The Blogspot version of "PC Watch" is HERE and "Dissecting Leftism" is HERE. The Blogroll; John Ray's Home Page; Email John Ray here. Other sites viewable in China: Greenie Watch, Dissecting Leftism and Recipes. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing). See here for the archives of this site.
****************************************************************************************



31 March, 2005

NO FREE SPEECH ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY

In its mandatory "diversity training" classes, a school district has instructed students who believe homosexual behavior is wrong to keep their opinions to themselves, prompting a federal lawsuit. The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund filed a motion for preliminary injunction [PDF file] yesterday to immediately prohibit the Boyd County, Kentucky, Board of Education from restricting the free-speech rights of its students. "We are filing this motion because students are being forbidden from expressing their own viewpoint on this matter," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Kevin Theriot. "That's unconstitutional, and it must stop." The motion was filed in a Feb. 15 lawsuit brought by Timothy Allen Morrison and other students and their parents against the education board.

The training itself began as a result of the settlement of another lawsuit filed against the board by the Boyd County High School Gay-Straight Alliance, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. "The school district is attempting to change the beliefs of students without their parents' consent," Theriot said. "The provisions of any settlement arrangement must respect the constitutional rights of students."

All middle and high school students in Boyd County schools are required to attend the special training. School policies and practice do not permit parents to opt their children out of the training, even if it violates their personal beliefs and morality, ADF said.

Source



ANYTHING BUT THE BIBLE

Colorado's highest court has quashed the sentence of a man who was given the death penalty after jurors consulted their Bibles in reaching a verdict. The court said Bible passages, including the verse that commands "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", could lead jurors to vote for death. The Bible, the court said, constituted an improper outside influence and a reliance on what the court called a "higher authority". "The judicial system works very hard to emphasise the rarefied, solemn and sequestered nature of jury deliberations," the majority panel of the Colorado Supreme Court said in a 3-2 decision. "Jurors must deliberate in that atmosphere without the aid or distraction of extraneous texts."

The ruling involved the conviction of Robert Harlan, who was found guilty in 1995 of raping and murdering a cocktail waitress, Rhonda Maloney, near Denver. After she was kidnapped and raped by Harlan, Ms Maloney managed to escape and flag down a motorist, Jaquie Creazzo. Harlan caught up with the two women, shot Ms Creazzo, leaving her paralysed for life, then beat and killed Ms Maloney.

After Harlan's conviction, the judge - as Colorado law requires - sent the jury to deliberate about the death penalty with an instruction to think beyond the narrow confines of the law. Each juror, the judge said, must make an "individual moral assessment", in deciding whether Harlan should live or die. The jurors voted unanimously for death.

The state Supreme Court's decision changes that sentence to life in jail without parole. The dissenting judges said the jurors consulted their Bibles not to look for facts or alternative legal interpretations but for wisdom. "The biblical passages the jurors discussed constituted either a part of the jurors' moral and religious precepts or their general knowledge, and thus were relevant to their court-sanctioned moral assessment," the minority wrote.

Harlan's lawyers challenged the sentence after discovering five jurors had looked up Bible verses, copied some of them down and then talked about them behind closed doors. Prosecutors said jurors should be allowed to refer to the Bible or other religious texts during deliberations.

Source



30 March, 2005

EVEN A PICTURE OF SOMETHING MILITARY IS INCORRECT

Shea Riecke, a freshman at McKay High School in Salem, Ore., "tried to take a snapshot of her brother, Cpl. Bill Riecke, a Marine currently stationed in Twenty-nine Palms, Calif., to her social studies class," reports Carol McAlice Currie in a column for the Salem Statesman Journal:

She wanted to display the picture with those of other McKay grads' career choices. Riecke's teacher, Rick Costa, encourages the exhibits. But Riecke's photo created a little controversy. Actually, it kicked up a sandstorm of grief for the family and school-district officials because of the photo's content. It pictures the Marine hefting a big gun while decked in military desert camies (camouflage). It was taken while he was stationed in Iraq; he will be redeployed there this summer. . . . School officials denied the photo on the grounds the guns in the picture violated district policy. Riecke's mother, Connie Riecke, appealed to district officials including Superintendent Kay Baker. Connie Riecke said she has not heard back from the district but was told that it probably could be displayed if she consented to having the weapons removed, via computer, from the photograph. Riecke said her son insists that it run as it is or not at all. She agrees with him.

(From Taranto)



I RATHER LIKE THIS ONE!

A state lawmaker has suggested Hawaii's public schoolteachers be forced to weigh in as part of the fight against obesity in students, KITV in Honolulu reported. State Rep. Rida Cabanilla introduced a resolution in the house requesting that the Board of Education establish an obesity database among public schoolteachers. "You cannot keep a kid to a certain standard that you yourself is not willing to keep," Cabanilla said.

It's been documented that more than 20 percent of Hawaii's children are at risk, or are already overweight, according to the station. There are no statistics on teachers.

The resolution calls for all public schoolteachers to weigh in every six months. The measure calls for the education and health departments to formulate an obesity standard and appropriate measures for teachers who cannot meet the standard. "As a matter of fact, we should start at home, but since the legislature has no way to regulate homes, we can at least start in school," Cabanilla said. "And teachers have a lot of impact to these students."

The teachers union said it agrees that teachers are at the front line when it comes to the education and health of children, but it says the resolution is misguided. "I think at this point and time, the focus really needs to be on putting highly-qualified teachers in the classroom," Hawaii State Teachers Association President Roger Takabayashi said. The union defended its members as low users of the health fund system. "I think it's quite offensive. I don't think it will lead us anywhere. It's not going to benefit the children necessarily," Takabayashi said.

Source



29 March, 2005

WALKING HORMONAL DISASTER AREAS

Feminism and controversy surged throughout campus on March 10. Black and white flyers depicted a drawing of a woman grasping onto a hammer with "FEMINISM" on the handle. In the middle of the female symbol fists were clenched and space above the woman read: "If I had a hammer...I'd SMASH Patriarchy." A bubble by her face said, "I FOUND IT!"

UNH students found it, too.

Approximately 40 people attended the Patriarchy Slam organized by the Feminist Action League (FAL). A handful of others watched timidly outside the MUB entertainment center door, fleeing as soon as a glance from inside penetrated their direction.

The event, featuring poetry readings, skits, monologues and an open microphone, was designed to give women a space to share their experiences of oppression in a comfortable setting, Megan Smith, a member of the FAL, said.

"[The event was designed to] encourage women to confront the perpetrators who are men," Smith said. "Ninety-nine percent of sexual perpetrators are men. They are the root cause of the rape and oppression against women."

The FAL's hatred of the patriarchy, a male-ruled society, was decoratively affirmed with 10 hanging balloons, each displaying a letter of the word "patriarchy." Each was dramatically popped throughout the event, symbolizing the eradication of the patriarchy. "This is a place where women can feel empowered," Smith said. "There aren't many places in the world where women can speak out against those who have oppressed us, beat us and raped us." The name of the event mimics the aggression that men exert, Smith said. "'Slam' is an aggressive word, but slamming is the classic way men respond," she said. "They feel threatened and shape it as hate. It's an aggressive word, but it shouldn't get in the way of our message."

