Archive for January, 2008
He acts like no one else has ever tried talking and diplomacy. He’d probably say, “We’re sorry for all the bad things we’ve done to you. Here, here’s a lot of money, we want to be friends. Can you ever forgive us? Just tell us what to do and how to live and we’ll do it.” Then they’ll feel justified in blaming us even more since it will look like an apology to them. And then….they’ll continue to try to kill us.
Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:28am EST
PARIS (Reuters) – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told a French magazine in an interview that if he wins office, he will hold a summit with Muslim countries to better the United States’ image in the world.
“Once I’m elected, I want to organize a summit in the Muslim world, with all the heads of state, to have an honest discussion about ways to bridge the gap that grows every day between Muslims and the West,” Thursday’s edition of Paris Match quoted Obama as saying,
“I want to ask them to join our fight against terrorism. We must also listen to their concerns,” Obama said in the French-language transcript.
The Illinois senator is running neck-and-neck against senator Hillary Clinton from New York to lead the Democratic ticket in November’s presidential election.
Surveys around the world show high levels of anti-Americanism in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Negative opinions are strongest in the Muslim world, according to the Pew Research Center.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Very good article.
By Tristan Emmanuel
Posted: January 31, 2008
Ever wonder why Christian men are so emasculated? Or why most normal red-blooded men find it absolutely impossible to relate to today’s clergy?
You’re not alone.
I use to think the problem was me, that I was old fashioned – at least that’s what I was told.
But then I had an epiphany.
God didn’t send girly-men to preach the Gospel, build churches and reform society back in the days of the early church. And He certainly won’t do that today either.
As a part of a strategy to change society we need to stop emasculating maleness in men.
The solution is simple. Start encouraging men in the church to be men – not women in drag.
I’m not the only one to say this.
Author David Murrow has written a very important book on the subject: “Why Men Hate Going to Church.” He confirms my theory. Men don’t feel welcomed in churches anymore because Christianity has been feminized.
(Column continues below)
Murrow relates several important statistics in his book:
• The typical U.S. congregation draws an adult crowd that’s 61 percent female and 39 percent male. This gender gap shows up in all age categories.
• On any given Sunday there are 13 million more adult women than men in America’s churches.
• This Sunday almost 25 percent of married, churchgoing women will worship without their husbands.
• Midweek activities often draw 70 to 80 percent female participants.
• As many as 90 percent of the boys who are being raised in church will abandon it by their 20th birthday. Many of them will never return.
• More than 90 percent of American men believe in God, and five out of six call themselves Christians. But only two out of six attend church on any given Sunday. The average man accepts the reality of Jesus Christ, but fails to see any value in going to church.
These are absolutely frightening statistics, but they are not surprising.
J. Grant Dys argues on his blog that the spinoff effects of this reality can be seen in our families (or at least what’s left of them), our schools, our clubs and in the prisons of our society. And ironically, with the death of genuine masculinity, an increasing number of young men are seeking to reclaim their manhood in homosexuality.
On a cultural level, we all know that the idea of a “real man” has almost been beaten out of our social consciousness. Men are objects of scorn and vilification. Watch any TV commercial or sitcom and you’ll witness a barrage of attacks, all designed to assault the dignity of real masculinity and the historic male role model as provider and protector.
I’m not saying anything new here. Many have already made this point, some much better than I. But what concerns me isn’t that broader culture has rejected masculinity, it is that the church has aided and abetted this concept of manhood as a pariah. And it’s not just the liberal churches that are guilty on this score.
All too often the pastoral “role model” in evangelical circles mirrors that “Simpson’s” character, the Rev. Love Joy. Our pastors are either quaint, odd, harmless pushovers, or they are slick metrosexual types who can cry at the drop of a dime – literally – but have absolutely no courage to stand up against real evil or teach the unequivocal truth with authority.
They’ve suppressed godly male assertiveness, opting instead to “be nice.” They have abdicated their calling to “speak the truth” in the interest of political correctness. And they have decided that manipulating people with emotional self-help books and anecdotal sermonizing is better for the bottom line than training and teaching the men in their congregations to be leaders and warriors for Christ. And as a result, the evangelical church is suffering from a dearth of real men.
Is feminism to blame?
No doubt feminism is a force of evil in North American society. It is evil not because it has tried to establish equality. Rather it is precisely because it hasn’t established equality that it is guilty of perpetrating a fraud. What feminism has succeeded in doing is to convince both sexes that the only masculine identity that is valuable is an effeminate male. That in fact, the only way for equality to exist is for men to be like women, or simply not to exist.
Now, we can blame the feminist movement all we want – but it won’t change a thing because in the end, men have embraced their own feminization. As Dys points out, men have done this to themselves because they have become soft and lazy.
