Bringing Balance Back To Universities?

An interesting article defending marriage, same sex partners, and the like while pointing out the fallacy of the liberal positions that teens can’t help themselves, heteros are bigots, and moms are a waste.  The best part is that all this is argued with REASON not religion.  Ideas and not bumper sticker rhetoric.

More proof that the biggest fallacy of liberalism is that libs are the smartest people in the room…

Every fall, kids arrive on college campuses and learn that their basic moral intuitions on sexual matters don’t square with the reigning ideas. Thanks to debased campus culture and overreaching on the part of administrators and professors, students are beginning to respond systematically-and they’re having an impact. Here’s how.

No two undergraduate experiences are quite the same. But the undergraduate years are marked by certain commonalities: students are challenged intellectually, socially, and ethically. Long-held beliefs are forced to submit to rational scrutiny. No longer is “that’s just the way we do it” or “that’s just the way I feel about the issue” sufficient. In philosophy classrooms and biology labs, students are expected to slough off the opinions they held in their pre-critical-thinking days and adopt the conclusions of the best arguments. Everything is to be tested, and only the rationally defensible is to be retained. …

But it only gets worse. Campus officials in lecture halls and administrative offices, rather than challenging debased campus culture, actually aid and abet it. “Abstinence education?” That’s a scientifically disproven method of avoiding pregnancy and disease. A pill and a latex sheath is all you need. “Chastity?” Hardly a virtue, the best moral philosophy and clinical psychology tell us that it’s a vice-an unhealthy attitude of repressing sexual desire, hating one’s body, and viewing sex as dirty. Courtship, dating, marriage, and then sex? All you need are consenting adults (in any number or pairings) to have good sex. And marriage is an outdated ideal anyway. …

Yet it’s not just the hook-up culture. If you think men and women are equal in dignity yet distinct and complementary, bringing unique and special gifts to bear on all aspects of life, expect to be called a sexist. If you think mothering and fathering are different, “parenting” in the abstract doesn’t exist as such, expect to be met with hostility. And if you’re at an Ivy League University and intend on being a mom first and foremost, expect to be told that you’re going to waste your education. …

First and foremost, as a group at an academic institution and as heirs of Anscombe’s legacy, the Anscombe Society was about ideas-the give and take of reasons, the making and countering of arguments. Too often the academy has its own orthodoxy on issues of sexuality, and the prevailing orthodoxies are treated as immune from challenge. In classrooms, administrative offices, student groups, and student publications, an unquestionable dogma had been established. The Anscombe Society, through guest lecturers, newspaper op-eds, and discussion groups, provided serious and respectful academic responses and counter-arguments. The scholars they brought to campus to give public lectures made the intellectual case for a traditional conception of human sexuality and the human family from a multi- and inter-disciplinary perspective that drew on outstanding scholarly works of philosophy, theology, ethics, biology, medicine, psychiatry, psychology, economics, and sociology. They created an academic database on their website with the best articles from these same disciplines. …

Angry White Men: Key To Election

Gary Hubbell at the Aspen Times has an interesting piece on the angry white guy voting block. Give it a read and you’ll be surprised how much you like AWM. I liked his description so much that I have reprinted his article in its entirety here for posterity.

There is a great amount of interest in this year’s presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking candidates — a woman and an African-American — while the conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their party’s nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.

Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.

There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.

His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.

The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.

He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.

The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him.

The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.

His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.

He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.

Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”

He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.

He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.

Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.

He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.

There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.

He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.

Now while I love his descriptions, I disagree with his conclusion. AWM has a busy life and while he has no love for Hilary he certainly has higher aspirations than a Clinton landslide loss. In fact, that is why AWM is -well- angry: he doesn’t have a good surrogate for himself in Washington as well as more local venues. Politicians in general have been off the rails of his views for long enough that his patience is wearing thin. And don’t expect 08 to solve that as all three candidates are shadows of the leadership he would respect. But AWM could make 2012 quite interesting.