Their provocative and controversial message reflected the notorious and often criticized views of TNH columnist and FAL member Whitney Williams. Both audience members and some members of the FAL wished to remain anonymous for security reasons. This past September's death threat to Williams has forced the group and its supporters to take safety precautions, such as remaining unidentified

More here



RIGHTS VERSUS RIGHTS

People's increasing insistence on "standing up for their rights" seems to be undermining public support for the very idea of rights, a YouGov survey for The Daily Telegraph suggests.

Michael Howard appears to have struck a chord when he maintained that the rights of gipsies should not be allowed to override the legitimate interests of landowners and householders. The poll's findings reveal widespread support for repealing the Human Rights Act and even wider support for tackling illegal traveller encampments.

Without mentioning the Tories, YouGov reminded respondents that the 1998 Human Rights Act "incorporates the European convention on human rights into British domestic law" and that some argue that the workings of the Act are proving damaging. Should it be repealed? Nearly half of those asked, 46 per cent, accept the view that "the Act is turning out to do more harm than good and should be repealed", while only 25 per cent say "the Act is valuable in protecting human rights and should be retained".

The large proportion of "Don't knows" attests to a relative ignorance of the Act but also to many people torn between a belief in rights and a belief that rights should not be abused. A substantial majority, 65 per cent, backs the idea that camping on other people's land without permission should be a criminal offence. Support comes from across the political spectrum.

YouGov elicited the opinions of 1,903 adults across the country online between March 21 and 24.

Source



28 March, 2005

U.K.: THE COUNTRYSIDE HAS A WIN

The Gypsy problem -- "Travellers" in PC-speak

There was a time when the only outsiders that Village of the Year candidates had to worry about were the judges, armed with clipboards and a discerning eye, who would pass judgment on the community's endeavours. Trimmed hedges, lovingly tended blooms and spruced-up village halls were all key criteria for the arbiters of achievement.

But in 2005 outsiders of a different kind are influencing the decision-making process. The latest Village of the Year competition - the first in which the Government has been involved - asks communities to outline the welcome they extend to travellers and "single and isolated mothers".

As entry forms drop through letter boxes, parishes around Britain have reacted with anger and indignation after discovering that the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has added its own set of questions. In the opening category entitled Building Community Life, sponsored by Defra, parish councils are questioned on a range of issues including their provision for single mothers, ethnic minorities and overseas workers, and the provision of hearing loops at parish meetings. But councils said they would boycott the competition because the questions bore no relation to the realities of village life.

Many said the questions showed just how out of touch central government was with countryside issues at a time when there is widespread concern over how village life is disrupted by travellers' lawlessness. They branded the competition as "smacking of political correctness", and one chairman said the questions were "agenda-ridden rubbish from the liberal Left in north London".

"This shows that the Government has not the faintest idea how the countryside works," said Peter Singleton, the chairman of Witley parish council in rural west Surrey. Other councils said they could never hope to win the competition if they gave a welcome to travellers because they created mess and flouted planning laws.

The competition has been sponsored by Calor since 1997. Andrew Ford, Calor's corporate affairs manager, said the Government had wanted to run its own competition about rural community life, and after consultation, Calor agreed that Defra could add its questions to the entry form.

After inquiries by The Daily Telegraph, he admitted that the question relating to travellers should not have been included and promised that villages would not be marked down if they stated they would not be made welcome. He said: "We are well aware of the problems some communities face from the unwelcome intrusion of travellers and it was never our intention to alienate villages from taking part."

A letter would be sent out to county organisers instructing them to tell participants to "disregard" the question. Defra, which is offering a prize of 250 pounds to the overall winner, said the question making a specific reference to travellers had been a "clerical error". A spokesman said: "We agree that 'political correctness gone mad' should have no place in judging the success of a rural community in a competition like this. The questions are intended to allow flexibility for applicants to give examples of their own experience in their own circumstances. One or two questions have been framed in a way that does not give that flexibility and we have asked that this be addressed."

John Berry, the chairman of Ashington parish council in Sussex, the 2003 winner, said the competition should be about "what we do for the community, for young people, older people, how we look after the environment, how community helps business, how we use information technology. It should not be about gathering statistics on minority and ethnic groups".

Members of Hambledon parish council in Surrey considered the entry form at its meeting last week and decided not to enter. John Anderson, its chairman, said: "It is a shame, because as a village we have reopened our shop and post office as a community venture, reopened the village school as a nursery, supported the cricket club in providing a new pavilion, all on very limited funding but with a great deal of hard work. We would be happy to be judged on that, but not on what our attitude would be to travellers. Whoever was responsible for these questions had little idea about village life."

Sally Arnold, the chairman of Ashurst and Colbury parish council, New Forest, Hants, said travellers had recently arrived in the village and left mess in their wake. "It is very hard to be nice and welcoming to these people when they are causing such a nuisance to village life." Julia Hebden, chairman of Barton Stacey parish council, Hants, said: "If villagers were to welcome travellers into their community then they would probably not win Village of the Year. "They often have a detrimental impact on village life - and your chances of winning this competition."

Source



Arrogant teachers confiscate what they regard as junk food

What's said to be bad for you today will be found to be good for you tomorrow (and vice versa) but these fools just KNOW! How do they know? If people like it it must be bad!

Pre-school teachers are acting as lunchbox police to help prevent childhood obesity. The contents of some Queensland children's lunchboxes are confiscated as pre-schools introduce tough new "no junk food" policies, an investigation by The Sunday Mail found. Early childhood teachers believed the inspections were the only way to stop children eating junk food, regularly packed for them by their parents.

But a leading nutritionist has slammed the idea, saying it would have no effect on children's dietary habits. "That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard," Griffith University senior lecturer of public health, Shawn Somerset, said. Ormiston College, on Brisbane's bayside, has strict rules on junk food. Banned foods included lollies, fruit juice, chocolate, chips and any highly processed foods. "The children will not eat anything that has been packed for them that is inappropriate," pre-school teacher Debbie Stange said. "When they have morning tea, I'll walk around and check what's in their lunchboxes. "If someone has something that is not appropriate they actually dob each other in."

Ms Stange said "offending parents" were spoken to at mid-term interviews. "We really have to do it (confiscate food) only a few times and they all step in line," she said. The school's head teacher Glenda Seawright said since the regime was introduced, the children's concentration had improved. "This year we are trialing a fruit-only morning tea," she said. "It is an education for the parents because they see packaged food as convenient. We would never humiliate or embarrass the child."

Melissa Mathews, whose son Layton, 5, attends Ormiston College Pre-school, supports the strict approach to junk food. "We were told ahead of time that if it's in there they have it taken away and then at the end of the day they'll have it given back," she said. "They're just trying to promote good eating habits . . . you see too many kids who are overweight."

But Mr Somerset dismissed the no junk food ban as a band-aid solution. "It sounds well meaning at the surface, but it's not instituting any change at home or on weekends," he said. "The first assumption is that the child-care centre actually knows what is an appropriate lunchbox and what isn't and that's not always the case."

