Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Stupid People

On Bill C-484, in response to an op-ed written by Vicki Saporta, this blogger (The impatient patient) writes a very interesting, insightful and sometimes outright hilarious article, I dislike Stupid People:

a) Exactly how does Saporta know that it is a "fact" that the legislation will have "negligible deterrent effect"?
b) Again, why is she trying to scare us by claiming the Bill could "drastically change Canadian law"? Why is this a bad thing? Why is this supposed to scare us? Laws change all the time. BFD.
c) Saporta is arguing against this Bill by saying that a similar law in the U.S. has not resulted in a reduction of violence against women. This is the argument that angered me most. Let's be very clear on something. The purpose of the law is not, repeat IS NOT to reduce violence against pregnant women. That is where Saporta is 100% wrong. The purpose of the law is to fairly and properly punish people who injure or kill a pregnant woman (which means the woman and her unborn child). The reason the law is being proposed is because a great number of Canadians believe that charging a person with one count of murder after they murder a pregnant woman, is insufficient because that person actually killed two people - the woman and her child.

Let me show you how stupid Saporta's argument is: Saying that we should not support Bill C-484 because it "will not result in a reduction of violence against women", is the same as saying that there's no point in making it illegal to drive drunk, because drunk driving charges do not bring back the victims killed in crashes by drunk drivers. How stupid is that? While we're at it, why don't we just get rid of child abuse laws. After all, charging parents who sexually, physically, verbally and emotionally abuse their children, doesn't erase the "hurt" their children have experienced, so the laws must be useless, right?


She makes a really good point here:
If Saporta argued that a fetus shouldn't have the right to life because it's part of the mother's body until the umbilical cord is cut, or if she argued that she just didn't believe a fetus should have the right to life until it emerged from its mother's body, then I might be able to respect her argument (even if I disagreed with it). But what angers me so much, is that Saporta is saying that she's not willing to even consider the rights of the fetus because all she can care about is the right of a woman to have an abortion.

I especially appreciated this particular comment (quote from Saporta included in bold). In fact, I laughed out loud like crazy until my two-year-old came running and wanted to know what was so funny. Try explaining this to a two-year-old:

The National Abortion Federation (NAF), the professional association of abortion providers in Canada and the U.S., fully supports a woman's right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term.

Well, fan-f**king-tastic. Thank you for telling me that. I'm so glad you cleared that up. But really, is there even a question about that? Hello?? Is there ANYONE in the world that doesn't support a woman's right to carry a pregnancy to term?

This is a non-point. This is the stupidest thing she says.

Before I go on, I just want to state, with complete clarity, that I fully support Saporta's right to have two arms and two legs. Look how wonderful and liberal I am.

Read more

Monday, April 28, 2008

Guys

I don't get you. You (in general) fall in love with a girl, then get your hearts broken when she ditches you for another guy. But then when you meet a girl you like, you ditch her if she refuses to have sex with you right away. You go with the girl who'll sleep with anyone, anytime and then you wonder why she doesn't stick with you.

Had you been a little more patient, had you thought maybe the girl who wants to wait might be worth waiting for, you might have found out that she's the one who'd stick with you for life too.

In this crazy screwed up society, noone wants to wait for the one worth waiting for. With the sexual revolution, and the pill, women became the "equal" of men. Free to have consequence-free sex. Instead of making men responsible, we took responsibility away from women. Now noone is responsible. Noone cares. Women are free to break mens' hearts as much as men were free to do so before. Maybe even more so. Because now, there is no moral stigma. Everyone does what they want and it's noone elses business. Except for the psychiatrists who have to treat all the frustrated, broken people.

Hell, even the psychiatrists are in on it. I've heard them say it is THANKS TO the pill that women are equal to men.

Bullshit! That means women were NEVER equal to men? I know they weren't always treated as equal, but as far as I am concerned, we were created equal, and noone has to fix that. If we weren't equal until the pill that means hundreds of thousands of years have gone by and millions upon millions of women born who were all inferior to men. In fact, what that means is that we are all STILL born inferior to men, and can only be ARTICIALLY equal to men, through no merit of our own. Which is exactly the same as saying that we are not equal to men. Idiots.

But of course psychiatrists are making money off of all the screwed up people they have to treat. They don't want us to know any better. Things were much simpler when there were rules to follow. But noone wants to follow rules. Not when it comes to sex. We've been fed so much crap about being free that we don't realize that in fact we're just slaves, slaves to sex.

Sorry, just happened to talk to a guy who got screwed by the girl he fell in love with, the type of girl of course who would screw around (please excuse my eloquent language), and then he wonders why his heart has been broken once again. Same guy would have ditched any girl who'd have made him wait. But the girl who'd have made him wait would probably have been the one who'd have stuck around. When are you men going to GET this? And when are women like me going to get that if a man is willing to ditch us because he doesn't want to wait, well, he's the one who'll be missing out. Too bad for HIM.

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Please send more complaints

Otherwise how will our taxpayer-funded hate police manage to keep their cozy sinecure?

MARK STEYN April 23, 2008 Maclean's
http://www.macleans.ca/canada/opinions/article.jsp?content=20080423_31672_31672

This is a "must read" it is excellently written. Just going to quote a couple of paragraphs I thought exceptional:

Hmm. "History has shown us that hateful words sometimes lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes." Commissar Lynch provides, as she would say, "no substantiation for these claims." But then she's a "hate speech" prosecutor and, as we know, Canada's "human rights" procedures aren't subject to tiresome requirements like evidence. So she's made an argument from authority: the great Queen's Counsel has risen from her throne in the Star Chamber and pronounced, and let that suffice. Those of us who occupy less exalted positions in the realm might wish to ponder the evidence for her assertions.

**********

"Remarkably, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the Canadian anti-hate law. Moreover, those laws were enforced with some vigour. During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. And, in the opinion of the leading Jewish organization of that era, no more than 10 per cent of the cases were mishandled by the authorities. As subsequent history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it."

**********

Oh, and by the way, almost all those powers the Nazis "seized" the morning after the Reichstag fire, the "human rights" commissions already have. In the name of cracking down on "hate," Canada's "human rights" apparatchiks can enter your premises without a warrant and remove any relevant "document or thing" (as the relevant Ontario legislation puts it) for as long as they want it. And without anybody burning the House of Commons or even the Senate.

