So, yesterday, Erick Erickson, editor of RedState got into a bit of hot water over commentary he made on the rise of women as the primary breadwinners in families. Outcry from both left and right complained of Erickson's "sexism," equating his words with saying that women "should stay in the kitchen." Of course, listening to and reading what Erickson said demonstrates pretty clearly that what he was saying was nowhere near offensive. At least, not in the way everyone who complained about it did.
I observed something as the complaints heated up.
Many of the arguments against Erickson, when they weren't personal attacks calling him a misogynist or worse, focused around women. Using the false assumption that he believes women should not work, many talked about themselves or women in their lives with careers or as the primary breadwinners in their families.
Their mindset was entirely focused on "women working" and whether or not it was okay.
In a sad testimony to the pervasiveness of leftism, so many women focused on themselves or on women in general. They reacted to the (false) characterizations of Erickson's opinions as a leftist feminist might. They talked about themselves. Their careers. Their choice.
The perspective they took into this (wholly unnecessary) debate was self-centered.
However, Erickson's comments seemed to have another, more important point: the children.
"In modern society we are not supposed to say such things about child rearing and families. In modern society we are not supposed to point out that children in a two-parent heterosexual nuclear household have a better chance at long term success in life than others. In modern society, we are supposed to applaud feminists who teach women they can have it all — that there is no gender identifying role and women can fulfill the role of husbands and fathers just as men do."
He's talking about the children raised in the homes where women work. Let us be honest with ourselves, the majority of homes where the women are the primary earners are not stable, nuclear homes. They are broken homes. Absent fathers, abusive fathers, lost fathers and any other scenario one can think up are the reason so many women have to work. It isn't by choice or because they can make more than their husbands; it is out of necessity.
And our society encourages it. In saying that women can replace men in the home (working or not) or that men are unnecessary creates the environment that makes single mothers. No one ever said that there weren't exceptions. Sometimes the the children of single mothers turn out alright. Look at Dr. Ben Carson. His mother pushed him, an under-achiever with anger issues, to become one of America's foremost neurosurgeons. But that exception does not make the rule.
And that rule is that single motherhood, which is truly what the study tells us about, hurts the children.
But the way we're taught to approach this issue in modern society is to see it as a "women's issue." That women and their rights are the largest. most overriding aspect to the exclusion of all else. This is why the arguments against Erickson focus around women in the workplace rather than his larger point about the family.
This isn't just about women.
It is a men's issue, too. It's also a children's issue. It's a family issue.
It's a society issue.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Thursday, May 23, 2013
On Scandalpalooza, Part II
You know, I'm just so glad the president reassured me that tyranny isn't around the corner back on the 5th of this month. I mean, sure, as I mentioned (in passing) earlier this week, he was busy prying into the lives of journalists and their parents, but that's small potatoes, water under the bridge.
Having remembered his reassurance, I can go back to completely trusting the government to not abuse its power.
I mean, it's not like the government was using its most powerful agency to target conservatives.
Wait, what was that?
...Ah. I see.
On some level, I understand the impulse some people have to recoil at "extreme" descriptions of actions taken by the administration or the government. It may very well drive away some from our side. The question is, is it better to cater to people's weakness, hyper-sensitivity and ignorance, or is it better to be accurate?
I choose the latter when I call this administration's tactics fascistic.
What else can you call them? Abusive and evil most certainly fit the bill, but it does not pin down the depth of the administration's lawlessness.
The only real way, I feel, to grasp what the administration has been revealed to be doing is to give it historical context. And this is the early behavior of every fascist regime that has ever existed. The suppression of political and ideological dissent is a must for statists/totalitarians. Otherwise, their opponents may challenge their rule.
And now our own government is repeating these tactics. They are using the power of the IRS to suppress political and other speech. Tea Party groups have been bogged down in a maze of audits and neglect attempting to file for 501(c)4 tax-exempt status since 2010. With these organizations distracted by this sort of thing, is it hard to imagine that this did not have an impact on their ability to organize last year? Is it really so farfetched to believe that money was spent on lawyers and overhead instead of commercials and rallies?
And political organizations are not the only targets. Conservative Christian organizations were also audited. Even now, it has come out that large numbers of audits were targeted at adoptive families.
Considering the IRS's function, it is not unfathomable to believe that any of these groups wouldn't get audited. Every ideology has its dubious groups and individuals. But to see such widespread targeting of the groups the current administration does not like and/or outright opposes is almost unfathomable.