An Education Queensland spokesman said state pre-schools encouraged healthy food choices, but food should not be taken from students. "Teachers supervise pre-school children while they eat the food they have brought from home," he said. "Food provided by parents should not be confiscated." The State Government this month commissioned the first of three Safe and Healthy vans to travel around schools to promote the benefit of good nutrition and physical activity.

Source



27 March, 2005

BIGOTRY -- THE POLITICALLY CORRECT WAY

By Doug Hagin

There has always been bigotry, and sadly there always will be bigotry. Call it the ugly side of human nature, or the worst angels of our race, but some of us will always be consumed with hatred and intolerance for those who are different. Bigotry is a mental disorder if you ask me, a form of delusion where one person can not accept that someone else looks, talks, dresses, or prays differently than they do. It is truly pathetic to watch or listen to a bigot spewing their rank stupidity and generally making a public nuisances of themselves.

Perhaps the most disturbing bigotry on display in today's world is coming form a rather odd place. It is very strange indeed to see and hear the bigotry spewed by the political correctors of the world. These people have long cloaked themselves in the garb of social justice and equality, yet it is they who have become the bigots and the haters of today's society. Their hatred comes not so much from gender or race, but from ideological differences. Anyone is very welcome to look different from the politically correct, but watch out if anyone dares think of having a different opinion.

Consider please some recent examples of how obsessed the politically correct are to eradicate anyone who thinks differently than they do. Make no mistake, the goal of this group of bigots is not to debate or disagree honorably. Instead their goal is to stamp out anyone who thinks it OK to have a diverse ideology.

At a mall in South Florida the upcoming Easter holiday is being erased by the politically bigoted. No store can mention the word Easter. Oh there is a bunny there to take pictures with the kids, and an egg hunt, but the word Easter is forbidden. So much for respecting diversity of religion. The only religion the politically correct want to hear is their beloved secular humanism.

In Norway, the Prime Minister is angry at IKEA, a furniture manufacturer, because their instruction manuals show only men assembling furniture. The manuals are sexist and discriminatory according to Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik. Ah but there is a kink in the armor of the politically correct here my friends. Seems IKEA has opted not to show women in their manuals lest they offend Muslims. Quite the quandary these mental midgets have isn't it? Whom shall they dare to offend?

In Arkansas managers of a charity-run senior citizens center have been forced to ban any of these folks from saying grace before meals. It seems some narrow-minded busy-body threatened to sue if the prayers were allowed to continue. Once more only secular humanism is acceptable to these bigots. So much for their claim of loving religious freedom.

In Texas advocates of breast feeding are asking the state legislature to forbid baby formula manufacturers from giving out free samples to new mothers. So I suppose they are now to be the sole voice in how parents should feed their babies? How self-consumed these people are, and they are only too happy to enact laws dictating how others should raise their children.

At Bowdoin College in Maine the politically correct bigots are in high gear. They are outraged that a Black Conservative was invited to speak recently. The speaker Vernon Robinson, is not really a Black guy according to the small minded critics. He is instead an Uncle Tom who has no right to speak on campus.

Now this might seem the most insidious case of mental dysfunction but wait there is another punch line. The critics of Robinson are also accusing the student Republicans who invited Robinson of displaying a lack of openness by asking him to speak. Well sure, they forgot to check with the Bowdoin bigots before asking Robinson to speak. How dare they think for themselves!

At Harvard actress Jada Pinkett Smith recently ran afoul of the politically correct while giving a speech during the Cultural Rhythms show. What was the actress's sin? Why she talked about her marriage to actor Will Smith and apparently did not talk about Gay or lesbian relations. How dare this insensitive actress be heterosexual? And even worse she talked about it in public!

Students at Middle Tennessee State have decided that the word "lady" is sexist and derogatory to the universities women's athletic teams. "When we use the word 'lady,' today at least, we recognize it as sort of a sexist remark," said Ryan Husak, a member of Solidarity. "It is used to sort of suggest secondary status." Really? I just thought it was good manners. How nice of these know-it-alls to educate our heathen minds.

In Brooksville, Florida a City-Councilman has deemed the city logo offensive and racist because there are, hold your breath now, two Confederate soldiers carrying a Confederate flag on it. Once more history is to be erased and Southerners are to be ashamed of their ancestors and Southern heritage is to sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.

So understand this if you talk differently, think differently, dare to worship any religion but secular humanism, vote Republican, own a gun, are Southern, a White male, a Conservative Black or woman, call women ladies, mention that you are attracted to the opposite sex, drive an SUV, eat meat, smoke, do not worship the United Nations, or support America defending herself, you are now targeted.

There is no place here for you. You are not to be tolerated or included and your sensitivities matter not. Don't like it? Tough you should have thought more carefully before deciding to think for yourself.



ACADEMIC MERIT INCORRECT IN ACADEME

Another revolution is stirring at the influential University of California system. A faculty committee there concluded this week that National Merit Scholarships - the academic plums that high school strivers dream of winning - should be abandoned. Based on recent history, the suggestion may stir up a storm.

Four years ago, the University of California president declared he would dump the SAT college admissions tests unless changes were made. The College Board, which administers those tests, scrambled. As a result, last weekend thousands of students took a new, longer SAT that included a writing sample.

Now the merit scholarships, based on different tests taken by 11th-graders, are under fire out west. The California professors complained that too few minorities and poor students win the awards, which range from $500 to $10,000 and are financed by corporations and colleges.

This raises interesting questions. Are the tests a fair way to measure merit? And, more broadly, how much aid for college students should be based on financial need and how much strictly on academic merit?

National Merit Scholarships are only a small part of that issue. In recent years, the trend has been toward merit. In 1999, 44% of the grants colleges and universities gave students were based on measures of merit such as high test scores and class rankings. By 2003, that had risen to 54%, led by second-tier colleges looking to move up in college rankings.

Source



26 March, 2005

THE RECENT TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICA

Many things that were strengths are now incorrect

America in year 2000 has emerged as the sole superpower of the world.... But beneath America's complacent veneer are raw realities: out-of-control non-white immigration, rising racial friction, rampant black and Latino gang crime, violent and dumbed-down schools, unwed welfare mothers, widespread social dysfunctions and an ever-mushrooming national debt. Much of this is studiously kept unreported in the major media. For example, a rare attack by a deranged "white supremacist" is dramatized for many hours on TV (reinforcing white "racist" shame); but unreported are Justice Department statistics proving black-on-white violence 50 times more frequent than white-on-black. Unwed mothers, living in promiscuity and on Government welfare, are portrayed as "disadvantaged" rather than a moral scandal. Our bankrupting national debt of $5 trillion pays for social disorders such as gun violence in schools and illegitimacy that didn't even exist a few decades ago. Skillfully indoctrinated by ceaseless media slant, the public is deluged with and absorbs massive misinformation.

All major American cities were white in the 1950s. Today most are mainly non-white. Eastern and central cities such as Baltimore, Detroit and Washington are predominantly black, run by black mayors and officials. The Washington, D.C. area, mainly black, includes also 600,000 Hispanics and Asians along with 300,000 Islamic Muslims - and has the look-and-feel of a foreign capital. A white, in line at a bank or store, hears mainly foreign languages spoken among clerks and customers; he, not they, feels like the foreigner. Entire regions of the southwest, especially California, are mainly Hispanic. So also is Spanish-speaking Miami. Many cities are forced into bilingual, Babel-like and often error-prone communications.