**********

Happily, beginning on July 1, under Ontario's "human rights" reforms, Commissar Hall will have far greater powers to initiate prosecutions against all and sundry. Under the new proposals, " 'hate incident' means any act or omission, whether criminal or not, that expresses bias, prejudice, bigotry or contempt toward a vulnerable or disadvantaged community or its members." "Act or omission"? Of course. The act of not acting in an insufficiently non-hateful way can itself be hateful. Whether or not the incident is a non-incident is incidental. I quote from "Concepts Of Race And Racism And Implications For OHRC Policy" as published on the OHRC website:

"The denial of racism used by so many whites in positions of authority ranging from the supervisor in a work place to the chief of Police and ministers of government must be understood for what it is: an example of White hegemonic power over those considered 'other.' "

Got that? Your denial of racism merely confirms your racism — because simply by being a "White hegemon" (like Barbara Hall or Jennifer Lynch) you wield racist power. The author, Frances Henry, cites the thinking of "modern neo-Marxist theorists" as if these are serious views that persons of influence in Canada's "human rights" establishment ought to be taking into account, rather than just the latest variant of an ideology that's led to the deaths of millions in Russia, China and everywhere else it's been put into practice. Yet, underneath the blather about "omissions" and "denial" of racism is the bleak acknowledgement that, alas, Canadians just aren't hateful enough to justify the cozy sinecure of taxpayer-funded hate police. "I would say that for a province as large and as diverse as Ontario, to have 2,500 formal complaints a year, that that's a very low level," Commissar Hall said. C'mon, you Ontario deadbeats, can't you hate a little more?Or complain a little more? To modify Brecht, we need to elect a new people, if only to file more "human rights" complaints.

Oh, and again, isn't that kind of a Nazi thing to do? Exaggerate the threat in order to justify government powers to deal with it?

**********

I don't have as low an opinion of Canadians as Barbara Hall and Jennifer Lynch do. I don't believe your liberty is the conditional discretionary gift of hack bureaucrats advised by Marxist theorists. You defeat bad ideas — whether Nazism, Marxism, jihadism, Steynism or Trudeaupian pseudo-"human rights" mumbo-jumbo — in the bracing air and light of day, in vigorous open debate, not in the fetid corridors of power policed by ahistorical nitwits. It's not a left/right thing. It's not a gay/straight thing. It's not a Jew/Muslim thing. It's not a hateful Steyn/nice fluffy caring compassionate Canadian thing. It's a free/unfree thing. And the commissars are on the wrong side.

"So she's made an argument from authority: the great Queen's Counsel has risen from her throne in the Star Chamber and pronounced, and let that suffice. Those of us who occupy less exalted positions in the realm might wish to ponder the evidence for her assertions." I loved this. I laughed out loud. Great writing. Good point. Love the metaphor. We're living in a fantasy world now. Listen to the White Witch, the Queen of Winter speak...

Friday, April 25, 2008

Eve

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/dawn.html

Well, here's something interesting. According to this, we humans really can all be traced back to a common first mother... Wonder how that works out? What made her or her offspring human, as compared to others of her species? (Besides God of course) Or were there others, of the same species, and they all died out until only those linking back to her survived? Did her children mate with each other? Or did they take mates from other similar species? How does evolution work anyway? Mind-boggling if you ask me.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

The God Delusion

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

From Richard Dawkins' best-selling book "The God Delusion."

Hmmm, where to start? I haven't read this book, so I don't know what the context of this quote is, or even if there is a context that would change much the meaning, but yes, I suppose that to some the God of the Old Testament might seem rather horrific. Put the Old Testament into context however, and I suppose that God might actually appear benevolent compared to some other gods.

A jealous God, yes, vindictive and bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, I can see why some people might think that, misogynistic and homophobic, I can see why some would believe as well, even racist. But petty? Unjust? Unforgiving? Someone has neither read the psalms nor the story of David, just for example. Control freak? Infanticidal and genocidal I could see, but filicidal? If there is one lesson you learn from the Old Testament and Abraham in particular, it is that Yahweh, unlike other gods DOES NOT desire the sacrifice of one's children to him. Pestilential, ha ha ha. OK. Megalomaniacal? I don't even know what that means. But sadomasochistic and capriciously malevolent bully, that's exaggerated.

You know what hasn't changed since the Old Testament? God. What has changed since the Old Testament is our perception of Him, of how the universe works, and oh, our way of expressing all that. If you read the Old Testament, (which I think our firend has not) you absolutely MUST put it into the context of the times to truely understand it. People thought the sky was "the waters above" and that light was independant of the sun! (see creation story - light is created first, and then the sun). The way people talked has changed. There is a lot of symbolism and yes, there are a lot of JOKES in the Old Testament. For example the barren woman whose name is Tamar. Which means fig tree, which is pretty much the symbol of fertility.

So if God hasn't changed his way of doing things, then I guess it's safe to say that He wasn't any more malevolent then than He is now. Just that now, when disaster strikes, we don't take it as punishment from Him. When society goes to Hell like this one is, yes it is because they've chosen to ignore God, but God isn't punishing them so much as letting them punish themselves. You want God out, he steps back and leaves. And then you wonder why there is so much suffering in the world. Control freak? God? If He were a control freak, we'd be living in a perfect world, perfectly subdued, perfect men and women, but we wouldn't be free to choose. God gave us that choice. What we do with it determines how happy we are.

A lot of the things done in God's name in the Old Testament were things that were happening in all cultures, because these are things that all cultures in that area in general thought was demanded of them. In fact, the Jews were ahead of their time. They were much nicer to their women than in other cultures. They took care of the orphans and widows. They forgave debts after 7 years. In many ways it was better to be a Jew than anything else. They were much cleaner for one, and caught less diseases.

Richard Dawkins needs to go take a few university courses in exigesis before he writes another book on the God of the Old Testament. He could also stand to start using his soul. You can't know God unless you reach out to Him through your soul. Pray to Him everyday and ask Him to show you He exists, and He WILL talk to you. Not in words you can hear, but to your heart. Anyone who has had a relationship with God, who has prayed to Him for a length of time, KNOWS beyond the shadow of a doubt that He does exist.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

The media's invisible victims

Barbara Kay, National Post Published: Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Heterosexual men can't catch a break from the media. When they're aggressors, they're condemned. When they're victims, they're ignored. Conversely, when women -- gay or straight -- and gay men are victims, they're pitied. And when they're aggressors, they're … hmm…also pitied.

