Why can’t we just say it?

I’ve had an article published at NewsBlaze.  Here’s an excerpt:

I must confess that one of my guilty pleasures is the often outrageous FX show Nip/Tuck.  Last night I was catching up on my pre-holiday DVR-ing, and was rather intrigued by the last episode of the season’s handling of a sensitive topic.  One of the (many) over-sexed characters found herself pregnant, and the father, with whom she is quite enamoured, insisted that he would not stick around if she kept it.  After a great deal of garment renting, she, well, . . . she opted out.  She made her choice.  She had it taken care of. 

At the, well, “place,” she called another character to pick her up.  They discussed “it,” and it was revealed that the other character had been “through it” before.  Finally, after she had had “it” done, the other character finally manged to say what had occurred to the father.  Both this character and the father were doctors; even so, she prefaced it with a “you know” and a trail off before she could finally bring herself to say the word: “abortion.

Please visit NewsBlaze to check out the rest of this article, and let me know what you think.

Liberals replacing hope with rage

David Michael Green is really getting pissed off at Obama:

Like any good progressive, I’ve gone from admiration to hope to disappointment to anger when it comes to this president. Now I’m fast getting to rage.

How much rage? I find myself thinking that the thing I want most from the 2010 elections is for his party to get absolutely clobbered, even if that means a repeat of 1994. And that what I most want from 2012 is for him to be utterly humiliated, even if that means President Palin at the helm. That much rage.

But read the whole thing, it’s great fun. 

Oftentimes I wish that I could go back in time and supply the internet to the folks at various historical times, just to see if these sorts of attitudes were common, or if we now are special.  Were people bitching like this in the early Clinton years?  If they were, I’m sure they changed their tunes.  How about the Reagan years- he was pretty unpopular at first.

But it sure seems like President Obama has that something special, doesn’t it?

Maybe Obama should re-think that whole closing Gitmo thing

The Chicago Tribune is reporting that the men behind the Christmas airplane plot were released from Guantanamo Bay in 2007. 

Yes, this would make it a Bush screw-up, unrelated to Obama.  That doesn’t mean that Obama should do him one worse, though. 

And incidentally,

American officials agreed to send the two terrorists to Saudi Arabia where they entered into an “art therapy rehabilitation program” and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials, ABC News reported.

Are you as shocked as I am that an “art therapy rehabilitation program” failed to actually rehabilitate?

Ann Althouse has more.

Update: White House,apparently undeterred by silly threats of a guy managing to sneak a bomb onto a plane and failing to detonate it through pure dumb luck, still plans to send (some) detainees to Yemin.  (HT: Ann Althouse).  Hey, Obama, how about you listen to me on something more important than just public perception?

More liberal misogyny. How’s that one-child policy working out for Chinese women?

According to Canada’s national newspaper, it’s working so well that it should be made planet-wide:

The “inconvenient truth” overhanging the UN’s Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.

A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

The world’s other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity’s soaring reproduction rate.

Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world’s leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.

Now, the writer doesn’t say how this would be implemented, but presumably it would involve the same forced abortions (what was that about choice?), unbalanced sex ratios, and female infanticide that the Chinese currently contend with.   

But what are the human rights of a few women, when it’s for the environment

As a side note, I tend to get annoyed when commentators say something along the lines of “The New York Times says . . . ” and quotes from an editorial.  It’s not dishonest per se, but somewhat misleading, as this is just one editorial, not the entire paper, advocating this position, wacky as it may be. 
 
Here, I could find no evidence that this is an opinion piece.  It is not listed on the paper’s opinion sub-page, although the writer does appear to have a blog linked to the opinion page that lists a slightly different version of this article.  Furthermore, opinion works appear to have a “/opinion” web address, but this has a “/story.” 

Therefore, the Drudge headline stating that “Canada’s National Newspaper advocates [this crap]” is entirely appropriate.

Shoplifting: It’s not Prostitution!

Anglican priest Rev. Tim Jones has advised his congregation to shoplift

The Rev Tim Jones said in his Sunday sermon that stealing from successful shops was preferable to burglary, robbery or prostitution.

He told parishioners it would not break the eighth commandment ‘thou shalt not steal’ because it ‘is permissible for those who are in desperate situations to take food that they might not starve’.

But his advice was roundly condemned by police and the local Tory MP. Father Jones, 42, was discussing Mary and the birth of Jesus when he went on to the subject of how poor and vulnerable people cope in the run-up to Christmas.