Men are far more interested in accommodating the women’s movement than in asserting their masculinity. And whether that’s because we want to be “popular with the girls,” because we are too insecure and unsure about leading, or if it comes out of sheer exasperation – “You want to take over the leadership? Go ahead, I just don’t want to argue anymore” – we’ve conceded our role in family, church and the state.
But let’s be clear about one thing: We had no right to abdicate that responsibility.
The solution is very simple: Men need to be men again. They need to take up their responsibility the way God intended them to behave. And the church needs to re-learn how to help them do that again.
The cross has to go, but the sex workers and prostitutes get to stay. What has happened to our culture?
‘Our students have wisdom to put such programming in context’
Posted: January 31, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
A promotion of the sex industry, G-strings, pasties and nudity included, is returning to the historic College of William & Mary, which earlier removed a cross from the famous Wren Chapel because it could offend visitors.
Gene Nichol, president of the college that was a Christian institution at its founding, was the decision-maker when the cross first was banished from the chapel, then restored to a special secured case when alumni protested. He confirmed he would not alter plans for the Sex Workers’ Art Show to be performed twice on Feb. 4.
Last year, the show’s appearance on campus provoked outrage from alumni and supporters who accused Nichol of staging an affront to religion and morality in light of his then-recent decision to withdraw the cross from display in the chapel.
He said this year that students requested the show, they voted to spend campus funding for it, and he could not change that because of “the First Amendment and the defining traditions of openness that sustain universities.”
It is scheduled to be performed at the Williamsburg school at 7 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. in the University Center’s Commonwealth Auditorium, where strippers, prostitutes and other sex workers will appear.
However, John Foubert, an education professor who researches sexual violence toward women, said studies confirm that exposing men to pornography made them more likely to commit sexual assault.
“I’m opposed to – and working strongly against – pornography and the industry,” Foubert told the paper. “What I believe the Sex Workers’ Art Show does is promote the porn industry, and it goes beyond a speech issue. … The issue here is an issue of public nudity.”
The Flat Hat student newspaper noted Foubert expects the sex show “to bring increased … sexual aggression, and by itself may also lead to a short-term increase in incidents [of] sexual assault at William and Mary as well.”
Thomas Chappell, of the class of 2011, objected to the use of mandatory student fees on the sex show.
“Those that choose to attend should bear the full cost of the ticket prices instead of using everyone else’s money to help the people that attend pay for admission,” he said.
The student newspaper’s online forum, however, raised some additional objections.
“Can you imagine if a student Christian organization wanted the university to sanction its evangelistic presentation on campus in the name of First Amendment freedoms that Nichols claims to prize? No way,” wrote one participant. “Nichol has already demonstrated his hostility to organize religion quite clearly. But organized porn? Hey, no problem.”
“It’s laughable for Nichol to insist his hands are tied on this show and there’s nothing he can do about it. He could do something about it if he REALLY wanted to. This is the same president who unilaterally made a decision overturning decades of powerful William and Mary tradition with the Wren Cross. He can’t have it both ways. His actions regarding institutional or traditional constraints at the college seem to vary according to his personal preferences. Sure his hands may be tied, but he tied them himself this time,” added “C.K.”
“There was a time when I regarded W&M as the premier school in the state,” wrote JM, who identified himself as an art professor. “Stories like these make me revise that opinion.”
A year ago, topless dancers, demonstrations of sex toys and Q&As with male and female prostitutes were featured on the campus where former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor serves as chancellor.
Among the performances was a striptease by 200-pound-plus Dirty Martini, who finished in a G-string and pasties. Another performer in military fatigues stripped, used a fake gun as a sex prop and told the audience that sexual favors would be given if “doing so can end the war. Just don’t force me.”
“It’s just so out there and expressive,” Josh Campbell, a member of Lamba Alliance, one of six student groups to sponsor the 2007 event, told the local paper. “It’s hip, it’s in your face, and it’s exciting.”
William & Mary made the national spotlight in 2006 when WND revealed that university administrator Melissa Engimann circulated an e-mail noting that the cross in Wren Chapel was going to be placed in permanent storage to make the chapel “less of a faith-specific space.”
The cross had been in the chapel for decades; the chapel has been on the campus of the second-oldest university in the U.S. for centuries. Nevertheless, Nichol ruled the cross, because of one written complaint, had to go. He later backtracked when students and alumni put together a petition with more than 10,000 signatures.
A special committee later determined the cross should be put on permanent display in a glass case in the chapel, and available for use during “appropriate religious services.”
Don’t you find it interesting that we can’t promote Christianity and we can’t pray in Jesus’ name in these Senate gatherings, yet a Hindu “is making a series of appearances at state legislatures to promote Hinduism” and can pray his prayer?