A new study by Statistics Canada confirms what researchers in the field of domestic violence proved years ago: that partner violence amongst same-sex Canadians is significantly higher than amongst heterosexual couples. According to StatsCan, gays and lesbians experience twice the partner abuse of straight couples.

This is unwelcome news in general, of course. The media tends to promote an image of gays and lesbians as men and women who have fought for the right to love like straight people, not hate like them.

But it is particularly disconcerting to those Canadians -- most Canadians -- who have bought the myth that unprovoked domestic violence is virtually always a man-on-woman phenomenon.
Abuse of heterosexual men by their women partners is an irrefutable fact of life that for ideological reasons is rendered invisible on media radar. But no sooner were the StatsCan figures on gays released than a long gay-sympathetic feature article, "A skeleton that's still in the closet," by Erin Anderssen, appeared in The Globe and Mail.

The invisibility of heterosexual male victims I speak of shows up in the article's first comment on domestic violence: In asserting that "Canadians know full well that domestic violence is a major problem," Anderssen cites examples of a woman beaten by her boyfriend, and three children murdered by their father. To this journalist (and to be fair, to most others too), men hurting women and men killing children are what Canadians "know" about domestic violence.
What Canadians would know if the article was better researched is that men are almost equally likely to be assaulted by their female partners, and that children are statistically more likely to be abused or killed by their mothers than fathers.

Homophobia is presented as a serious social problem: "[T]here is real concern that talking publicly about troubled relationships will only feed homophobia." Well, talking publicly (non-stop in this country) about man-on-woman violence definitely feeds misandry, but apparently there is no "real concern" about that.

In eerily familiar narratives in all but gender, Anderssen describes patterns of gay and lesbian couple violence. In one, extreme possessiveness periodically explodes into physically dangerous rage, but the victim can't bring herself to leave. In another a physically powerful, but unprotesting lover accepts episodic batterings by his smaller lover -- very much like strong but chivalrous men who stoically endure battering by women -- while in both cases the victim keeps making excuses for the batterer ("He had a rough childhood"), just as women so often do with abusive men.

These stories reinforce credible research proving that intimate-partner violence has no gender, but is rooted in individual pathology.

Anderssen first concedes, then disowns this ideologically unpalatable truth. She says, "In many ways, whatever you make of the numbers, the pattern of abuse is the same, gay or straight " But if she'd left it at that, we'd have to admit that women are also capable of unprovoked violence.
We'd have to feel sorry for battered straight men as well as for gay men.

That would never do. So cue some -- any -- plausible excuses for gay violence: Gays drink more because they feel isolated; having HIV makes breaking up more difficult; maintaining secrecy about gayness is tough; their dads may have mocked them, so they can't form healthy relationships.

In other words, although entirely empirical conjectures, the reader is meant to understand these as "reasons" for gay-on-gay violence, while reasons other than innate control issues are never adduced for man-on-woman violence. Hadn't any straight abusive men "a rough childhood" or mocking dads? You're not likely to find out from our mainstream media.

Anderssen erroneously concludes, "there are still no shelters in Canada specifically for gay men." The truth is that there are quite a number of funded services for abused gays, including shelters and numerous counselling services, but almost none of either for abused straight men.

As ironic proof, the article is accompanied by a sidebar listing gay crisis services across Canada. Of the 10 cited, exactly one -- Wheatland Shelter in Alberta--provides funded service to straight men in domestic violence crisis.

All women and gay men represent about 60% of our population (WHOA! scientific studies have shown that 'gays' constitute only 1-2% of population, not the myth of 10% promoted by 'gay' activists without giving us any proof - RJ), but where domestic violence is concerned, together attract 99% of the media's sympathy and funded outreach. How long will the mainstream media's unethical double standard in reportage of domestic violence persist?

bkay@videotron.ca
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=466165

Funny Gabriel

Just before Easter, I went to check out a sale at Reitmans. All the winter stuff was on 50% of the lowest price, which means I got three or four very nice tops for about $4 each more or less. (Plus one from the new season for about $20). Gabriel and Nicolas were with me. Gabriel had a lot of fun picking out shirts for me to try on. I'd try them on and he'd say: "Oh you look very beautiful!" The one I got for about $20, was the one he liked the best. He insisted on that one. The next day he wanted to go back to the store and find more clothes for me.

Today, while Gabriel was in pre-school, I went back for the spring sale. It's getting warm and I'm waking up to the fact that hey, I need lighter clothes in summer! So I wanted to see if they had anything nice for not too much. I found a nice tank top, and went back to the school to pick up Gabriel. When he arrived in the van, he was all upset that I had gone shopping without him! He wanted to come choose clothes for me again! Future Clinton Kelly perhaps?

Friday, April 18, 2008

Madonna - This Used To Be My Playground

Madonna and I don't normally get along. I don't like her much, and if she knew me, she probably wouldn't like me much either. I've been mostly indifferent to her music. But this song, THIS SONG... is different. I would never have known it even existed except that I happened to be going through a music store in Paraguay of all places and came across an album with music from the Summer Olympics in Barcelona. I don't remember why I bought it. It certainly wasn't because Madonna was on it. But when I heard this song, it was my childhood in a nutshell. A song that shows some depth. Too bad it never made it to the radio.

Feminist?

In many ways, I am like any feminist. I believe in women's rights. The right to work, to fair and equal wages, the right to vote, etc, etc. I guess you could say I am a traditional feminist, such as the first suffragistes, who were also pro-life. A feminist such as the ones involved with feminists for life.

I am not a bitter, man-hating feminist who thinks that in order to be equal, we must become an adrogynous society. I appreciate men. I think men are the ones who have it hard now.

I like a dominant male. I like being told what to do, especially when it is in my best interest. Sometimes women need to be told what to do, because sometimes we forget to relax and have fun, we spend too much time doing what we think is necessary and we forget to just take a break. I had a guy tell me to put my watch away when I took it out to look at it and was going to put it on. He insisted. I complied. No looking at the time when you are spending time together. I've had another guy order me out of the house, to do something by myself, to get away for awhile, take a break. I've had another insist I come with him so he wouldn't worry about me. Oh yes, I do like a dominant male. I am coming out of the closet. I am no longer ashamed to be the weaker sex. Because we are not really. Each sex has its strong points and its weak points. We are complimentary. Not the same.