Barack Obama and other leftists constantly push the idea that the government can solve our problems and fix our lives. The speech I referenced in my opening even tried to conflate the idea of "self-governance" with the physical "federal government." The federal government is an entity unto itself, especially with the explosive growth of the bureaucracy beyond the representatives we vote for.
And the IRS scandal is a clear demonstration of what the president would rather have us ignore: the tyranny of a government run amok.
Having remembered his reassurance, I can go back to completely trusting the government to not abuse its power.
I mean, it's not like the government was using its most powerful agency to target conservatives.
Wait, what was that?
...Ah. I see.
On some level, I understand the impulse some people have to recoil at "extreme" descriptions of actions taken by the administration or the government. It may very well drive away some from our side. The question is, is it better to cater to people's weakness, hyper-sensitivity and ignorance, or is it better to be accurate?
I choose the latter when I call this administration's tactics fascistic.
What else can you call them? Abusive and evil most certainly fit the bill, but it does not pin down the depth of the administration's lawlessness.
The only real way, I feel, to grasp what the administration has been revealed to be doing is to give it historical context. And this is the early behavior of every fascist regime that has ever existed. The suppression of political and ideological dissent is a must for statists/totalitarians. Otherwise, their opponents may challenge their rule.
And now our own government is repeating these tactics. They are using the power of the IRS to suppress political and other speech. Tea Party groups have been bogged down in a maze of audits and neglect attempting to file for 501(c)4 tax-exempt status since 2010. With these organizations distracted by this sort of thing, is it hard to imagine that this did not have an impact on their ability to organize last year? Is it really so farfetched to believe that money was spent on lawyers and overhead instead of commercials and rallies?
And political organizations are not the only targets. Conservative Christian organizations were also audited. Even now, it has come out that large numbers of audits were targeted at adoptive families.
Considering the IRS's function, it is not unfathomable to believe that any of these groups wouldn't get audited. Every ideology has its dubious groups and individuals. But to see such widespread targeting of the groups the current administration does not like and/or outright opposes is almost unfathomable.
Barack Obama and other leftists constantly push the idea that the government can solve our problems and fix our lives. The speech I referenced in my opening even tried to conflate the idea of "self-governance" with the physical "federal government." The federal government is an entity unto itself, especially with the explosive growth of the bureaucracy beyond the representatives we vote for.
And the IRS scandal is a clear demonstration of what the president would rather have us ignore: the tyranny of a government run amok.
Monday, May 20, 2013
On Scandalpalooza, Part I
So, you may have noted I did not have an article last week. It is a bit of a (possibly bad) habit of mine to watch when news breaks rather than write.
That said, last week was rather interesting. Not just because of the various breaking scandals, either. But more because the media at large covered them. It was not just Fox News Channel or various (and smaller) conservative outlets. It was the mainstream media at large.
Of course, this sudden interest in the shady actions and coverups likely has little to do with the media suddenly realizing how badly it has neglected its duty as the adversaries to power. Rather, it has much to do with the AP scandal. Once the other outlets realized that the largest news organization in America had its records seized unilaterally by the government, the scandals of this administration became personal for them. Suddenly, the administration was no longer their friend; it treated them like adversaries despite all the friendly press they had given it.
Of course, some on the left are complaining about criticism over the administration's handling of the AP's records. They say it is much ado about nothing, that what the administration did was perfectly legal. Amazingly (and perhaps disturbingly), this is true.
However, what is legal is not necessarily always ethical.
And that is where the AP story goes from routine to potentially scandalous. Legality is irrelevant in the face of the government taking the phone records of the AP in the shadows. Normally, this sort of action would be done in the open, where the press organization in question would be able to challenge and/or negotiate for the records. This time, however, claiming "national security" reasons, the government took the records unilaterally.
And now we have learned today that the government pursued the personal emails and phone records of Fox News reporter James Rosen (among others) for much flimsier reasons. Some expressed concern that the scandals, after getting a week of play in the media, would slowly fade from the headlines as the press fell back into its old Obama-covering habits. However, with yet another attack on free press, there is an emerging pattern of abuse of power and suppression of the press
Even the media water carriers of Barack Obama understand this could very easily become them. They may not like FNC, but when the Department of Justice declares journalists "criminal co-conspirators" simply as an excuse to seize their private information, this steps over a line.
It is an understatement to say that this is chilling.
It is disturbing. Frightening, Alarming.
One of the keys to the continued success of our republic is a free press. It was a free press that, in many ways, allowed the country to become what it is, from inflaming the War for Independance to keeping the government in check for the better part of two centuries.
What happens when the government uses its power and reach to intimidate journalists and their sources?