Despite Government mandating of racial integration and school bussing of exhausted children to enforce it, white flight from non-white areas keeps on accelerating. Most whites yearn to live with their own kind and culture in white neighborhoods and schools. They dare not say so openly for fear of being branded "racist," thus jeopardizing careers in a punishing regulatory web where even renting only to tenants of one's choice violates anti-discrimination "fair housing" laws. So do all questions about the racial makeup of a neighborhood when house-hunting (mere mention of such is taboo, so many whites just do "drive by" surveying secretively, and often, before buying). Thus whites quietly abandon the cities and the uncomfortable maze of third- world languages, customs, rap music, alien cultures and the anxiety of kaleidoscopic multiculturalism. Increasingly even the suburbs of many cities are now non-white (such as Prince Georges county adjacent to Washington D.C.). As whites are driven away into ever more remote suburbs, racial friction in cities like Los Angeles is now mainly non-white, a four-way conflict, often of bloody violence, among blacks, Hispanics, Asians and non-white immigrants (especially new illegals).

The Euro-white tradition of values, customs and culture that built America (the "dead white men") is routinely denounced and "deconstructed" in public schools and universities. This is textbook cultural Marxism: first revolution, to smash traditional ideology; then replace it with egalitarian (socialist) statism. History is revised to shame the "white oppressor." Designedly ignored is the historical reality that all races have sinned equally as oppressors in distant history but whites were the first to abolish slavery. Ironically, while any hint of "hate speech" against minorities is prosecuted vigorously, the book-length Hating Whitey documents widespread anti-white speech by professors in class openly smearing whites as "the scourge of mankind." All "racism" is evil — unless it's anti-white....

Over the past thirty years, immigration (mainly non-white) sky-rocketed into unprecedented numbers and rates. Since 1990, levels of immigration are quadruple pre-1970 rates. Compared to traditional rates of 200,000 per year (mainly Euro-white and rapidly assimilated into American culture), today's immigration into the U.S. averages over 1 million every year, 35 million since 1970. Mainly non-white and contemptuous of assimilation, many new immigrants expand their own alien cultures, languages and religions throughout America while exploiting its full range of welfare housing, Medicaid, food stamps and other benefits. Their attitude is clearly not to adopt American culture or language but instead that America assimilate to theirs.

More here



DIVERSITY = LOGICAL ANAESTHESIA

If you want to see how the diversity movement is eroding the critical thinking skills of college students, just pick up a copy of your local college newspaper. Recently, I picked up a copy of the UNCW Seahawk. I’m still recovering. In the Seahawk “To the Editor” section, I read a letter entitled “Get over it – diversity is good for you.” The testy (not to mention condescending) author of the letter was responding to another letter writer who opposed lower admission standards as a means of increasing black enrollment. The response said, in part, “You assume we would have to lower UNCW's standards of academic excellence to allow a higher entry of minority students - insinuating that there aren't a large amount of minority students that meet the standard set at UNCW.”

Re-read that statement and think about it for a moment. A student defending our diversity program, which already uses lower admissions standards for minorities, is saying; 1) we don’t have to lower academic standards to allow more minority students, and 2) there are already large numbers of minority students that meet university standards. This kind of logic often appears when white liberals try to help minorities. They know that every time the “help” takes the form of lowering standards, they are contributing to negative stereotypes of the group they claim to assist. That makes them feel bad, so they remind us that their ideas are not really necessary. They are just “good for us all.”

The author of this particular letter, a social work student (that’s a shocker!), says it this way: “Your mom used to make you eat your vegetables. No, you didn't like it, and it wasn't comfortable. She did it because she knows vegetables are good for you. So, UNCW is forcing you to expose yourself to new cultures. No, it's not comfortable at first, but in the long run: It's good for you!”

In case you don’t understand diversity-speak, here’s the English translation: “I believe in equality of people and equality of cultures and I know the best way to promote it because I am smarter than you. In fact, I am your mommy. If you don’t agree with me (and eat your diversity vegetables) you will be sent to your room without any supper. Now shut up and go to your room! And celebrate diversity, damn you!”

Whenever I read such letters, I wonder how they make it into the campus paper. But then I read articles by the Seahawk staff and I remember that severe intellectual hernia and fanatical intolerance (in the name of tolerance) are actually prerequisites for publication in our student paper. According to the last Seahawk staff editorial, intolerance (the greatest of all evils) has “reared its ugly head once again.” The alleged intolerants are a UNC-Chapel Hill Christian fraternity that just won a federal injunction against their university for de-recognizing them. Their crime was keeping non-Christians from being voting members and officers in their Christian club.

Even though the university engages in racial discrimination in both admissions and hiring, the Seahawk claims that there are “no exceptions in discrimination.” That is to say, campus groups can never, under any circumstances, discriminate on the basis of anything. Not even beliefs. So, according to the Seahawk staff, students who believe that rape and pedophilia are good must be allowed to join, vote, and hold office in a Christian fraternity. Remember: There are “no exceptions in discrimination!” Translation: In our effort to promote tolerance, we will not tolerate any exceptions to our rules. And our rules indicate that, when it comes to beliefs, there can be no fixed rules.

The Seahawk also says that “Acceptance is supposed to represent the central ideal of Christianity.” In other words, the greatest of all commandments (forget what Jesus said) is the commandment to adhere to moral relativism. Of course, some Christians don’t accept that idea. But their lack of acceptance is simply unacceptable. Unless you share the belief that all beliefs are acceptable, you cannot be a recognized student club. Moral relativism is acceptable. Moral absolutism is not. This is an absolute rule.

The Seahawk also scoffs at the idea that the Christian Fraternity “claims its right to the first amendment protects the organization’s stance on gay marriage and abstinence, among other sensitive issues.” The Seahawk, which urges tolerance of beliefs, just can’t tolerate these particular stances. I guess it all depends on what the definition of “stance” is. If a stance is a stance and not a belief, maybe it doesn’t have to be accepted. I don’t know where I stand on this one. My head is still spinning.

The Seahawk also insists that “Ethnocentrism has no place in a democratic nation, especially one as diverse and complex as the United States.” In other words, ethnocentrism is so bad, we cannot even consider it. That’s because everyone agrees that ethnocentrism is bad. It is an absolute. It is a truism. But do these students actually accept all of this nonsense about the equality of all cultures, beliefs, and ideas? Would the students refrain from imposing their own anti-genocidal cultural values on Nazi Germany? Maybe saving Jews from mass genocide doesn’t feel as good as being tolerant and accepting of Nazi cultural traditions.

The Seahawk concludes its editorial with two interesting assertions. First, they say that “Extremists are able to push their beliefs at an increasing number of venues previously closed to religious fanaticism.” They provide no example because their only purpose is to classify the Christian fraternity members as religious fanatics. Second, they say that “There is a time and place for personal beliefs ­- just not in legislation and university policy.” These students almost seem sincere in their belief that diversity proponents are keeping their personal beliefs out of university policy. And they seem to believe that they really don’t believe in anything. I don’t know which of these two beliefs is more pathetic. Maybe they’re equal.