Now lawmaker suggests ‘om’ opens door for prayers ‘in Jesus name’
Posted: January 31, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
A Nevada Hindu who has opened the U.S. Senate with a faith-specific chant now has provided the invocation to open the state senate in Colorado, and a senator is suggesting since “om” has been cited, perhaps prayers “in Jesus name” again should be allowed.
The comments came after Rajan Zed, a Hindu from Reno who is making a series of appearances at state legislatures to promote Hinduism, was allowed to open the Colorado Senate, under the leadership of Senate President Peter Groff, with a Hindu chant of the “om” syllable that, according to his belief system, contains the universe.
Zed also recited the Gayatri Mantra from Rig-Veda, a prayer asking for help to “lead me from the unreal to the real.”
Zed was the Hindu who last year was invited by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to offer the first Hindu prayer in the U.S. Senate.
Read rest of article at link…
I get really tired of America-haters. I especially dislike American citizens who hate this country. I honestly believe they are ungrateful, spoiled brats! They have so much and yet they complain. They have something millions of other people would love to have and they aren’t thankful for it.
I liken it to a really rich person who has almost everything, griping that their life is not better. Let’s suppose Paris Hilton griped about all the things she doesn’t have or doesn’t get – we would all roll our eyes and say “Give me a break. She doesn’t realize how lucky she is”, and we would be correct.
Now, I’m not saying that America is perfect, because it’s not and it never will be. But of all the countries in the world, we’ve done the best. We’ve got it figured out more than they do. We still have a lot we can improve, and we should strive to do so, but let’s not bad-mouth it just because it hasn’t reached perfection.
Don’t you find it interesting that other countries are compared to America to measure their success, yet America is compared to perfection and Utopia. That’s not fair to us and it will always put us in a no-win situation. Instead of people looking at America and saying, “Why can’t they get their healthcare system fixed? It’s obvious they don’t care about people”, they should look at the rest of the world and say, “Wow, America’s system is not perfect, but it’s certainly better than any other system in the world.” That can be seen by how many people from other countries come to America for medical help. Their system isn’t working or the wait is too long, but they can come here and get help right away, so they do.
People complain that we’re just greedy capitalists. But the reality is that capitalism is the best system in the world. Competition and free markets benefit everyone. It’s been shown in other countries who have tried it that socialism DOES NOT work. It sounds good in theory, but it just doesn’t work. Those countries end up with a worse economy and more people not able to survive.
People complain that we’ve got too many poor people and that we aren’t helping them. I beg to differ. First of all, it’s not the government’s job to do this. It is the responsibility of individuals (especially Christians) to reach out and help these people. But we do happen to have a HUGE gov’t program that helps these folks, yet people still say it isn’t enough. Secondly, our definition of poor is very different than the rest of the world’s definition. As a social worker I can tell you about the poor people in our society. 99% of these “poor people” have a TV and a cell phone. Not only that, but the US has numerous government programs to help them, and numerous non-gov’t programs that they can access. They can get food stamps , medical care, low income housing, free lunches at schools, free school supplies, clothing for school, treatment programs for their drug or alcohol issues, counseling for mental health issues, and many other things I don’t even have room to list. Also, there is a certain portion of this group who just don’t want the help. You can believe that or not, but I’ve been a social worker for almost 20 years and I tell you it is true. Some of them just want to live like they’re living and be left alone.
People complain that America is greedy and doesn’t give enough humanitarian aid to other countries. America already gives more than all other countries combined, yet they still say we don’t give enough.
People complain that America tries to bully other countries, when in reality we are happy to live and let live. We only intervene if we are protecting our own citizens or those who can’t protect themselves. However, we can only be in so many places at once, so we have to prioritize and deal with the most urgent things first. Unfortunately, some people don’t agree with the priorities and if their “pet issues” are not being dealt with right now, they say America doesn’t care.
People complain that America is racist or that we don’t treat people equally. First of all, that’s just a load of bologna as every person has an equal opportunity in this country, which is why millions of people want to leave their own countries and move here. Secondly, people only need to look at other countries to realize how good we have it here. Are there some racist people here? Yes, of course. But that’s the case no matter where you go. But as a whole our country is NOT a racist country and goes to extraordinary measures to make sure it is not tolerated. I find it interesting when people bring up the fact that America once had slavery. Well, so did most other countries. It was the culture then. However, America is the only country who didn’t have to be forced by another country to fix that problem. We realized slavery was wrong and we handled it. It took a war, but then again, war is sometimes necessary. Why don’t we get credit for being the one country that came to the realization on our own and corrected the problem? Instead, people keep throwing it in our faces that we once had slavery. Slavery aside, if America is such a racist country, why do so many people want to come here?