I like it when a guy wants to beat up whoever it was that hurt me. Of course you don't REALLY want them to go and do it. And of course they wouldn't really, but it sure feels good to know they'd LIKE to. My own son wanted to beat up someone in my defense just yesterday. And you know what? I am really proud of him for having that protective instinct.

You know what it is I've always wanted? It's to have a guy TAKE CARE OF ME. Not because I can't take care of myself. Just because that's how I'm wired. I've always wanted someone to lean on. And in turn I've always wanted to be there to support my man in whatever he undertook. I'm a behind the scenes girl. I'd make a great First Lady, I'd make a horrible President/Prime Minister. I'm the kind of girl who wants her man to have her on his arm as he makes his rounds. I'd smile graciously and make small talk. I want him to be proud of my appearance, and think how lucky he is to have such a beautiful lady beside him. Having me by his side makes him look that much better. I'll be his princess. My husband admitted a long time ago to, even though it may seem macho to some, being proud of having me by his side. And I know I can count on him when I need something. When I am incapable of getting what I need, my husband gets it. He is the dominant male after all. He insists until they comply. That's something he's good at. I am not.

I like men. I appreciate them. I appreciate their differences. I enjoy spending time with them. They have something women do not. They are good people. And I am very proud of the men in my life.

High King's Tomb by Kristen Britain



This is the third book in the series, and I had been waiting for it, it is here. I really enjoyed the first two. So far, they have been good, wholesome good vs evil, do what is right not what comes easy kind of books. Books about a real heroine. I'm going to be looking for the third one in stores and reading it... we'll see if it is just as good as the others.


With the ghostly help of the First Rider, Karigan G'ladheon had transported the corrupt spirit of Monrhavon the Black into the future, buying valuable time for her king and country.

But how far in the future was Mornhavon now? A hundred years? Ten years? Only one year? There was no way to tell.

And though Karigan and her fellow Riders scoured the land searching for lost magical documents to help mend the breach in the D'Yer Wall to fend off any incursions from Blackveil Forest and Mornhavon's return, and members of Clan D'Yer camped at the wall hoping to uncover its lost secrets, they were unaware of a threat to their kingdom that lay far closer.

Now, the descendants of Arcosians, once led by Mornhavon, were ready to reach out to claim the land their forebears had tried to conquer. And these vengeful enemies, hidden within the seemingly peaceful borders of Sacoridia, had spent generations honing the powers of dark magic -- a force against which the Sacordians no longer had any defense...

When society's demands for performance and perfection exceed the limit

Was reading through the Chatelaine Québec February 2008 edition the other day, and they had done this survey on sex. (Of course, what else?) While I am relieved to find out that in fact contrary to what the media would have us think, only a very small minority is actually into kinky sex, threesomes and exchangism... some of the questions they asked and issues brought up disturbed me.

For one, there is this common idea that one must perform in bed. Huh?! What? Perform? Are we on a stage for all the world to see? Has sex become some act where one must neverendingly surpass one's previous performances and become increasingly more imaginative and innovative? No wonder these people are never satisfied with the sex they are having. They're putting WAY too much pressure on each other, and they keep wondering what they might be missing out on elsewhere.

Sometimes, simplicity is what is most profound. You find someone you really like, and are attracted to, you get to know them, you share your most intimate thoughts with them, you realize you have similar points of view on all things important. You realize you want to spend your life with them. You marry them, you make love to them. You don't perform. This person knows your intimate thoughts remember? No acting here. Just a deep sharing of who you both are. Simple as that. It doesn't matter if you are in bed or on a deserted beach somewhere, making love is always good with a person like that. No pressure.

Then there is the issue of how a woman's self-image gets in the way of her performance in bed. Gosh, again, a partner who knows your intimate thoughts isn't going to judge you on a bit of belly flab. And if you also know his most intimate thoughts, you'd know this by now.

Eduardo Verastegui - en espanol

http://www.unrealbug.com/testimonios/eduardo_verastegui_conversion.html

What really happened

Ethical Questions Remain After Yale Administrators Reveal Student Fiction‏

Yale University now reports that the art student’s claim to have artificially inseminated herself and induced miscarriage is “a creative fiction.”

According to a statement by Helaine S. Klasky, Yale spokesperson, “[The student] is engaged in performance art. Her art project includes visual representations, a press release and other narrative materials. She stated to three senior Yale University officials today, including two deans, that she did not impregnate herself and that she did not induce any miscarriages. The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body. “She is an artist and has the right to express herself through performance art.”

Though many on both sides of the abortion issue accepted the reports at face value, Feminists for Life was suspicious and careful to qualify comments about “the art student’s alleged actions.” FFL also declined to print the student’s name.

“Had these acts been real, they would have violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns,” Yale spokesperson Klasky said.

FFL President Serrin Foster expressed relief that the student did not harm herself in this way but said that “ethical questions remain about displaying this student's art project and the impact the story may have on women who have experienced miscarriage and abortions.”

Other “performances” on the Yale campus, including the mock abortions by Yale Medical Students for Choice, “illustrate a callous disregard for women, their bodies’ and their children,” Foster added.

Recognizing that some on each side of the abortion debate rely on shock tactics and graphic images to make their respective points, “Feminists for Life prefers to focus on addressing the unmet needs of women,” Foster said.

For more information about supporting FFL's progressive, holistic and woman-centered solutions, please visit www.feministsforlife.org.

The original (untrue) story

Warning: The following contains descriptions of disturbing incidents at Yale University.

[April 17, 2008 – Alexandria, VA] According to an article published in the Yale Daily News, an art major’s senior project, which will go on display with other projects April 22, documents a nine-month process in which she artificially inseminated herself “as often as possible” and took abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriage. The installation will feature blood from the abortions and videos of the student miscarrying. She told the Yale Daily News she was unconcerned about the medical effects of the process and did not consider it necessary to consult a doctor.

“If the report of this student’s self-mutilation and destruction of her children is true,” said Feminists for Life president Serrin M. Foster, “we hope that the student gets the medical care she needs after multiple self-induced abortions.”