Source



25 March, 2005

MEDIA CORRECTNESS IN AUSTRALIA

Prof. David Flint speaks:

Every so often someone lets the cat out of the bag. One recent example was the president of an English teachers' association - and former chairman of a government curriculum committee - who editorialised that the nation's English teachers had failed. This was not because of any prevalence of bad grammar or inadequate knowledge of Shakespeare. This was because their former students had just re-elected the Howard Government.

Last September, the Sydney Morning Herald journalist and former ABC Media Watch presenter David Marr insisted that the "natural culture of journalism is kind of vaguely soft-Left inquiry sceptical of authority". More ominously, he decreed that journalism should be a left-wing closed shop. "If they don't come out of that world, they really can't be reporters." Anyone else, he said, can just find another job.

But the golden rule of journalism is not to see the world through some ideological prism. Rather it is that while comment is free, facts are sacred. A clear distinction must always be made between opinion and the news, the publication of the results of the objective search for the truth on matters of current relevance. With the exception of the taxpayer-funded public broadcasters - where opinion must be balanced - the media remain free to express their views, however robust and partisan.

While the media demand that all institutions be accountable, it is a supreme irony that under their very own standards, much of Australia's elite media, and particularly its public broadcasters, are constantly found to be wanting.

The solution is not, as Media Watch argues, in imposing increasingly draconian regulation on the ABC's own competitors. When it was suggested the program operate under precisely the same disclosure rule it insists applies to commercial radio, Marr predictably dismissed this as nonsense.

But Media Watch would go further - it wants the gagging of some commercial radio presenters as well as big de facto fines on the stations. It once even called for a government-appointed media tribunal over the press - something hardly consistent with democracy. As noted American media watcher Stephen Brill famously told one of Marr's predecessors, Media Watch is not the solution: it's part of the problem. It ignores fundamental ethical requirements the most humble newspaper regularly observes - for example, that if you make a serious allegation subsequently found to be without foundation, you report this prominently.

When I was recently a guest on the ABC's Lateline program, I pointed out the obvious need for balance on the ABC. Marr theatrically declared this "nonsensical". It was, he argued, unbelievable that "this man, in this day and age should have such a kindergarten view of balance".

But in its very own code, the ABC requires that every reasonable effort be made to ensure programs are "balanced and impartial". It says that editorial staff are to present a wide range of perspectives, "not unduly favouring one over the others". Really?

We regularly hear the views of both government and opposition on ABC television news, which is perfectly proper. But then the opposing view will often be repeated not only by the Democrats, but also by one of two Green senators. And the news itself is too often selected through a "soft leftie" filter. Worse, in each week, ABC TV engages no conservative presenter and only one conservative commentator - and that for less than 10 minutes, on a Sunday morning and during church hours.

Not in anybody's wildest imagination could this be called "balance".... When Marr dismissed the code requirement for balance as "nonsensical", I pointed to the one and only program on ABC TV that is clearly balanced, Insiders on Sunday mornings. Even then, the conservative voice is always in a minority. But at least this ensures that any opinion, Left or Right, can be balanced. And not just "as soon as possible", as the code prescribes, but instantly.

Rather than continuing to be yet another left-wing taxpayer-funded opinion program, Media Watch should consist of a balanced panel exchanging no doubt robust opinions about the media. (Marr is strenuously opposed to this.) The chairman should have the skills of a Barrie Cassidy - and his courage, too.

Recall Cassidy's brave remarks on commercial TV about the ABC's almost deranged attempt to impose an extraordinary dose of political correctness after 9-11: "At the ABC, a memo went out about a week ago to all radio commentators that they were not to say anything derogatory about the Taliban … So here I am on Channel 10, I can say that the Taliban execute women for adultery. They've been known to throw acid in the face of young girls who don't wear veils and so on. I can get it off my chest on Channel 10 but I can't say it on the ABC."

More here



MULTICULTURALISM HAS DESTROYED BRITAIN'S SENSE OF COMMUNITY

Even the British government now recognizes it .... but they have nothing to replace it with

Given that the underlying philosophy of today's political establishment is the equality of man idea, concomitant of which is the notion of cultural equivalence, local authorities see it as their duty to give expression to the minority cultures in our midst. And as diversity has replaced homogeneity, local governments ensure that public space is no longer allowed to reflect exclusively the indigenous culture. From an organisation that once concentrated all its energies on local matters, the local authority has become an arbiter of conflicting world views.

Whether it's in the form of the political indoctrination of schoolchildren, the favour of ethnic minorities and asylum seekers over the indigenous population, or the simplest notice in a public library; the local authority always puts an internationalist slant on its actions. The international communist flavour of their corporate logos says it all; "Working towards equality for all."

Our towns and cities have become dominated by a forest of street signs giving pointless directions and officious instructions whose subliminal message is a reminder of town hall control, and all that that means. Our town centres are cluttered with cheap and nasty pastiche street furniture, a pathetic attempt to recreate the individuality and vernacular of times past, but of course within the context of our wonderful multicultural utopia. Traditional British festivals and their public celebration have been sanitised into meaninglessness so as to ensure their compatibility with the myriad cultures that now inhabit the country. Christmas has been corrupted into a festival of spending, Easter has been elbowed out of the way for the Third World-focused "Red Nose Day", and Whitsuntide has been left in the gutter.

In a vain effort to compensate for this marginalisation of British cultural festivals, the establishment organises its own multicultural events. Their aim is to bring together Britain's disparate cultures under the umbrella of multiculturalism and within the parameters of political correctness. They don't work. Real cultural celebrations are an expression of the community, whereas those that are imposed from above are essentially meaningless - hence the paucity of support and attendance for local authority-inspired politically correct events; they are dull and lacking in spontaneity.

Is there any wonder our urban life is so soulless? It's been eliminated in the cause of multiculturalism.

Not being satisfied with alienating the British people from our own towns, cities, and public parks, the establishment is busy trying to infect the countryside with its multicultural makeover. It's too British you see. The simple pleasure of a country walk is seen as too much of a White pursuit and as such it is perceived as a threat to multiculturalism. And of course this is all the fault of the indigenous people who in some way are responsible for Muslims and inner city Blacks not setting out on the Pennine Way.

"Empowering the community."

Vandalism is an expression of the alienation from public space. For instance, fifty years or so ago the public park was used both for private and public leisure activities. It was an expression of civic pride, a community facility which people visited both to enjoy the countryside in the town and to enjoy with like minded people a sense of belonging, of being part of a community.

Nowadays the park is no longer ours. It's theirs and they use it like everything else that they've taken from us, it is used to reinforce their anti-British egalitarian agenda. In most towns and cities the public park is a place to avoid. It's where people are attacked, it's where the bandstands and pavilions have been burned down, where the benches are smashed and obscene graffiti adorns the derelict cafeteria walls.

Throughout history the ritual destruction of the monuments of power has been a symbol of opposition. And inarticulate though those acts of vandalism may be, what else is the smashing of bus shelters and phone booths but an expression of opposition to what is. This isn't an attempt to excuse such behaviour; it merely puts it in context.

Vandalism is generally aimed at that which falls (however inaccurately) within the description `public property', and on the surface it appears to be nihilistic destruction for destruction's sake. But it is more than that. The problem is that public property and public space are no longer extensions of the White British self. They have become another tentacle of the alien multiculturalism which is why they're under attack.