People complain that our military should not be involved in other countries. They call them killers and protest against them. I say again that our military does not indiscriminately kill innocent people. They do their job so that we will be safe and free. They fight for us so that we can live the lives we live and have the freedoms and comforts we have. They fight there so we don’t have to fight here. How dare someone speak out against them and not honor them. They are willing to risk their lives and some people have the audacity to criticize them-it honestly makes me sick and lets me know how ungrateful those folks are.
America is not perfect, but we are definitely AWESOME!! We’ve got to continue to strive to be better, but to constantly criticize us for not being perfect is not the answer. Why can’t we be thankful for what we have and work together to fix what’s not working so well. The last thing we need is for Americans to be screaming to the world that we are evil, greedy bullies. If an American truly believes the US sucks, they should move to a country they feel is doing it better. If they are not willing to do that, then they should stop biting the hand that feeds them. This does not mean we never speak up about things that need to change, but we certainly don’t do it for the world to see and hear. We don’t betray our own country and try to assist in its downfall.
We are fortunate and blessed to live in America and I find American-born America-haters to be extremely unappreciative and spoiled, and I know there are millions who would be happy to take their place in this great country!!
You rock, America!!! Long live the land of the free and the home of the brave!
This honestly makes me sad and sick! I really can’t comprehend this. If the Bay Area ever needs the military to defend it, maybe the “unwelcome intruders” shouldn’t show up to do it. This hurts me for all our military folks. Contact the Berkeley city council to let them know how you feel. The link is at the bottom of the article.
Written by Melanie Morgan
Wednesday, 30 January 2008
SAN FRANCISCO – The City of Berkeley, California, has passed two resolutions attacking the United States Marine Corps, calling the Marines “uninvited and unwelcome intruders in the city.”
The Berkeley City Council voted to condemn the Marines on Tuesday night (January 29th) as part of a campaign by anti-war activists to shut down a U.S. Marine Recruiting Center located in Berkeley.
The votes by the Berkeley City Council were immediately condemned by Move America Forward (website: http://www.MoveAmericaForward.org), the nation’s largest grassroots pro-troop organization.
“It is disgraceful that in the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement, anti-military activists would attempt to silence the same military men and women who serve this country and give their lives to protect the free speech rights of all Americans, including these ungrateful and despicable people on the Berkeley City Council,” said Melanie Morgan, Chairman of Move America Forward.
The actions by the Berkeley City Council followed continuous protests by Code Pink and other anti-military organizations who vandalized and defaced the U.S. Marine Recruiting Center in September 2007.
One of the two resolutions passed by the Berkeley City Council last night granted a parking spot in front of the Marine Recruiting Center to be used by anti-military activists to harass Marine recruiters. The anti-military activists would not need to apply for a sound permit for the next six months – allowing them free reign to disrupt the day-to-day operations by the Marines.
Move America Forward organized a counter-protest in support of the Marines last October that attracted more than 400 pro-troop supporters who stood in solidarity of the Marine Recruiting Center.
“We have hundreds of thousands of military men and women serving honorably overseas to protect our freedoms. Imagine how they feel when they go to turn on the news and see that they are being stabbed in the back by shameful people here at home, it’s disgraceful!” said Catherine Moy, Executive Director of Move America Forward.
PLEASE GET INVOLVED AND LET THE BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL KNOW THAT YOU DO NOT APPRECIATE THEIR ACTIONS.
CONTACT THE COUNCIL AT
Don’t anybody try to tell me there is not religious discrimination in our colleges. The only reason this girl ended up getting her degree is because she was willing to push it and pursue legal options.
College reverses condemnation of story
Student journalist originally ‘failed’ for reporting on actor’s Christianity
Posted: January 30, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
Officials at Paradise Valley Community College in Phoenix have decided to reverse their earlier decision to deny a certificate to a journalism student because she wrote about actor Kirk Cameron’s Christian faith.
The American Center for Law & Justice confirmed that the school had notified the student, Sara Sloan, a degree and certificate she had earlier been denied were “available to be picked up at the college.”
The college’s earlier decision had denied Sloan the recognition that she had completed the journalism requirements because of her reporting on the Christian faith by which Cameron, the longtime star of Growing Pains, lives.
Astonishingly, the panel members, assembled by her professor, condemned her and then specifically wrote that her work was fine, it was her religion that posed the problem for them.
“I have to say ‘No’ to Sara,” wrote one of the evaluators of her work. “[M]y main problem with [Sara] is that she seems to approach all of her stories from a moralistic or even religious bent …. I think [Sara] has ample skills to find work in specialized publications but if the question were to be put to me to hire her or not, I would have to say not for most publications on the market place,” said one.