“We hope that Yale administrators will investigate how this could have happened, and that all colleges and universities will work to protect students who may put themselves and others in danger in the future,” said Foster.

"Where is Planned Parenthood on this? What is the reaction of other abortion advocates and providers to this story?" Foster asked. "Abortion advocates say it is ‘her body, her choice,’ so it will be difficult for them to come out against multiple self-induced abortions. But as women's advocates, they have a duty speak out against this potentially dangerous practice."

Foster noted that this was not the first “horror story” from Yale University this year.

Yale Medical Students for Choice “celebrated” the anniversary of Roe v. Wade by holding mock abortions. According to the Yale Daily News (which later deleted the article), Rasha Khoury, a medical student who plans to perform abortions, reported that when she was observing real abortions, “Often times, women [patients] are crying and cursing and saying they’re going to hell.” “You’ll be able to see [fetal] arms and stuff,” she explained, “but [they are] still just miniscule.” Khoury described an internship that teaches people how to perform abortions as “fun because you meet people from all over the country who do [abortions].”

Foster said, “The natural shock and revulsion to the art student’s alleged actions may have the unintended consequence of pushing many people toward a greater respect for life. We hope that another outcome will be greater respect for women and for our bodies.”

Meanwhile, Feminists for Life is actively reaching out to students and administrators at Yale as well as other colleges and universities nationwide.

Through FFL’s thought-provoking lectures, problem-solving Pregnancy Resource Forums,SM and FFL’s new Rally for Resources,SM Feminists for Life is redirecting a contentious debate toward responding to the needs of pregnant and parenting students.

“FFL works with those on both sides of the abortion issue and a unique group of stakeholders to transform college campuses. Together, we focus on the real needs of pregnant and parenting students,” Foster said.

Feminists for Life is a non-sectarian, nonpartisan grassroots organization dedicated to empowering women through progressive, woman-centered solutions for themselves and their children.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

This is just disgusting!

Don't eat at McDonald's
on South West Marine Drive in Vancouver

EZRA LEVANT
http://www.ezralevant.com/



By Ezra Levant on April 15, 2008 4:09 PM

Don't eat at McDonald's on South West Marine Drive in Vancouver.

Listen. I love McDonald's, both for their food and for what they stand for philosophically. I thought that Super Size Me was a piece of anti-capitalist, anti-beef propaganda.

But when you're in Vancouver, skip the McDonald's on Marine Drive.

That's because the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that one of the employees there has a human right not to wash her hands when working in their kitchen.

Beena Datt claimed that she developed a "skin condition" that meant she couldn't wash her hands in compliance with McDonald's hygiene policy. That's the same hygiene policy that makes McDonald's like an embassy to Canadians travelling overseas -- when you're in a Third World country, and tired of eating in hygiene-challenged local restaurants, you can count on a western standard of cleanliness and quality at McDonald's.

In B.C., McDonald's hygiene policy isn't just a matter of corporate pride. It's a matter of the law -- both the Health Act and the Food Premises Regulations. And then there's B.C.'s Food Protection Guidelines issued by the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. McDonald's subscribes to all of them. Hell, they probably helped write them.

McDonald's is fanatical about hand-washing, to their credit. They have hand-washing rules. Not just the obvious "wash your hands after the bathroom" rules. But other rules, like wash your hands after shaking someone's hand. Wash your hands after retrieving food from the freezer. Wash your hands after touching a door handle. They even have a chime that goes off every hour. It's a "we're all going to wash our hands now" chime. Seriously -- see paragraph 23 of the ruling.

Datt wouldn't wash her hands. She just wouldn't -- she said she couldn't. So her employment was terminated. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ordered that McDonald's pay her not only $23,000 for "lost income", but an additional $25,000 for her "dignity and self-respect". You see, in B.C. a food preparation worker's self-respect trumps a company's commitment to cleanliness. They violated her "human rights".

The $50,000+ penalty -- plus several years of legal fees and medical and rehab experts -- isn't the worst of it. Inventing a "human right" for a worker to go to the bathroom and then to handle meat without washing her hands in between, as an excuse for that $50,000 shakedown isn't the worst of it either.

The worst of it is that the BCHRT has ordered that McDonald's, in paragraph 298 of the decision, to "cease the discriminatory conduct or any similar conduct and refrain from committing the same or similar contravention."

Beena Datt and her filthy hands are gone. But the restaurant has been ordered not to enforce its hand washing policy in any future cases like Datt's.

I wonder what will happen if, God forbid, someone were to contract a disease from that McDonald's because of this insane order. Could such a victim sue McDonald's for failing to live up to its legal public health requirements, even though McDonald's wanted to do so? Or could the BCHRT itself be sued? Would your answer be different if it was just one customer who got an upset stomach -- or a dozen people dying from e. coli, Walkerton style?

And, dear reader, if you think that this decision is some rogue ruling, you just don't know human rights commissions. This decision has plenty of precedents -- such as the Alberta ruling that found a human right to work in a restaurant, while infected with Hepatitis. There, Ruby Repas only got $5,000 for her "human right" to be a health hazard. (That case, incidentally, was argued by the Alberta HRC's resident Muslim supremacist, Arman Chak).

In 2004, Repas won $5,000. Now Datt won $50,000 plus interest. What will the penalty be next time? If you were a restaurateur, what would you do: fire a hazardous employee -- or risk a potential $150,000 price tag?

And if you were a customer of McDonald's in Vancouver, or Albert's Restaurant in Red Deer, or any other citizen of Canada in whose name these absurd rulings are being ordered, how much worse must these commissions get before you agree with me that they are just not normal?
h/t BCF, AS.

ADDENDUM: Some commenters suggest that I am downplaying Datt's problem. I'm not. If she really did have a skin condition that stopped her from washing her hands, there are other remedies out there for her, from workers compensation to long term disability insurance, to switching jobs within McDonald's, or going elsewhere. All of those remedies predate the innovation of human rights commissions, and still coincide with them today. That's an added absurdity and unfairness with HRCs: my reading of the past five years of Alberta's HRC cases shows that they have essentially become an additional top-up to workers compensation claims. In this case, it's a $50,000 top-up. Not bad, for a McDonald's worker.