Somewhat belatedly the establishment has woken up to the connection between community and public space and is now trying desperately to do something about it. They were so convinced of their own egalitarian dogma that they expected everyone else to jump aboard their multicultural bandwagon. But instead of getting involved people have left it up to them; public space is now seen as a town hall thing. If there's a problem in the public sphere, let them deal with it. And of course they can't.

So now we see the beginnings of an establishment-inspired reinvention of the community. Having all but destroyed it in the cause of multiculturalism, politicians are now going on about the "empowerment of communities." They want to give back what they've taken and allow communities to say what goes. They don't like what they've unleashed and their hope is that by "empowering communities" they can reintroduce order and commitment to public space.

But there's a problem. At the moment when anyone mentions the word `community' one immediately thinks of ethnic minority communities. For they're the only communities that are recognised as existing in Britain; White communities on the other hand are an anathema to the establishment and indeed it has spent the past fifty odd years trying to destroy them. So clearly any community that the establishment wishes to `empower' must be a community that conforms to liberal-left ideology; preferably a multicultural/multiracial community, or failing that a minority community will do. But they can't possibly "empower" a White community because their whole philosophy is founded on the idea that such thing doesn't exists.

Establishment efforts to inculcate this other idea of community betray an ignorance of human development and they are doomed to failure. Rod Liddle writing in the Sunday Times a couple of weeks ago made the same mistake. In order to encourage a feeling of national identity, he said, we should, "inculcate a core of Britishness in our schools."

What came first, the Britishness or the inculcation?

Community and national identity develop from bottom up; the development is organic not prescriptive! Our naturally occurring communities have been undermined and out of necessity the powers that be are hurriedly drawing up replacements according to their own plans. It puts one in mind of the committee that in designing a horse came up with a camel.

Beautiful irony

Certainly community will not, can not, develop according to the liberal's plan. And it is inevitable that the centrifugal forces of politics will cause coalescence along cultural and racial lines, whatever anyone does to prevent it.

My guess is that prior to the imposition of multiculturalism most British people were hardly aware of their Britishness, particularly those who'd not travelled abroad. Culture is a term of opposition. And without other cultures against which to compare one's own, most people will be largely unaware of their own culture - they see it as just the way things are done.

And it wasn't until foreign cultures began to form in our own land and appear in our public space that we began to ask questions about our own culture and identity. We'd no need to do this before except in an academic sense. Now we've got angst-ridden liberals like Liddle et al wringing their hands and talking about Britishness and attempting to define it in terms of tolerance, forgiveness, and understanding. Well they would, wouldn't they?

But isn't it amazing how chickens always come home to roost, and usually in such an ironic fashion!

Multiculturalism is an attempt to minimise the importance of culture, and the theft of public space was a necessary part of this effort. But instead of marginalising culture, as was intended, multiculturalism is actually focusing attention on it. The effect is diametrically opposed to that which was intended. And whereas Britishness was never an issue before the multicultural idea took shape, now it's becoming the issue.

This is why the liberals are so anxious to be the ones to define what Britishness means. They've got to come up with something that both satisfies the growing disquiet with the state of the nation and complies with their multiculturalisation of it - which is the cause of the disquiet in the first place. It's a tall order, especially since one is the antithesis of the other.

More here



24 March, 2005

MORE DOUBLE STANDARDS

The Law Society of South Africa has objected to a Young Designers Emporium campaign in which a woman is seen being "spanked and bruised". The campaign, Brand Spanking New Fashion, is being run at YDE's stores and on their website. The society's gender and equality committee said the advert is in bad taste and cannot be tolerated in a country where the legislature and other concerned stakeholders are making efforts to root out all forms of women and child abuse, said spokesperson Nonto Umlaw. Society chairperson Thoba Poyo said: "Advertising is a very powerful medium and the messages emanating from advertisers are meant to change perceptions".

YDE creative director Sam Coleman said this was not an advert but a campaign on their shop windows and on their website and is directed at customers. "It wasn't the intention that the campaign be taken seriously, we don't take our advertising too seriously," he said. He said there are no bruises in the pictures, just a slight redness. He said that instead of referring to "new season clothing", they used "Brand Spanking New Fashion" in which they show males and females being spanked. "We show a man and woman being spanked. It is quite surprising that no one said anything about the man being spanked," he said. Coleman emphasised that they were not depicting a violent act. The campaign started a few weeks ago and "isolated complaints" were received. It was even discussed on a Cape Town-based radio station. "If we receive an absolute barrage of complaints we will stop the campaign," he said. "Our largest target group is women. Why would we want to offend our customers?" asked Coleman.

Source. Photos of the advertisements concerned here



ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT PC

Q: What is P.C.? PC stands for Politically Correct. We of the Politically Correct philosophy believe in increasing the tolerance for a DIVERSITY of cultures, race, gender, ideology and alternate lifestyles. Political Correctness is the only socially- and morally-acceptable outlook. Anyone who disagrees with this philosophy is bigoted, biased, sexist, and closed-minded.

Q: Why should I be PC? Being PC is fun. PCism is not just an attitude, it is a way of life! PC offers the satisfaction of knowing that you are right, and that you are undoing the social evils of centuries of oppression.

Q: I am a white male--can I still be PC? Sure. You just have to feel very guilty.

Q: Why? If you are a white male, your ancestors were responsible for practically every injustice in the world--slavery, war, genocide and plaid sport coats. That means that YOU are partially responsible for these atrocities. Now it is time to balance the scales of justice for the descendants of those individuals whose ancestors your ancestors oppressed.

Q: How? It's simple. You've got to be careful what you say, what you think, and what you do. You just don't want to offend anyone.

Q: You mean I should guard against offending ANYONE? That's right. Being offensive is destructive, and will not make the world a harmonious utopia, like in John Lennon's IMAGINE.

Q: How else can I be PC? Oh, there are lots of ways. For example, why buy regular ice cream when you can buy "Rain Forest Crunch?" Segrega..whoops..separate all of your garbage into different containers: glass, metal, white paper, blue paper, plastic, etc. Make sure that none of your make-up has been tested on animals. Try to find at least sixty ways to use your water; when you take a shower, brush your teeth at the same time. Then don't let the water go down the drain, use it to irrigate your lawn. Or better yet, replace your lawn with a vegetable garden. Don't use aerosol. And by all means, don't burn or deface our flag. Remember, as a citizen of America, you're living in God's country. If you are fortunate enough to know your ethnic heritage, dress the part! Don't do drugs. You should listen to at least one of the following PC musicians: U2, REM, Sinead O'Connor, Sting, or KD Lang. Harass people who wear fur coats. Remind them that an innocent baby seal was mercilessly clubbed. Or just yell, "FUR!" They hate that. And don't EVER eat meat.

Q: Don't eat meat? Why not?! Cows are animals, just like humans are animals. That means that they have rights. When you eat meat, you're oppressing animals!

Q: So ALL killing is bad? No, not always. Sometimes killing can be justified, like in the Persian Gulf. You have to be able to tell when an animal has rights, and when it doesn't.