That said, last week was rather interesting. Not just because of the various breaking scandals, either. But more because the media at large covered them. It was not just Fox News Channel or various (and smaller) conservative outlets. It was the mainstream media at large.
Of course, this sudden interest in the shady actions and coverups likely has little to do with the media suddenly realizing how badly it has neglected its duty as the adversaries to power. Rather, it has much to do with the AP scandal. Once the other outlets realized that the largest news organization in America had its records seized unilaterally by the government, the scandals of this administration became personal for them. Suddenly, the administration was no longer their friend; it treated them like adversaries despite all the friendly press they had given it.
Of course, some on the left are complaining about criticism over the administration's handling of the AP's records. They say it is much ado about nothing, that what the administration did was perfectly legal. Amazingly (and perhaps disturbingly), this is true.
However, what is legal is not necessarily always ethical.
And that is where the AP story goes from routine to potentially scandalous. Legality is irrelevant in the face of the government taking the phone records of the AP in the shadows. Normally, this sort of action would be done in the open, where the press organization in question would be able to challenge and/or negotiate for the records. This time, however, claiming "national security" reasons, the government took the records unilaterally.
And now we have learned today that the government pursued the personal emails and phone records of Fox News reporter James Rosen (among others) for much flimsier reasons. Some expressed concern that the scandals, after getting a week of play in the media, would slowly fade from the headlines as the press fell back into its old Obama-covering habits. However, with yet another attack on free press, there is an emerging pattern of abuse of power and suppression of the press
Even the media water carriers of Barack Obama understand this could very easily become them. They may not like FNC, but when the Department of Justice declares journalists "criminal co-conspirators" simply as an excuse to seize their private information, this steps over a line.
It is an understatement to say that this is chilling.
It is disturbing. Frightening, Alarming.
One of the keys to the continued success of our republic is a free press. It was a free press that, in many ways, allowed the country to become what it is, from inflaming the War for Independance to keeping the government in check for the better part of two centuries.
What happens when the government uses its power and reach to intimidate journalists and their sources?
Tuesday, May 07, 2013
On Tolerance and Acceptance
Something leftists love to do is berate conservatives for being "intolerant." After all, who wants to be intolerant except for a bunch of angry hate-mongers?
Not me, that's for certain. It's why I tolerate even the most ridiculous and disgusting things in life.*
"That isn't true!" you might say, particularly if you are one of my liberal friends. "You're a Christian conservative! You aren't tolerant of my abortion views, or gays and bla...well, gays!"
"On the contrary," I would reply. "I'm talking to you, aren't I?"
One of the most subversive leftist redefinitions of recent decades is the conflation of the words "tolerance" and "acceptance."
Obviously, these two words have very similar meanings and are quite interchangeable in many circumstances. However, when it comes to opinions and choices, those two words can mean two very different things.
Let's take the joke from before about my "lack of tolerance" for abortion and gays. Is that actually true? Considering I've known people who embrace the homosexual lifestyle and would have even called them friends seems to indicate that I'm fully tolerant of them. Same goes for all my friends who hold pro-abortion positions. I disagree with them, sometimes vehemently, but I do not necessarily set myself apart from them, either.
What I do not do, however, is embrace, let alone celebrate, their worldviews or lifestyles. I don't even go far enough to accept the idea that their views and choices are equivalent to what I believe. I will challenge their beliefs when appropriate and will not back down from my own. The mere existence of homosexuality or abortion is not enough for me to say they are okay, let alone good.
This is the fundamental difference between "tolerance" and "acceptance." The former concedes that there are people who think, feel or act a certain way. That they exist is an unavoidable reality and we must live with it (though not necessarily without challenging their views). The latter is actually embracing those ways of thinking, feeling or acting. It is the point where one believes that they are good and/or should be imitated.
Leftists turn the right into haters and bigots by expanding the definition of "tolerance" (as I have put forth) to include "acceptance." It is how, in their own circles, they can be perfectly comfortable with painting those on the right as "intolerant," whether or not that is an accurate descriptor. Of course, once the right's refusal to accept that which is wrong is seen as "intolerant," the left can use that fact as a "moral" justification to call us "evil."
And once our point-of-view becomes evil, it becomes fully justified (in the leftist's mind) not to tolerate it.
*Except silverfish. Disgusting creatures.
Not me, that's for certain. It's why I tolerate even the most ridiculous and disgusting things in life.*
"That isn't true!" you might say, particularly if you are one of my liberal friends. "You're a Christian conservative! You aren't tolerant of my abortion views, or gays and bla...well, gays!"
"On the contrary," I would reply. "I'm talking to you, aren't I?"