Iowa Helps Some, Hurts Others

To see the impact that Iowans had we need to recap the polls and the standings. Going into the Hawkeye Cauci the latest polls had candidates here:

Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll
Obama 31%
Edwards 27%
Clinton 24%

Mike Huckabee 31%
Mitt Romney 25%
Fred Thompson, John McCain and Ron Paul tied at ~10%

Here’s where they finished:

Iowa Results
Obama 38%
John Edwards 30%
Hillary Clinton 29%

Huckabee 34%
Mitt Romney 25%
Fred Thompson and John McCain tied at 13%
Ron Paul 10%
(Giuliani didn’t campaign in Iowa so no one was surprised at his 3%)

Now, Iowa is important not because of any significance in the actual number of delegates it will send on, but for two separate perceptions it creates. The first is a sort of an expectations check. Polls are never right because “likely voters” and actual voters are two different things. (Consider whom is usually at home with nothing else to do but talk to pollsters.) The second is the much important momentum. Americans like winners and like being in their camp. Giuliani protected his national momentum by skipping a state where he would do poorly.

Now the winners and losers. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have officially left the race after failing to break the 1% mark. Americans may love underdogs but we hate losers. Thankfully, after a year of campaigning we are quickly headed towards a field small enough to fit on one debate stage.

Fred Thompson on the other hand got a boost with a higher than expected 3rd place finish. Thompson only had limited campaign coverage of Iowa, so a respectable showing bodes well for his stronger southern states.

Obama finished stronger than expected and pulled 9 points ahead of the “inevitable” candidate. Political pundants had said a 10+ point lead would be fatal to Hillary. So not quite the death blow but certainly the young Senator is starting to look like an actual challenge.

Iowa was not good for the Clinton camp. While not a fatal blow, it joins an ever growing list of mis-steps and stumbles by Hillary in a bid that few would have questioned a year ago. That’s the biggest problem with inevitability for the Clinton campaign: it raises expectations. If you don’t win consistently you could suddenly find yourself very alone. Not that it’s for lack of trying: the campaign has been through a dozen slogan messages, tried to trip up Obama with indirect character attacks, done their best to avoid any unscripted press time. But they’ve failed to find real traction as Obama grows stronger and Hillary slides ever closer to the tipping point.

Call it racism, sexism or just great hair, but Edwards -while largely unaffected by Iowa- proved that he is still a top tier candidate in a race that could shake up considerably in the next month.

Finally, Mike Huckabee. Mike won big but no one is really sure what that means. Huckabee’s dramatic surge is historically unprecedented and therefore largely a question mark. Supporters believe his momentum will carry him on, while everyone else is expecting a more “flash in the pan” result. I personally believe he will last a lot longer than most will give him credit for. Mike Huckabee is an excellent politician in a race with many who are -well- not. His Bill Clintonesque Populist appeal is much stronger than most realize, but his base will in the end abandon him. Much of his surge is from the religious right, whom really know little about him. As the spot light and campaign trail reveal more of the man and his record, Mike will discover that it takes more than being an ordained minister to win the Presidency.

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming “Greatest Scam in History”

John Coleman is the guy that put weather on the map. Or at least on 24/7 cable TV. He’s a Meteorologist’s Meteorologist and he’s speaking out against global warming. Do you think he has enough credibility to overcome all the celebrities that have proved global warming over a soy latte?

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.

Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990’s to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

Now their ridicules manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it…

I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970’s to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn’t accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science…

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped.

This is by far, the best rebuttal I’ve seen to date. Visit the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project for a word doc with Coleman’s full comments.

Democrats, Party of the Rich

The demographic reality is that, in America, the Democratic party is the new “party of the rich”. More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households. Using Internal Revenue Service data, the Heritage Foundation identified two categories of taxpayers- single filers with incomes of more than $100,000 and married filers with incomes of more than $200,000 – and combined them to discern where the wealthiest Americans live and who represents them.

Democrats now control the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.

This new political demography holds true in the House of Representatives, where the leadership of each party hails from different worlds. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, represents one of America’s wealthiest regions. Her San Francisco district has more than 43,700 high-end households. Fewer than 7,000 households in the western Ohio district of House Republican leader John Boehner enjoy this level of affluence…

It should be noted that income and wealth are often confused.  Due to the fact that IRS income data is much easier to come by, but not a reflection of “wealth” or net worth. For instance, you could make $120,000 in southern California and be financially unable to purchase a home.  You could also have a net worth north $100 MILLION dollars, but show an IRS income of less than $100k. (Which is actually how we got saddled with the AMT).

Just a quick Fair Tax side note: focusing on and taxing income mainly hurts people trying to become rich; not the actual rich.