And a second, specifically noting Sloan’s profile of Cameron, who has worked on a number of projects with The Way of the Master, a Christian ministry run by evangelist Ray Comfort, wrote:
“You identify yourself as a Christian in your bio, and that certainly comes through in the bias of this article. . . . I believe it would be a turn-off to any religion editor or reader who wasn’t a born again Christian. . . . I would have found a way to make this article relevant and inspirational even to readers who aren’t hard-core Christians.”
Because the school requires her to get passing votes from six of nine evaluators, the two negative votes left her with five. The ACLJ noted that the Cameron article was the only one in her portfolio of articles that dealt in any significant way with the subject’s faith.
Other articles were about actor Hunter Gomez’ effort to reduce drinking and driving, a program to reduce the work loads for English faculty members, the opening of a museum in Scottsdale and the college’s wireless network.
ACLJ chief Jay Sekulow told WND the case was “one of the most dramatic attacks on student free speech and free press that I’ve ever seen, and I’ve been doing this for 25 years.”
“They stated the reason she was being rejected was her ‘Christian’ bias. They didn’t like the fact she did the article on Kirk Cameron,” he said. “They flat-out said that.”
Such problems, however, are growing for university students of faith, because other similar cases are in the works right now for the ACLJ, he said.
The ACLJ got involved when the school notified the student of her “failure,” and it sent several letters to the school asking for action on the apparent problem.
“On Jan. 25, 2008, Sara received a letter stating that her degree and her certificate of completion in journalism were available to be picked up at the college,” the ACLJ said. “Sara went to the college and was able to pick up both her degree and her certificate. ACLJ Staff Counsel Erik Zimmermann spoke with Sara and her mother, and they were very pleased with this result. They were confident that the ACLJ’s letter made the difference in Sara receiving her certificate,” the ACLJ said.
A school spokesman, Rod Fensom, said he would look into the situation. He called back later to say the school would not comment.
“Federal confidentiality laws, specifically [the] Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, preclude us from discussing student matters. We must provide this student the same protections we provide to all students under the law,” he said.
On the student’s web profile, she said she plans to continue her school work at Arizona State University West by seeking a B.A. in communications.
She wrote for the Puma Press, including stints as news editor and religion editor, an assignment she held when she profiled Cameron.
The ACLJ said the negative results originally imposed by the school appeared to be a “denial of a student’s First Amendment rights.” The organization confirmed the student had earned top grades in every journalism course required for the journalism certificate, and “has been exempted from taking several final exams due to her outstanding grades.”
Then she ran into the final requirement for an Occupational Journalism Certificate – a review of her portfolio by a “jury” from nine writers, editors and producers from various media companies assembled by the professor.
The ACLJ sent letters to the school asking about the situation on Dec. 13, 2007, and again on Dec. 28.
It wasn’t until Jan. 15 when Sara’s “unofficial online transcript” stated she would get the certificate, the ACLJ said. The firm again tried to contact the school, without a response. But the school did send Sara the letter confirming she would be awarded the certificate on Jan. 25.
Our world is going crazy! This Florida city wants to let people use whichever restroom or lockerroom they want based on what gender they “feel” like. It doesn’t matter which gender they actually are. California is trying to do this in the schools and Maryland is attempting it also, meanwhile apathetic people sit back and do nothing to fight it.
Protected is ‘inner sense of being, without regard to sex at birth’
Posted: January 30, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
A Florida city has added itself to the ranks of governments that have decided to ban discrimination based on the “inner sense of being a specific gender … with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.”
The council in Gainesville this week narrowly voted to approve the gender identity protection plan that already is causing an uproar in Montgomery County, Md., where its implementation is being challenged by a citizens’ group over the apparent open-door attitude the ordinance has regarding public facilities including lockerrooms, showers and restrooms.
The ordinance Gainesville approved allows specific exceptions for “public accommodations” where “being seen fully unclothed is unavoidable,” but still earned the displeasure of a majority of those who attended the second public hearing, at which the plan was formally adopted.
The ordinance adds gender identity as a category of people provided special protections from discrimination. Already the city banned discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation and gender.
Commissioner Ed Braddy moved to deny the ordinance, and was joined by Commissioner Rick Bryant.
“When you boil it down the issue is that because of some people who have some sort of emotional or psychological issue, others have to change,” Braddy said, according to a report in the Gainesville Sun.
But a majority of the panel approved the new law, which affects the city laws governing the Human Rights Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity rules, Equal Access to Places of Public Accommodation, Fair Housing and Equal Credit Opportunity provisions.
“Gender identity, as defined in the proposed ordinance, means ‘an inner sense of being a specific gender, or the expression of a gender identity by verbal statement, appearance, or mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth,'” the city said.