Q: How do I know when an animal has rights? The general rule is as follows: IF AN ANIMAL IS RARE, PRETTY, BIG, CUTE, FURRY, HUGGABLE, OR LOVABLE, THEN IT HAS RIGHTS. Examine the following chart: RIGHTS NO RIGHTS cows cockroaches cute bunnies flies dolphins in tuna nets tuna in tuna nets whales sharks red squirrels gray squirrels owls loggers trees corn harbor seals barnacles

Q: Wow. What else can I do to be PC? Hug a tree. Rejoice each day in our cultural differences, for they are what gives flavour to our great country. Get in touch with your sexual identity. Check your refrigerator for freon leaks. Subscribe to National Geographic. Search it for neat non- Western cultural traditions and costumes. After you read it, use the paper as an alternate fuel source.

Q: I'm not sure about all of this. If you are feeling unsure about your motivation, just remember: PC is right. YOU ARE RIGHT. It's that simple. You are right.

Q: How do I know if an action is non-PC? Good question. It's important to know when someone is saying something insensitive so that you can have that person removed from society. The guideline is as follows: Is the confrontation between two white people? Yes -> The liberal is right. No -> The white person is oppressing the ethnic person. Remember, many seemingly obvious issues--such as the railroading of Mayor Marion Barry, the Clarence Thomas issue, and the Saint Mary's University Caribbean Society shut-down--are really race issues. Here's a fun practice drill for you: See how many newspaper articles you can make into race-bias stories. It's fun! Some PCers are so good they can make the weather report look like a KKK pamphlet!

Q: What should I do if I see someone doing something non-PC? It all depends on the situation. If you are not in a position of authority, by all means report this activity immediately to whomever is in charge. If your school leader, employer, or superior is hip to the trend of the 90s, they (not "he"; see upcoming question regarding PC-correct usage) will take the necessary steps to have the insensitive offender disciplined.

Q: But isn't that censorship? The Constitution never meant for racism, sexism or insensitivity to be espoused by anyone. That's not what free speech is about. Some call it censorship. PCers call it "selective" speech. Saying something negative about a particular race or gender is just as damaging as, say, punching them in the face. We just can't allow that kind of verbal assault.

Q: I've heard a lot about PC words to replace "Black," "Indian," etc. Yes. That's part of the PC movement. You see, part of the way we think about people comes directly from the words we use to describe them. Take "black" for instance. Why should a person be judged by the color of their skin?

Q: You mean that they should rather be judged by the content of their character? No, I mean they should be judged by where their ancestors are from. If your great grandparents are from Africa, or Asia, or wherever, then you should be identified by that fact. You can even apply for special scholarships!

Q: I'm a mixture of French, German, English and Russian. Can I get one? No, there are none offered to white males--however, if you are a woman ...oops... womyn (see PC LEXICON at end of handbook), there should be plenty.

Q Hey, wouldn't a white person from Libya or Egypt technically be an African-American? Technically, yes. But that's not the kind of African-American we mean. That is, we're REALLY talking about skin color, but we're pretending that we aren't. Another example: a white South- African immigrant is not an African-American (or either).

Q: How can I learn to make my language more Politically Correct? You must un-learn everything you learned in elementary-school English classes. Like using "he" when you're not referring to anyone in particular, which is offensive to womyn. Some people substitute "he or she," or--better yet--"she or he," but that still admits to gender differences, which is offensive to anyone who is truly Politically Correct. The PC-preferred term is "they." Thus, the sentence "everyone must pick up his check" becomes "everyone must pick up their check." It sounds awkward, but you'll get used to it. For more help, see the PC LEXICON at the end of the handbook.

Q: I'd like my child to be PC. What can I do? Well, for one thing, we should forcibly encourage students to volunteer their time with philanthropies. Also, we should re- emphasize non-Western perspectives on history. Finally, we should re-structure tests and quizzes to reflect cultural biases.

Q: I don't get it. Well, the way the system works now, "select" under-represented minorities who tend to do worse on entrance tests have lower standards of admission at school and work, and receive preferential treatment. This is unfair and wrong.

Q: It is? Yes. The truly PC way to do it is to have different grading scales for different groups, which gives or subtracts points from the final score, depending on who is taking the test. If you are white, then you have been benefited by society during your life. That means that you lose ten to fifteen points to make the test fair to everyone else.

Q: I guess that sounds right. It IS right. YOU are right. That's the beauty of PC.

Q: What else do I have to be careful of? Humor. We take every comment VERY seriously. We will not accept any comment, joke, remark, or anything that sounds like it could be a gender or racial slur.

Q: Give me an example. "What's black and white and red all over?" has been staple humor for decades. Not PC--it can be taken the wrong way. In every day speech, try to use phrases like, "Isn't that the pot calling the kettle African-American?" Any racial jokes--or jokes even mentioning culture or gender--should be omitted. True, this mostly limits comedy to the level of sitcoms, but that's the price you pay for social equality, justice, and that warm, fuzzy feeling you get from knowing that you are undoing centuries of oppression.

Q: Is that all there is to it? Yes. The Politically Correct belief is essentially a recognition that people are diversely equal. We rejoice in this equality by treating people differently based on their equal individualities. Hop aboard the bandwagon... Be PC. Or else you're an intolerant, racist, sexist, insensitive pig.

More here



23 March, 2005

MAKING FOOD FASHIONS INTO LAW

It's just pandering to vocal special-interest groups, of course. But note that they are already talking about banning the food that parents provide. That the kids don't like fashionable food doesn't matter, of course

Tony Blair is to bow to the increasing clamour from parents for better school meals for their children and announce a series of plans to swap junk food for 'organic and local' fresh meals. In a response to the plea from TV chef Jamie Oliver for a 'school dinner revolution', the Prime Minister will say that school kitchens will be rebuilt and equipped so dishes can be cooked from scratch, while dinner ladies are given 'culinary skills' to help them create appetising menus. Writing in today's Observer , Blair acknowledges for the first time the strength of parental anger about the fatty, sugary processed diet on offer in many schools. He pledges an independent food trust to build on and expand the work begun by Oliver in his Channel 4 series, Jamie's School Dinners .

The moves will form part of a mini 'children's manifesto' to be published tomorrow outlining Labour's pitch to parents on issues from diet to paedophiles targeting children through the internet. It will argue that far from fearing a 'nanny state', fami lies want the government to intervene to protect children's health and safety. The crux, however, will be its response to the uproar over the quality of school dinners triggered by Oliver's programme, which followed the chef and father of two as he tried to change menus for pupils in Greenwich, south-east London.

The Prime Minister said a new independent School Food Trust, to be set up by the government shortly, would 'draw on the remarkable work of Jamie Oliver in schools, of the Soil Association in encouraging the use of organic and local produce in school meals'. Promising that kitchens and dining areas would be improved as part of the £9.4 billion primary school building programme announced in last week's Budget, he added: 'It may take a little time to change children's tastes but it will be worth the effort if we can get them enjoying healthy and good quality food at school.'

Oliver told The Observer he was 'really pleased' the government was taking his campaign seriously but would scrutinise the detail. 'I think the government should use the knowledge from the people who have already worked on a grass- roots level: the dinner ladies deserve all the support they can get to make change,' he said. 'If changes are made it will only be a matter of months before British health, education and farming could be affected for the better. It could be one of the biggest food revolutions that England has ever seen.'

