October 18, 2012
JEANETTE V. writes:
We have all seen how homosexuals and blacks are over-represented on television shows. Here is the latest butchering of a well-known story. Lancelot has been recast as a black man in the show called Once Upon a Time. The show is a clever reworking of fairy tales. An evil witch transported everyone from the enchanted land to modern world; so we are treated to flashbacks of the heroes when they were in the enchanted land.
October 17, 2012
THERE IS so much to say about last night’s presidential debate, which I turned off in disgust three-quarters of the way through, sometime after the fourth or fifth time Obama spoke of his support for modern eugenics, that I have had to deal with it in installments. Read More »
October 17, 2012
AT LAST NIGHT’S presidential debate, Obama mentioned Planned Parenthood, which really should be called Planned Non-Parenthood or Eugenics Anonymous, no less than five times and spoke glowingly of the need for every woman to have contraceptives for free. Can you imagine George Washington or Eisenhower speaking of the need to widely distribute chemicals to prevent pregnancy and facilitate promiscuity? Read More »
October 17, 2012
THIS is a very inferior rendition of Rimsky-Korsakov’s magnificent Procession of the Nobles by a band of non-music students at the University of Wisconsin, but it is still highly enjoyable. As a commenter at Tradition in Action points out, what is most striking about it is the bearing of the conductor, his dignity, authority and the immense joy he takes in the music. The commenter at Tradition writes:
The student musicians are all non-majors of music; a meager band of non-professionals. The auditorium appears all but empty save for the some off-camera applause at the end (this could be the sound of proud parents). Read More »
October 17, 2012
WHEN Mitt Romney was asked by Katherine Fenton at last night’s presidential debate, “In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?” did he dare to speak the truth and say that these discrepancies in earnings are overwhelmingly due to the voluntary choices of women in education and the job market? Did he say that women choose fields that are less high-paying and that women choose to drop out or scale back or switch jobs once they enter the workforce? Did he say that in some parts of the country, single women are actually making significantly more than single men?
Of course not. If he had spoken the truth, people in the viewing audience would have been shocked and angry. They would have been enraged by the open blasphemy against their idol, Woman as Perpetual Victim. Some probably would have burst into tears and come close to fainting with nausea as one woman academic did when Lawrence Summers, then president of Harvard, said that the reason there are not more women scientists is that women choose not to be scientists, an unbearable and absolutely unpardonable thought.
No, it would not have been possible for Romney to say such things and still remain in the running.
However, here is what Romney might have said to educate America and to counter Obama’s tendency to fan the feminist flames: Read More »
October 17, 2012
LAWRENCE AUSTER writes:
Looking at the picture of Bush dancing with a female veteran who has a prosthetic device in place of a leg, I repeat something I’ve been saying for over twenty years: a country that, not as a matter of necessity, but as a matter of choice and discretion, puts women in combat or near-combat situations where what happened to this woman can happen and does happen, and, furthermore, congratulates itself for doing this, is a country that is so perverted and wicked that it has lost the right to exist. That we still exist is due to mercy or suffrance, not justice.
October 17, 2012
ALAN writes:
If my father had ever been asked to name the worst thing about American culture that he had witnessed during the second half of his life, I am confident he would have said: The surrender of authority by American white men. To yield their authority, he would say, is as good as yielding their families, neighborhoods, schools, cities, laws, borders, the armed forces, and national sovereignty.
It was common years ago to hear the words “no-nonsense man” applied to someone who was obviously serious about doing his job and meeting his responsibilities. How often have you heard that expression in recent years? Seldom or never? That is because there are so few American men today who fit that description. The no-nonsense men have been superseded by the Nonsense Men. In 1966 The Beatles sang about the “Nowhere Man.” Today they could sing about the “Nonsense Man:” The soft, feminized, acquiescent, “flexible,” adolescent-witted boy-man, visible today in every public place and replete with manners, clothing, and vocabulary to match. Tribes of such boy-men are what Americans got when American white men agreed to surrender their authority. Read More »
October 17, 2012
USA TODAY reports:
Bob Carey is not afraid to bare his emotions. Or anything else.
Carey appears in a pink tutu — and only a pink tutu — in a new book of photographs, Ballerina, created to support his wife, Linda, who has advanced breast cancer.
Each of the 61 photographs in the self-published book was shot in a different location — the Grand Canyon, a horse ranch, an Italian hill town. Each has one thing in common: the 51-year-old Carey — 5-foot-10-inches tall, weighing more than 200 pounds — appearing as a solitary figure in a landscape, or alone in an anonymous crowd.
October 16, 2012
TEXANNE writes:
I highly recommend this talk by an attorney who follows the trends in law relating to family, marriage and children. Bill Duncan provides an overview of these concepts and how they are evolving and how new law is being shaped by the changes, and vice versa. He spoke at the Ruth Institute conference (It Takes a Family to Raise a Village) in July of this year, so is current enough to note the proposed legislation in California which would provide for three legally-recognized “parents,” and other developments in the fields of “domestic relations,” reproductive technology, etc.