But HRCs don't have the expertise of workers compensation staff, nor are they bound by the same rules and precedents. And, it goes without saying, that in this case, they lack a basic understand of hygiene and food-borne illnesses. I have sympathy for Datt, as much as I would for anyone else who appears to have a long term disability, if that's really the case here (there was no testimony from doctors). For this to be twisted into a "human rights case", and for McDonald's to be ordered to accommodate her to the point of "undue hardship", and for a permanent order to be lodged against them reducing their hand-washing regimen, is abominable.

Monday, April 14, 2008

Sports - Why even bother?

This summer I will be playing Monday evenings, either at 7:30 or 8:30, at the soccer stadium here in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu. Jean-Alexandre will also be playing soccer on Monday evenings, starting in May, around 7:00 or so in the evening, half the time in town at one of the outdoor fields at the military base, which is, by the way, not in the same half of town as the soccer stadium. The other half of the time he won't even be in town. Dominic will also be playing soccer on Monday evenings, starting in May, partly in town at the military base fields and partly out of town at around 7:00 or so as well. Maryssa will be playing at any one of the more than 20 soccer fields scattered around town on Monday evenings (as well as Wednesday evenings) from 6:30 to 7:30. Only Gabriel is left to be confirmed, and it's a fifty-fiftly chance he plays on Monday and Wednesday from 6:30 to 7:30 as well.

I can't separate myself into 5!!! Even with two parents, it's impossible, because one of us also has to play... What ensues then is the head-hurting organizational process of getting each kid a lift.

Why do I bother? Because soccer (or any other sport or activity) teaches some very good lessons about life.

You want to be the best soccer player you can be? You are going to need a lot of hard work, repetition, determination, patience, endurance, and sacrifice. You may have to give up other things because you have to go to practice. You will have to eat your vegetables and avoid junk food. You are going to have to learn how to get along with others and work as a team. You will learn responsibility. Your team is counting on you to be there, and to be at your best. You will let them down if you say you'll be there but are not. When you fall (and you will fall) you pick yourself up and you keep going. If you get hurt (and you will get hurt) you heal and you keep going.

Along the way you will forge friendships. You will have fun. You will laugh at your mistakes. You will relax together after a particularly gruelling practice or a hard game. You will win together, you will lose together.

You face forward, towards the goal. You never, ever give up.

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Theft Problem IMPORTANT MESSAGE:

A joke I got in an e-mail:

You've heard about people who have been abducted and had their kidneys removed by black-market organ thieves.

My thighs were stolen from me during the night a few years ago. I went to sleep and woke up with someone else's thighs. It was just that quick.

The replacements had the texture of cooked oatmeal. Whose thighs were these and what happened to mine? I spent the entire summer looking formy thighs. Finally, hurt and angry, I resigned myself to living out my life in jeans. And then the thieves struck again.My butt was next. I knew it was the same gang, because they took pains to match my new rear-end to the thighs they had stuck me with earlier.

But my new butt was attached at least three inches lower than my original! I realized I'd have to give up my jeans in favor of long skirts.

Two years ago I realized my arms had been switched. One morning I was fixing my hair and was horrified to see the flesh of my upper arm swing to and fro with the motion of the hairbrush. This was really getting scary - my body was being replaced one section at a time. What could they do to me next?

When my poor neck suddenly disappeared and was replaced with a turkey neck, I decided to tell my story. Women of the world, wake up and smellthe coffee! Those 'plastic' surgeons are using REAL replacement body parts –stolen from you and me! The next time someone you know has something 'lifted', look again - was it lifted from you?

THIS IS NOT A HOAX. This is happening to women everywhere every night. WARN YOUR FRIENDS!

P.S. Last year I thought some one had stolen my Boobs. I was lying in bed and they were gone! But when I jumped out of bed, I was relieved to see that they had just been hiding in my armpits as I slept. Now I keep them hidden in my waistband.

If I had to do it all over again...

... my motto would probably be:


My ex-boyfriend, with whom I communicate from time to time, invited me to view pictures on his page on Orkut. In order to view the pictures, I had to join the darn community. So I did. In Spanish no less. There is a point to this seemingly pointless introduction, here it is:

On the personal part of the profile there was a space to fill in about "What I have learned from my previous relationships" and another about the "Perfect Mate". I hope my ex read both. I'm not shy, I wrote the truth.

What I have learned from my previous relationships? That you cannot give men any ground or they want to move in (figuratively speaking), that you have to have confidence in yourself, to believe in the validity of your dreams and know how to say NO.


The perfect mate? Unfortunately, the perfect mate does not exist, and even if he did, I am no longer single anyway. But here's a good idea of who I think the perfect mate would be: He believes in dreams, his own and mine. He has a profound Catholic faith. He makes me laugh. He listens when I talk and with him, I feel I can say anything. With him I can be completely sincere. He likes music, appreciates art and developes his soul. He likes the outdoors and sports more than television. He is responsible and available. And, if he is taller than me and stronger than me, then that is definitely a plus.

To give my husband credit, I think he fills most of the above criteria. He is definitely responsible and available. He may not be much taller than me, but he is definitely stronger, and you know, there isn't much that's more attractive to a woman like me than knowing without a doubt that the stronger person is NOT me. He definitely makes me laugh. Uncontrolably sometimes. He likes music... I'm pretty sure he believes in dreams... he enjoys some sports (the ones where he doesn't have to run too much)...

But this isn't about my husband, nor about my ex... it's about me. Hypothetical me. If I could be 18 again, but still have all the life experience of an almost 36 year old woman... I suppose this is about what I wish for my children:

I would trust no man. Men aren't wired the way women are. I didn't know this. You don't let yourself be alone with a man anywhere where he might be tempted to start something. No matter how trustworthy he might seem, no matter who or what he is. Not even if he is an ex-seminarian. Men are men, seminarian or not. Some seminarians may have good self-control, some do not. There is no point in taking chances.

I would not have sex before mariage. And here is why, my reasons why, my own, not the Church's (althought the Chruch would surely agree with me) and not anyone else's... (although other people would surely have similar reasons), these are my own reasons:

1. We are human, body and soul. Physical and spiritual. I would want it all when I have sex. All or nothing. The spiritual orgasm as well as the physical. You can't have that without knowing a person really well. You can't know a person really well until you've known them awhile and learned to trust them with who you are. You can't have the spiritual unless you DO trust them with who you are. If you are going to wait that long anyway, what's a bit more?