“The general procedures and prohibitions … would apply to discrimination on the basis of gender identity as it would to discrimination on the basis of other protected classes,” the city continued.
The exceptions would be allowed for “certain shared facilities” such as “a shared shower or dressing facility.”
“Denial of access to such facilities would be permitted if the covered entity provided reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not inconsistent with the person’s gender identity, as established with the entity at the time of initial access, or upon notification to the entity that the individual has undergone or is undergoing gender transition…”
David Caton, who leads the Florida Family Association, told WND that such moves are “outrageous.”
He said his organization has been protesting such plans for some time, pointing out that ordinances like this essentially could be argued before a judge to protect “the right of a person to dress one day as a man, and another day as a woman.”
“It’s absolutely atrocious for our children to have to deal with that kind of social engineering,” he said.
“The worst part of it is when they get one day in the press, and the government gives its stamp of approval to do all kinds of weird things …. Our biggest obligation is saying it’s not ok,” he said.
The Sun reported a “majority” of the standing-room-only crowd at the council meeting opposed the ordinance. In the end Mayor Pegeen Hanrahan was joined by commissioners Craig Lowe, Jeanna Mastrodicasa and Jack Donovan to approve the new rule.
Commissioner Scherwin Henry had supported the law on the first reading, but changed and opposed it on final reading.
The newspaper said several other locations in Florida, including Key West, West Palm Beach and Miami Beach, already have protections for those with “gender identity” issues.
In Montgomery County, Md., there already has been a “trial run” of its new law that arguably would allow coed locker rooms in public accommodations, and women aren’t pleased with the results. Montgomery County’s law contains no specific exception to public facilities such as lockerrooms, showers and restrooms.
The “trial run” happened recently when a man, wearing a skirt and makeup, walked into a women’s locker room at a health club.
“I could see his muscles, I could see his large hands. He was wearing a blue ruffled skirt that came down to above the knee,” Mary Ann Andree told WJLA-Television after the incident at the Rio Sport and Health Club in Gaithersburg.
“I was very upset, I’m still upset,” Andree told the station. “There’s a lot he could’ve seen.”
“It is becoming obvious that this bill will have very real and serious repercussions,” said Michelle Turner, a spokeswoman for the local organization that has adopted the Not My Shower slogan and is working on a petition that would have residents vote on the plan.
The group, Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government, has been critical of the suggestion since before it was given a green light by elected officials in Montgomery County and then signed into law by County Executive Ike Leggett.
Patrick Lacefield, the county’s communications director, told WND the county’s legal team has advised that the provisions of the ban on discrimination by gender would not apply to “intimate facilities.”
However, he admitted nowhere in the law is that stated.
“We do not feel that it was necessary to explicitly state that,” he said.
This professor was speaking out AGAINST the term “wetback”, but because he actually said the word, it offended some of his students and he was found guilty of “harrassment”. What? You can’t even say the word when you’re speaking out against it? Someone got offended at him just uttering the word? Give me a break! It’s ridiculous! Now he has someone monitoring his classes. What kind of moron gets offended when the man is telling them the term is inappropriate? Political correctness has gone too far.
On the other hand, Christians and conservatives get torn apart every day in college classes and no one calls that harrassment. We live in a mixed up world!
The ACLU Misses The Boat
By Mike S. Adams
Monday, January 28, 2008
Last Wednesday, I gave a lecture on the law of assault and battery. As an example of simple battery, I used my old middle school friend Darrin’s violent reaction to being called an “English fag” by our classmate, James. Fortunately, no one was silly enough to believe that my simple battery example was meant to endorse the widespread use of the term “fag” – in fact, I prefer the term “queer” and only use it when talking about John Edwards. (Sorry, Ann, I couldn’t resist).
I also consider it fortunate that I don’t teach at Brandeis University. If I did, I might already have had someone placed in my classroom to monitor my use of the term “fag.” If you think I’m joking, consider the case of political science professor Donald Hindley.
Professor Hindley did a good thing the other day in his Latin American Politics course. He criticized the use of the term “wetbacks” as an inappropriate racial slur against Mexican immigrants. Of course, in the process, he actually uttered the term “wetback.” As a result, some students were offended – actually, in my view, they claimed to be offended in order to get attention.
And the “offended” students certainly did get attention.
As a result of the students’ feigned offense at the criticism of the term “wetbacks,” Professor Hindley has now been found guilty of “harassment” by administrators at Brandeis University. It is certainly funny that a university named after a Supreme Court Justice (and staunch supporter of free expression) should be guilty of such heavy-handed tactics, which are certain to chill the free expression of ideas.