October 16, 2012
JESSE POWELL writes regarding his recent report on fertility statistics in the U.S.:
In regular day-to-day life, it is easy to think that there is no opposition to feminism, that American culture is dead, that nothing good is happening. Maybe one runs across a positive indicator here or there but that is only “anecdotal” and perhaps illusory. However, my study on fertility by Census Tract offers absolute proof that “something is going on” on a national and systemic level.
The amazing thing about my findings regarding fertility level and the Married Parents Ratio and the change from 2000 to 2010 is that they prove that a cultural revival really is going on in the country and that this revival is systemic. The gap between 2000 and 2010 in terms of the Global Fertility Level at a given GFL percentile noticeably starts to shrink after the 70th percentile. This indicates that weak effects from the cultural revival are already starting to show up at the 70th percentile! The power of the cultural revival overcomes the power of decline in absolute terms at the 94.7 percentile level regarding fertility and at the 98.0 percentile level regarding Married Parents Ratio but cultural revival is occurring along a broad spectrum; it is not an isolated phenomenon only occurring at the very top.
October 15, 2012
MARY M. writes:
There are traditional ways for patriotic women to support the military without joining. Somehow those traditional forms of support have been forgotten or demeaned in the rush to push women into combat. Read More »
October 15, 2012
A LOYAL READER writes:
I recently watched a TV show (I suppose you would call it a sitcom) produced c. 1971 or ’72. Office setting. A female employee discovers she is being paid $200 a month less than the man who had the job before her. Confronting her boss, she is told this is naturally because he had a family to support. Outrage. Fast forward to the present. Within a few days of this I had a daughter tell me of a similar situation involving her employment in the past month. My instinct tells me you would find offering the man more who has a family to support justified. (Forgive me if I’m wrong.) MY instinct tells me it is justified. But for the life of me I can’t make a case for it in my head. IS it justified? I have the greatest respect not only for your judgement but your ability to clearly define principles. Thank you. Read More »
October 15, 2012
THIS maudlin Washington Post story, more editorial than balanced reporting, argues that the same sex “marriage” law on the Maryland ballot is in the interest of children, echoing the slogan used by Gov. Martin O’Malley, who says people should vote for homosexual unions “for the kids.” That’s right. The governor of Maryland believes that being raised by homosexuals and being denied a relationship of any kind with one parent is actually a good thing and should be championed for its own sake.
The article by Aaron C. Davis features two overweight, middle-aged lesbians (almost all middle-aged lesbians are seriously overweight, or so it seems) seeking to formalize the adoption of one of the woman’s twin sons by the other. They are already legally both the parents of another boy who was born to the same woman. The women appear before a female judge who is delighted with their petition and with the idea of three boys being raised by lesbians. Unsurprisingly, they succeed in the adoption of the twins. Now both of their names are on the childrens’ birth certificates, making this document an outright lie and falsification of parentage. One small battle is won in the ongoing war on children.
Amid the sympathetic details about the immense sacrifices of the lesbian couple, we find this interesting paragraph:
Rice [one of the lesbian women], who manages a homeless shelter in the District, carefully documented their Shady Grove fertility clinic’s use of sperm from an anonymous donor so that no one could later claim fatherhood.
These women have with deliberate calculation obliterated the boys’ father from their lives, and we are supposed to believe that they have the children’s best interests at heart.
October 15, 2012
HERE is an undated photo from the Facebook page of the Tea Party showing George W. Bush dancing recently with an injured veteran. The sight of a woman dressed in military fatigues says a lot about what a society thinks of women. But the sight of a woman who has lost her leg in military action, having been deliberately put in harms’ way, says even more, painting a picture of a world that does not value, well, anything. It fills me with horror and disgust, not for this particular woman, who has been maimed permanently and deserves some compassion, but for the powerful institutions and leaders who have condoned this.
In the recent entry on women in the military, a female reader, an Air Force veteran who stated that she joined the military for solely economic reasons, says that women, purely on the basis of their patriotic sentiments, are an asset to the military as soldiers. Terry Morris, also a veteran, disagrees. He writes:
In short, while I agree with you that women CAN BE, and often are, patriotic Americans, I reject that patriotism, as defined above, is in general the chief motivating factor for female enlistments in the U.S. military today.
His comments are worth repeating in full: Read More »
October 13, 2012
JESSE POWELL writes:
What makes for a healthy community? Children. It is really quite simple. A community that invests in children is investing in the future; it is demonstrating the desire to perpetuate itself. This is not simply a worthy ideal. It is a reality apparent in the statistics of social health.
The fertility of a community turns out to be the best indicator of both current family functioning and future flourishing. High fertility is associated with both positive family outcomes in the present and change in a positive direction in the future. A high Married Parents Ratio by itself does not indicate a positive future direction; neither does high income or other indications of economic prosperity. In this way, fertility is different; high fertility is actually a predictor of future increases in fertility as well as future increases in the Married Parents Ratio.