2. Premature sex can make you become attached to the wrong person. It can make it that much harder to leave someone who isn't right for you. Either you don't break it off, and then live only a half-relationship, or breaking up hits you even harder.

3. The only 100% guaranteed method of preventing pregnancy is STILL abstinence. Short of drastic measures like a hysterectomy. Other methods may prevent pregnancy most of the time, but not 100%. This in turn guarantees that no child has to risk growing up without ever having had a father. (excepting the premature death of said father of course)

4. I would want to know someone intimately before I had sex with them. I would want a relationship based on the amazingness of a person's personality, not on the amazingness of the sex we had. Amazing sex last only for so long. Amazing personality is forever. I would want to be with someone who, the more I discovered about them, the more amazing I thought they were. I would want a spiritual orgasm loooong before I get the physical one. Amazing premature sex gets in the way of that. You can't help it. You see the person through rose-coloured glasses.

5. If a man is capable of waiting for sex, then it must be that I really am worth something in his eyes. If he dumps me because I won't have sex, then too bad for HIM. He'll never know what he is missing.

Move over Tim Horton's


I'm making my own coffee at home now... caffe moka, caffe latte, espresso... The only thing I don't offer is a paper cup with a rim to roll up to win...

Free Society or Totalitarian State?

I find this article interesting, as I think that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and should be treated with respect, regardless of said opinion. We can't all agree, all the time. I myself, do not believe that homosexuality is either a natural nor healthy option to heterosexuality. Well, natural perhaps in the sense that anything else, cancer, schitzophrenia, bi-polarity, whatever is also natural. But not healthy. Just look at the higher percentage of health problems practicing homosexuals have.

Some people may feel they are comfortable with being gay. There's not much any of us can do about that nor for them. But those who are not comfortable with being gay, those who would rather NOT be gay, where is the help for them? It is now politically incorrect to help anyone become heterosexual. They're told to accept it, live with it, embrace it... What if a bi-polar person were told the same thing?

What if people started telling me I was bi-polarphobic and discriminatory, and a horrible person, just because I don't think that bi-polar people should have to live with bi-polarity, and that bi-polarity is not very healthy. What if I lost my job over it? Even though I had friends who were bi-polar and always treated them with respect, and defended them when people laughed at them and helped them out when they need help? What if extremist bi-polar people started promoting the bi-polar "life-style" (guess that's a stretch, but let's use our imaginations here, one can always subsititute pedophile and pedophile lifestyle if one prefers... that might be closer.) and went into schools, to practically recruit new bi-polar people.

I have nothing against promoting gay awareness. I don't like gay pride. I don't think it is something to be proud of, or to promote. I don't think a gay person should lose his job just because he is gay. I don't think he should be ridiculed, or beat up. I think he deserves as much respect as the rest of us, none of us are perfect. I don't think I should lose my job either just because I don't think that's a healthy (nor even a happy) lifestyle, nor because I don't want people coming into the school my kids go to to promote it as such. That is just as discriminatory as doing it to the homosexual. Freedom of speech and opinion for ALL.

Conduct unbecoming a free society
Chris Kempling, National Post Published: Wednesday, April 09, 2008

On the first day of the counselling psychology class, the instructor asked us to share what was the most important fact about ourselves. Jim (not his real name) identified himself as gay. I identified myself as a Christian. I decided to befriend him and we went through the two-year program together. I even stayed overnight at his house when we had a weekend seminar in his town.

Fast forward to the present. I encouraged my high school-aged son, a social leader, to befriend gay classmates, protect them if they were bullied and invite them over if he wished. He did (and was harassed for doing so). After graduation, his friend "Andy" moved away, but stayed overnight at our house on two occasions when back in town visiting.

I mention these anecdotes, because some people are convinced that I am "homophobic." They believe this because I publicly express opinions consistent with socially conservative views of sexual behaviour. I have been suspended, without pay, twice from my job as a school teacher -- once for one month, and once for three months. It was hard on my family. Yet I maintain that people can hold, and express such views but still treat those who practise different values with decency. I do, and so does my son.

The British Columbia College of Teachers won a court decision against me in 2006 for "conduct unbecoming a member." The reason: Between 1997 and 2000, I wrote several letters to newspapers, outlining research data related to homosexual behaviour, and what position major world religions take on the matter. There was a vigorous exchange of views on the editorial pages of my local newspaper, the Quesnel Cariboo Observer. I had thought that was the place where people are free to debate the issues of the day.

The College of Teachers, and my employer, the Quesnel School District, believe that my published opinions had the potential to "poison the atmosphere" in my school. I provided letters from five school administrators which said that my letters had no impact whatsoever on the school atmosphere, but they were ignored.

The college's lawyer stated categorically that "everything you have written, in its entirety, is derogatory and discriminatory." I continue to find that a bewildering statement, because I was quoting peer-reviewed research data, including research done by investigators who are homosexual themselves. Furthermore, I have never had a human rights complaint laid against me.

In fact, all sides agreed that there was no negative impact in my school. No parent, student or homosexual person complained to the college or my employer about my letters. I never raised the issue in my classroom or with students with whom I worked. I have even received two letters of commendation from my principals for my work with sexual minority students. Nevertheless, the courts ruled that no "evidence of harm" is required to discipline a member. Having wrong opinions is sufficient reason to deny a worker his paycheque for four months.
One would think that the B.C. Civil Liberties Association might be concerned about this attack on free speech. On the contrary, they were granted leave to intervene against me on the side of the College of Teachers.

On Jan. 28 of this year, the college issued a new citation of "conduct unbecoming," with 12 new offenses for items written between 2003 and 2005. Once again, no evidence of "harm" was alleged, and in fact, there isn't even a complainant.

My offenses include signing two letters to the editor as "the local representative of the Christian Heritage Party." This is true. I did run as a candidate in the last federal election for the CHP, and came in fifth out of eight candidates. I wrote the letters in question, after the national leader of the CHP asked me to be the candidate. In my role as CHP spokesperson for my riding, I outlined the party's position on the nationally debated issue of same-sex marriage. If a teacher can be sanctioned for letting the public know what his party's position is on matters of national debate, does this not make Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom meaningless?