But, make no mistake about it; what has happened to Professor Hindley is not funny in a “ha-ha” sense. It is funny in a “strange” sense. Although he has never been given a written explanation of the charges against him, he has been found guilty of “harassment” and has had a “monitor” placed in his class to make sure he does not “offend” again. All this is punishment for a professor who has been teaching for five decades and has never before had a student complaint.
Fortunately, the ACLU – like the blind squirrel that occasionally finds a nut – has taken a break from causes like suppressing individual prayer in order to weigh in on this truly important case. And they have proffered a correct, though incomplete, analysis of the Hindley case.
According to the Massachusetts ACLU, universities must be vigilant in protecting their students from harassment but, in this case, no such harassment occurred. In fact, according to the correct logic of the ACLU, it is possible for the over-policing of harassment to have deleterious effects on academic freedom and free speech generally. In the Brandeis case, free expression was harmed but there was no real harm to racial minorities.
What the ACLU missed in their response was that minorities may, in fact, have been hurt by the incident at Brandeis. A decent man has just been punished for standing up against racism and is, therefore, less likely to do it again in the future. And those who are following the case are learning vicariously that defending minorities is often a thankless and risky undertaking.
The ultimate irony of the Hindley case is that none of the persons claiming to be offended by the term “wetback” were even eligible to be offended. The term “wetback” – as I recall from my upbringing in Texas – is reserved exclusively for illegal aliens. By claiming to be harassed by the term “wetback,” one must simultaneously admit to one’s status as an illegal alien. And, certainly, such an admission would create greater problems (e.g., deportation) for the “offended” than simply being offended.
It is hard to believe that one could entertain seriously the notion that there is some constitutional right to be “un-offended,” which trumps the First Amendment. It is even harder to imagine that illegal aliens have such a right over and above the rights of citizens who are in this country lawfully. But just wait a few years and this will all seem mundane to the average American.
Lately, I’ve been getting so tired of political correctness that I’ve even considered leaving the country. Maybe I’ll make my escape by swimming south across the Rio Grande. And if my shirt doesn’t dry quickly, I’ll just cover my ears and hope for the best.
This is an excellent article by Dennis Prager!
A Response to “What You Have To Believe To Be a Republican Today”
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
For four years, a list of alleged Republican positions — “What You Have To Believe To Be a Republican Today” — has been circulating on the Internet and forwarded in countless e-mails. In this presidential election year, it is important to respond to these charges. If people want to vote for a Democratic president, they should not do so based on falsehoods about Republicans.
Given space limitations, I cannot respond to all of them. I have decided to respond to the 13 most significant.
“What you have to believe to be a Republican today”:
1. “Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush’s daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a ‘we can’t find Bin Laden.'”
Response: Saddam Hussein was always considered a bad guy by anyone with a working moral compass, and that included Democratic President Bill Clinton and his administration. The main reason that President Ronald Reagan armed Saddam Hussein was so as to enable Saddam to fight against Iran so that Iran would not be the dominant power in the Muslim Middle East. Arming an evil man to fight another evil man does not make the former less of an evil man. America aided Stalin’s genocidal Communist Soviet Union in order for him to better fight against Hitler. And after World War II, America aided some former Nazis in order to be able to fight Stalin. That is moral wisdom, not hypocrisy.
2. “Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.”
Response: For the left, the desire to normalize relations with Communist regimes has been a constant. Liberals who were not on the far left and conservatives alike fought some Communist regimes — militarily as in Vietnam and Korea, and economically as in Cuba — and normalized relations with some others. Mature people know that they have to pick and choose which evils can be fought and which cannot. Having said that, there are good arguments on both sides about whether to lift the embargo on Cuba since the fall of the Soviet Union.
3. “The United States should get out of the United Nations…”
Response: Very few Republicans advocate America getting out of the United Nations, but Republicans do regularly point out the UN’s dismal record on human rights — as when Sudan, a regime regarded even by most of the left as engaged in genocide, was made vice-chair (with Cuba) of the UN Human Rights Commission. The UN has failed virtually all victims of mass murder since its inception — including most recently those in the Rwanda genocide. The UN has done commendable work on some health matters, but otherwise it has been worse than morally worthless. The UN has become a haven for the cruelest regimes on earth. The left’s adulation of the UN is but one more example of its preference for institutions over fighting evil.
4. “A woman can’t be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.”
Response: Unlike those on the left, many Republicans, not to mention medical science, view a human fetus as having its own body and not being a mere extension of a woman’s body. People can differ on the legality of early abortions — not every immoral action is necessarily illegal — but to belittle the killing of a human fetus for no medical reason as “a woman doing what she wants with her own body” is only one more example of the left’s broken moral compass.
5. “Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.”