‘My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift,’ he told his stunned congregation at St Lawrence and St Hilda in York.

‘I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or because I think it is harmless, for it is neither.

‘I would ask that they do not steal from small family businesses, but from large national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices.

‘I would ask them not to take anymore than they need. I offer the advice with a heavy heart. Let my words not be misrepresented as a simplistic call for people to shoplift.

First question: If they are advised not to take more than they need, what does this have to do with the run-up to Christmas (which, while I love it, is completely about wants, not needs)? 

Second question: Did he mention anything about non-criminal options, such as offering to work for the church in exchange for charity, seeking out jobs that might otherwise appear below one’s dignity, or wise spending habits to ensure that you don’t get in trouble in the first place?  Maybe he did, and it just didn’t make the article.  I hope. 

Third question: Did he say anything about seeking forgiveness, and making up for these wrongs when you are able?  I can agree that stealing food is an acceptable alternative to starvation, but I think that, even so, the stealer should be sorry for the transgression and consider it a debt to be repaid, before one purchases, say jewelry or an I-pod. 

Rev. Jones also had a bit to say about society (bear in mind this is liberal, social-net savvy Britain, not the cold, evil U.S.):

‘Rather, this is a call for our society no longer to treat its most vulnerable people with indifference and contempt.

‘When people are released from prison, or find themselves suddenly without work or family support, then to leave them for weeks with inadequate or clumsy social support is monumental, catastrophic folly.

‘We create a situation which leaves some people little option but crime.’

The father of two, whose parish has a wide mix of social conditions, said his advice to people in dire circumstances is that ‘they should not hurt anybody and cope as best they can’.

He added: ‘The strong temptation is to burgle or rob people – family, friends, neighbours, strangers.

‘Others are tempted towards prostitution, a nightmare world of degradation and abuse for all concerned. Others are tempted towards suicide. Instead, I would rather that they shoplift.

‘The life of the poor in modern Britain is a constant struggle, a minefield of competing opportunities, competing responsibilities, obligations and requirements, a constant effort to achieve the impossible.

‘For many at the bottom of our social ladder, lawful, honest life can sometimes seem to be an apparent impossibility.’

I’m intrigued about the What Would Jesus Do aspects of this.  As far as I recall, Jesus never condoned stealing or compulsory “charity.”  He never called for a social safety net, nor can I think of any scriptural suggestions that stealing is acceptable. 

Maybe I’m wrong.  In fact, I’m hoping to start studying the Bible some next year in an effort to answer some of these questions.  But, to my understanding, we have a moral requirement to help those in need, but I know of nothing that says that we have a moral requirement to force, under threat of violence or by the trick of shoplifting, others to do so.

Baby, we can share the kitchen, or why women don’t want to be “feminists,” revisited

Hanna Rosin can’t believe that some man would invade her domain. 

When did a certain group of men take over the womanly art of home cooking? And why can’t we who are married to them just sit back and call their conquest of the kitchen a feminist triumph? If you had told a mistress of the house in the 1950s that one day her husband would julienne a carrot, she would have wept with joy. Perhaps she would have even held out a little longer against all those canned monstrosities designed to lighten her daily load. And yet, fast forward half a century, and some of us are starting to regret our lost dominion over the kitchen.

Silly me, I guess I always though that we should just avoid ideas like “women belong in the kitchen.”  My husband and I share these sorts of duties; she should try the same.

Prosperity is a necessary element of caring for the environment

Jonah Goldberg looks at Copenhagan:

The historical record is clear: Democratic free-market nations are better at protecting their environments than statist regimes for the simple reason that they can afford to. West Germany’s environment was far cleaner than East Germany’s. I’d much sooner drink the tap water in South Korea than North Korea.

Mugabe rails against capitalism as if he has a better idea of how to run things. That’s almost funny given that Mugabe has destroyed what was once a great cause for hope in Africa, in large part by abandoning capitalism and democracy. Zimbabwe now has the highest inflation rate in the world and one of the lowest life expectancies. Let’s hope nobody was taking notes when he was giving out advice.

Moreover, capitalism, and the wealth it creates, is the best means of bending down the population curve. Don’t take my word for it. The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledges that “affluence is correlated with long life and small families” and that growing prosperity will cause world population to decline even further.

Want to know the best way to heal the planet? Create more rich countries. Want to know the best way to hurt the planet? Throw a wet blanket on economic growth.

 But please, read the whole thing.