One of the most subversive leftist redefinitions of recent decades is the conflation of the words "tolerance" and "acceptance."
Obviously, these two words have very similar meanings and are quite interchangeable in many circumstances. However, when it comes to opinions and choices, those two words can mean two very different things.
Let's take the joke from before about my "lack of tolerance" for abortion and gays. Is that actually true? Considering I've known people who embrace the homosexual lifestyle and would have even called them friends seems to indicate that I'm fully tolerant of them. Same goes for all my friends who hold pro-abortion positions. I disagree with them, sometimes vehemently, but I do not necessarily set myself apart from them, either.
What I do not do, however, is embrace, let alone celebrate, their worldviews or lifestyles. I don't even go far enough to accept the idea that their views and choices are equivalent to what I believe. I will challenge their beliefs when appropriate and will not back down from my own. The mere existence of homosexuality or abortion is not enough for me to say they are okay, let alone good.
This is the fundamental difference between "tolerance" and "acceptance." The former concedes that there are people who think, feel or act a certain way. That they exist is an unavoidable reality and we must live with it (though not necessarily without challenging their views). The latter is actually embracing those ways of thinking, feeling or acting. It is the point where one believes that they are good and/or should be imitated.
Leftists turn the right into haters and bigots by expanding the definition of "tolerance" (as I have put forth) to include "acceptance." It is how, in their own circles, they can be perfectly comfortable with painting those on the right as "intolerant," whether or not that is an accurate descriptor. Of course, once the right's refusal to accept that which is wrong is seen as "intolerant," the left can use that fact as a "moral" justification to call us "evil."
And once our point-of-view becomes evil, it becomes fully justified (in the leftist's mind) not to tolerate it.
*Except silverfish. Disgusting creatures.
 |
| Hey look, it's Dan Savage, whose lack of self-awareness of his own intolerance proves my point! |
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Bush v. Obama - Governing Philosophy
 |
| "Hey, I'm on the right side this time!" |
It's time to talk about everyone's favorite president, George W. Bush!
I actually wrote this article back in December and left it with loads of typos (which I've corrected here). However, with the opening of his presidential library, this seems like a prudent time to rehash this.
That and it will actually get an audience without me begging endlessly this time.
Alright, back to the president.
You see, something that bothers me a lot is
just how much the man is criticized, even four years out from his presidency. President Obama still uses him as a scapegoat (despite making the country demonstrably worse in his tenure). Liberals constantly scream and cry about how Bush was a moron, two-steps away from becoming a tyrant (not sure how that works; idiots generally don't have the wherewithal to become tyrants). Some conservatives even (particularly more libertarianish ones) believe he and Obama are equal amounts of bad.
So where does the truth lie? Was President Bush some horrible, idiot man-child given hell bent on maliciously expanding the government until we became serfs? Or was he something less than that?
On some level, I am actually inclined to agree with those libertarians who see Bush's "compassionate conservatism" as bad policy. His solutions for many problems was bigger [federal] government. Following the September 11th attacks, the solution was the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security, both of which granted large of amounts of power to the federal government.
However, this does not make Bush comparable to Obama in any way. Each are governed by a different set of motivations for what they do. When Bush pushed for the Patriot Act and DHS, he was not doing it in some crazy attempt to massively expand the government or curb our freedoms. If you believe that was his motivation, you live in some other world entirely.
What he believed is that it was the right thing to do to keep us safe.
Now, that is not to say it was not ill-conceived. It most certainly was. In the hands of 43, however, it was relatively benign, designed and used to protect us. However, what he and others failed to realize is that such power, in the wrong hands, could easily be abused. Even now, the current administration is using defense bills to try and grant itself power to spy on American citizens. Not overseas foreign nationals suspected of terror ties, but Americans themselves. The slippery slope strikes again.
Same goes for any other big government initiative proposed by Bush. His heart was most certainly in the right place for things like "No Child Left Behind," the proposed (and passed) solution for the many failing schools around the country. Like the Patriot Act, it was just as ill-conceived and constitutionally dubious. These actions do not make him equal to President Obama, however.
President Bush, as far as I can tell, believed the government was capable of doing good things for the people. It was a tool that could serve the people and better their lives with its reach and power. President Obama, on the other hand, clearly believes that the government is better and/or smarter than the people; thus it should be doing things it is assumed they cannot, regardless of the people's actual ability.
To Bush, government was the tool for a solution; it could help the individual improve him or herself. To Obama, the government is the solution, all the time. It subsumes the individual in its infinite wisdom and benevolence.
I think that is a very distinct philosophical difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)