Response: No mainstream Republican or conservative has ever said that he or she, let alone Jesus, hates homosexuals. But because there is so much hatred on the left for Republicans and for religious conservatives, many on the left, like the writer of this list, constantly accuse Republicans and conservatives of being haters. It is usually projection.
6. “The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans’ benefits and combat pay.”
Response: There are many ways to improve military morale. One is to increase the military budget, not to slash it as the Clinton administration did; to honor military heroes during wartime, not to feature front page article after front page article about troops who murder when they come home, as The New York Times has been doing for weeks, or publish fraudulent articles, as the New Republic recently did, about our troops committing atrocities; and to allow the military to recruit on college campuses, something many liberal colleges ban.
7. “If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won’t have sex.”
Response: While many Republicans believe that teenage sexual standards should be left to parents and not to schools, no mainstream Republican has ever argued, “If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won’t have sex.” But many people, not just Republicans, think that teaching “safe sex” to middle schoolers sends a message to young minds that society assumes they will have sexual intercourse. And what society assumes usually happens. When society assumed teenagers should not have sex, they rarely had it. For generations before schools put condoms on bananas, there was far less teenage sex because society has a profound impact on teenage sexual behavior. The message in schools since then has often been that the only reason not to have sex at age 16 (or 15 or 14) is that you might get pregnant or contract a sexually transmitted disease. The portrayal of sex as almost exclusively a biological act has been one of contemporary liberalism’s greatest sins against young people.
8. “HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.”
Response: Who ever said that? HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of their owners or stockholders at heart. The question is not whether companies want to make profits, it’s whether individuals will have a choice about how to obtain health care, and whether the state should massively expand to create Canada-like socialist medicine with its triage and long waiting periods.
9. “Global warming and tobacco’s link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.”
Response: Many conservatives and more than a few liberals argue that climate change has occurred throughout the earth’s history, that carbon emission is therefore not the primary cause of the minimal warming that is taking place, and that the manmade-global warming-will-lead-to-worldwide-destruction scenario is therefore a form of hysteria — as were the left’s cries about heterosexual AIDS in America, the threat to mankind’s future if people have more than one child, and breast implants, among many others. As for tobacco and cancer, no mainstream Republican argues that tobacco’s link to cancer is junk science. The charge is deceitful. But many conservatives do believe that banning all outdoor smoking, for example, is both scientifically and morally indefensible. And few Republicans argue for Creationism in schools, but many do argue that, in addition to whatever science is taught, the idea that the universe was designed and all of existence is therefore not a random purposeless event might be both scientific and beneficial to students.
10. “A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.”
Response: Had President Clinton simply said to the American people, “I lied to save myself and my family public humiliation,” the whole Monica Lewinsky matter would have died in a few weeks. It was his lying under oath while president that brought on the impeachment trial. Many decent people thought that was impeachable; many decent people thought it was not an impeachable offense. It was a tragic farce that America was preoccupied with semen stains for so long. Much of the blame goes to the news media, which a generation ago would never have reported the affair to begin with. As for President George W. Bush, he did not “lie” us into war, but used the best assessments that nearly all Western intelligence agencies provided concerning Saddam Hussein building weapons of mass destruction. When he was president, President Clinton warned of the exact same WMD threat from Saddam.
11. “Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.”
Response: No Republican argues that the Constitution now defines marriage. Many, however, want the American people, not judges, to decide how America defines marriage. And since some liberal judges will force states to redefine marriage to include marriage to a person of the same sex, a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman may be necessary. The charge that Republicans want to censor the Internet is a lie. It is, in any case, impossible. Moreover, it is the left that far more frequently advocates censorship, as it does, for example, on campuses where leftist students stifle conservative speakers’ freedom of speech.
12. “Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you’re a conservative radio host. Then it’s an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.”
Response: Most conservatives and liberals believe that legalizing drugs would result in large numbers of young people using life-destroying drugs. As for Rush Limbaugh, he illegally acquired prescription painkillers for chronic back pain. Only people with hatred in their hearts can liken that to using heroin and other nonprescription drugs that crush lives.
13. “That Bush, who doesn’t read newspapers, and who can’t speak an intelligible paragraph on his own (not written for him), is intelligent enough to rid the planet Earth of all evil.”
Response: George W. Bush is a voracious reader and is almost certainly far better read than the author of these points. The widespread belief that Bush cannot speak well is ad hominem nonsense. And one need not be particularly intelligent to have regarded the North Korean, Iranian and Saddam Hussein regimes as evil. One only had to be a Republican. It is to the left’s everlasting shame that it reviled President Ronald Reagan for labeling the Soviet Union an “evil empire” and reviles George W. Bush for labeling North Korea, Iran and Saddam’s Iraq an “Axis of Evil.”Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
« Previous Entries