’m not really sure how having a half-hour conversation with your parents every once and a while is more embarrassing than taking a whole semester of health classes learning how to put a condom on a banana, but then again, I guess I have been out of my teenage years for nearly 2 months. Times sure are a changing.
Anyways, I’ve been hearing a lot of statistics on sex-education. People in favor of comprehensive teaching seem absolutely certain that the general public favors their side. Some abstinence-only advocates even concede that point, but say that the general public just doesn’t understand what kind of things will be taught once our government starts handing over all that money to the other side. This can all be solved if we just allow the parents to deal with the issue.
Lockport, New York tried comprehensive sex-education for awhile. The Wilson Central School District’s school board eventually had to meet up over the continuing of the program because of legitimate concerns from the community. Several parents voiced concerns about a program that teaches fifth graders about homosexuality, masturbation, and abortion. How could they possibly do such a thing! Don’t they understand that comprehensive sex-education is the only kind that works? When I was in fifth grade, I wondered which girls I would have to run away from on the playground so as not to get cooties; what is this district possibly thinking?
Masturbation seems be a hot topic lately as several districts in Massachusetts were getting criticized for teaching about it to students as young as third grade. I would certainly love to put the issue of what type of education our children should have up for debate. This will never be voted on, however. Do you think supporters of comprehensive sex-education are going to allow parents to hear horror stories like these?
The bottom line is that parents need to be more responsible. It may be difficult to find the time (or the patience) to talk to your kids, but it needs to be done. I don’t understand why most parents wouldn’t want to do this anyways; regardless of what your values are, they’re your values, don’t you want to share them with your children? This debate isn’t even a slippery slope; there is no slope. We have parents on one hand who are educating their children and keeping them away from the type of education they might otherwise be getting in public schools, and on the other hand we have parents finding out that their 8 and 9-year-olds are learning how to come out of the closet.
A reoccurring theme in our countries history is that when you let the government control something it gets screwed up. I’m not here to debate economics, but the examples of this are easy to come by; education, health care, businesses…the list goes on and on. The government controls how children are educated in most aspects; they don’t need to decide what your children need to know about sex.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