Chief Justice Beverley Mc-Lachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada, writing in the Figueroa decision stated: "Section 3 should be understood with reference to the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process …Full political debate ensures an open society benefiting from diverse opinions … Marginal or regional parties tend to raise issues not adopted by national parties."

The possibility that a political candidate may be sanctioned for representing his political party is alarming to say the least. I think citizens of a free democracy need to be able to join and speak for the party of their choice, notwithstanding their occupation.

I have also been censured for writing an essay on the philosophical differences between social liberals and social conservatives, and for discussing the therapy services of my private Christian counselling practice, in a CBC radio interview.

Frankly, I find it disconcerting that my professional body wishes to sanction me for my political involvement, for conduct in a completely different profession servicing my own faith community and for opinions published in other provinces or countries. This action has potentially alarming consequences, not only for Canadian teachers, but for all regulated professions (social workers, psychologists, nurses, etc.), for whom such cases end up establishing legal precedents.

I refuse to be marginalized as a second-class citizen, simply because I publicly state social conservative opinions or represent a "fringe" political party. And I don't think publicly espousing the Christian worldview should be prohibited for public school teachers. If I don't have free speech, or freedom of political association, then no Canadian does.

kempling@telus.net

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=431535

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

30 Something Women


Considering that I am over 30 myself, and that most good things, like whiskey and wine for example, get better with age...

Considering that there are all kinds of clothes out there, for all kinds of bodies...

Considering that I am still in pretty good shape physically...

Considering that good hairdressers and make-up exist...

I think I can say I'm a 10 myself. And I'm not being conceited. I think all you 30 something women out there can be 10's too...

A 30 something woman is still young, but she's got way more life experience than a 20 something woman. She's more responsible, she knows what she wants, she knows who she is. She's probably more honest, more true to herself... why would a 30 something man even consider anyone else but a 30 something woman? (I say this, but I was 23 when I met my husband who was then 31.)

Monday, April 07, 2008

Charlton Heston made history

By Doug Patton
April 7, 2008

“Some people make headlines while others make history.”

— Philip Elmer-DeWitt

American Writer and Editor

There are few of the old stars left in Hollywood, men who loved their country enough to show her the respect, service and loyalty she deserves. Charlton Heston was one of those stars.

Heston joined the military during World War II. After his discharge from the U.S. Army Air Corps, he went on to become one of the most famous actors of his generation.

Hollywood director Cecil B. DeMille is said to have been struck by the muscular, 6-foot-3-inch Heston’s likeness to Michelangelo’s famous statue of Moses. Heston’s portrayal of the Old Testament prophet in DeMille’s 1956 biblical epic, “The Ten Commandments,” etched his image upon the American consciousness.

A few years later, Heston starred in “Ben-Hur,” a movie that stood for a generation as the most honored film in Hollywood history, receiving eleven Academy Awards, including best picture and best actor (Heston).

Both these movies dealt with great themes that stirred moviegoers to consider the nobility of their spiritual legacy. These two films stand as a testament, not only to the contribution of a great actor in a golden age of filmmaking, but also to the willingness of Hollywood to inspire us and to reinforce our faith, rather than degrade us and make us ashamed of our Judeo-Christian heritage, as does so much of today’s Hollywood fare.

Charlton Heston remains the enduring face of both these films, as well as many others, such as “The Agony and the Ecstasy,” a 1965 telling of the story of Michelangelo painting the Sistine Chapel ceiling for Pope Julius II.

But Heston was much more than just a handsome face or even a great actor. He was an activist. Long before he became known for his passionate leadership of the National Rifle Association, and long before it was fashionable in Hollywood, he joined the cause of desegregation. When an Oklahoma movie theater refused to allow blacks to attend the premier his 1961 film, “El Cid,” Heston joined the picket line outside the theater. Heston also accompanied the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., at the 1963 Washington, D.C., civil rights march.

Back in 1960, Heston had been a supporter of John F. Kennedy for president; but by 1980, he had switched his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican and became an ardent supporter of his old Hollywood friend, Ronald Reagan. A consistent foe of racial discrimination, Heston spoke out against affirmative action. He even resigned from the Actors Equity Association because of the union’s refusal to allow a white actor to play a Eurasian role in the stage version of “Miss Saigon.” Heston called the action “obscenely racist.”

And in an era when most of Hollywood was refusing to criticize violence and obscenity in “the arts,” Heston rebuked Time Warner at a stockholders meeting for releasing a violent rap album featuring the song “Cop Killer.”

Heston’s five-year tenure as president of the National Rifle Association, from 1998 to 2003, gave the organization visibility it had never had before. Perhaps the most memorable moment of his presidency came at the 2000 NRA convention. The group was strongly opposing the presidential candidacy of then Vice President Al Gore, who favored restrictive gun control. At the convention, Heston was presented with a hand-made Brooks flintlock rifle. To the delight of the crowd, Heston held the weapon over his head and declared, “From my cold, dead hands, Mr. Gore!”

In 2003, diagnosed with Alzheimer ’s disease, Heston stepped down as NRA president. In a stunning example of the lack of class displayed by today’s Hollywood nitwits, actor George Clooney joked about Heston’s affliction, saying that Heston deserved whatever was said about him for his involvement with the NRA. Heston, always the gentleman, said he felt sorry for Clooney, since he had as much chance of developing Alzheimer’s as anyone else.

Charlton Heston was a culture warrior. He was unapologetically pro-life, pro-family and pro-American. He once characterized political correctness as “tyranny with manners.”

When this great man died last Saturday with his beloved wife of 64 years at his side, he was 84 years old.

Thank you, Charlton Heston, for making history, not just headlines. May you rest in peace.



© Copyright 2008 by Doug Patton


Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, TheConservativeVoice.com and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Liberalism vs conservatism

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats."


* P.J. O'Rourke

Got this quote in an e-mail today. I'm afraid I have to beg to differ... I get so tired of liberals bashing conservatives and conservatives bashing liberals. Get along people...

Both sides have some good points. Liberals certainly aren't all spoiled brats... although the more morally liberal you are, I guess the more that is true. But conservative thinking isn't all good either. I happen to be rather traditional myself, when it comes to sex, love and mariage. But surprisingly enough, when it comes to most other things, I'm actually quite liberal. So depending on which subject you choose, I may or may not fit in your camp. That's okay. I'm used to not fitting in anywhere.