Education ministers are also considering moves to teach parents in deprived areas about nutrition and cookery. Greenwich families were initially suspicious of Oliver's emphasis on fresh food and vegetables, bringing in burgers for their children. Some headteachers in the borough are now moving on to vet lunchboxes provided by parents, asking them to meet Oliver's standards if their children opt out of school meals.

Sally Castle, headteacher of Ealdham Primary School in Eltham, which appeared on the final episode of Jamie's School Dinners , said twice as many pupils had begun bringing packed lunches since the new regime began and she was 'shocked and appalled' at some of the contents. 'Last week, there was a child with three bars of chocolate and two packets of crisps in its lunchbox. We are now finding that the children who tend to cause problems in the afternoons seem to be the ones who are bringing in packed lunches.' She is writing to parents with instructions on foods not to include, although she said it would be a 'radical idea' for some to adapt to providing a sandwich, fruit and non-fizzy drink. 'We can work on children in schools to understand the importance of healthy eating but if we're not getting to the parents as well, it will continue to be a struggle.'

Blair will shortly meet Oliver to receive the petition triggered by his Feed Me Better campaign, now signed by more than 100,000 people, calling for low-fat, healthy, fresh school food. Downing Street is expected to offer him an advisory role overseeing progress with school meals, although it is not clear whether he would accept. Blair has also been impressed by meetings with Peter Melchett of the Soil Association, which runs a programme in Gloucestershire showing how children can be fed on locally grown and organic menus.

The children's manifesto, to be unveiled tomorrow by election co-ordinator Alan Milburn, Education Secretary Ruth Kelly and Children's Minister Margaret Hodge, will also promise to curb junk food advertising on TV.

Source



A REALLLY KEEN OBESITY WARRIOR

In the worst case of scientific fakery to come to light in two decades, a top obesity researcher who long worked at the University of Vermont admitted yesterday that he fabricated data in 17 applications for federal grants to make his work seem more promising, helping him win nearly $3 million in government funding. Eric T. Poehlman, a leading specialist on metabolic changes during aging, acknowledged that he altered and made up research results from 1992 to 2002, including findings published in medical journals that overstated the effect of menopause on women's health. Under a plea agreement with federal prosecutors, Poehlman, 49, will be barred for life from receiving federal funding, pay back $180,000, and plead guilty to a criminal charge of fraud that could bring jail time. He agreed to ask scientific journals to retract and correct 10 articles they published by him.

''Dr. Poehlman fraudulently diverted millions of dollars," said David V. Kirby, the US attorney for Vermont. ''This in turn siphoned millions of dollars from the pool of resources available for valid scientific research proposals. As this prosecution proves, such conduct will not be tolerated." The fraud charge carries up to five years in prison, but lawyers involved in the case said Poehlman would ask for leniency and would probably get a lesser sentence or possibly no prison time at all.

Poehlman's misconduct was detected and exposed by a former University of Vermont lab technician, Walter F. DeNino, who once viewed Poehlman as his mentor. Poehlman was a star among obesity researchers. For years at the Universities of Vermont and Maryland and, since 2001, at the Université de Montréal, he won millions in grant dollars, copious prizes, and accolades from the students he mentored. Over two decades in which he published more than 200 journal articles, he built a reputation as a leading authority on the metabolic changes that come with aging, particularly during menopause. He also studied the genetics of obesity and the impact of exercise, often following human subjects over time to document how their physiology changed. Now that stellar career has unraveled. Poehlman resigned from the Université de Montréal in January. He did not respond to requests left at his Montreal home and with his attorney to be interviewed.

Some colleagues speculated that Poehlman buckled to an exaggerated perception of the pressure to publish papers and win grants to keep his laboratory going. Or perhaps he was so sure he knew the right answers that he cut corners to get to them, they said. DeNino, the lab technician, said in an interview that he does not know what Poehlman was thinking, but the benefits were clear: The fabricated data made his grant proposals more appealing and his papers more publishable, helping Poehlman become one of the better-funded researchers at the University of Vermont

More here



22 March, 2005

LEFTIST PERSECUTION OF DIVERSITY

They do all they can to wipe out real diversity. They are no more loyal to real diversity than they are to the man in the moon. It is only when "diversity" = "black" that it suits them

"Civil liberties group Liberty and Law has reported a senior Leeds councillor to the Standards Board for England over a campaign to dismiss a BNP care worker from her job because of her party affiliation......

The case involves care worker, Mrs Julie Day who works for a company providing community care to Leeds City Council. Mrs Day is a BNP activist who is standing for election in the Leeds West constituency.

As a result of complaints about her employment with Allied Healthcare, the parent company of Yorkshire Careline, which provides services for Leeds City Council, a special audit of her work was carried out. Leeds Council's executive board member for social services Cllr Peter Harrand told the Yorkshire Post Today: "As we requested, Allied Healthcare sent out questionnaires to all the service users and they are content with the service they are receiving. There have been no complaints - everybody is satisfied with the service they have received from this lady. Until there is anything to the contrary, things will continue as they are. On that basis, we will not be taking any further action." There appears to have been no justification whatsoever for the extraordinary audit of Mrs Day's work other than her association with the British National Party. Mrs Day claims to have been doing this work and similar work for sixteen years.

However, even after the audit found a positive response to the work of this woman Councillor Keith Wakefield the leader of the Labour Party opposition group is quoted in Yorkshire Post Today [electronic version 18 March] stating, "I am very disappointed, indeed angry that the ruling administration does not appear to have taken this issue very seriously. As I have said before, I have grave concerns that someone with such extreme political views is working with some of the most vulnerable members of society. Surely, if the individual concerned is not in the direct employment of the council, discussions could have been held with the agency to find her a less frontline role. I will be raising this matter with the leader of the council as a matter of urgency."....

In an earlier report 10 May Yorkshire Post Today [electronic version] Cllr Wakefield is reported as "shocked that Mrs Day was working on a Leeds City Council contract and demanded every pressure was put on the company to end her employment." He is quoted in the article as saying, "I have very strong reservations about this. If she's working in the care area with her political views I would want council officers to look at the contract to see if there is something we can do to make sure people like this are not employed. I find it staggering she's working in care with her political views. I want every pressure to be put on this company as it is totally inappropriate that someone responsible for care in the community should employ someone who has those kind of views towards different races and ethnic groups."

Liberty and Law believes Cllr Wakefield's continued intervention in her employment with the publicity that has resulted puts Mrs Day's continued employment and her personal safety at risk and that his action may constitute unlawful harassment of this woman".

More here



INCORRECT TRUTH ABOUT DRIVERS

Britain's chief driving examiner has risked the wrath of the country's women motorists by declaring that men are better drivers. Robin Cummins, who oversees the driving tests of 1.5m learners each year as the chief instructor for the Driving Standards Agency, claims men display more natural ability. Not only are they better at control and manoeuvring, they also need less tuition. Women need as much as 14 hours more tuition on average to pass their driving test and have a test pass rate of just 40%, six per cent behind men's at 46%.

While women take an average of 2.12 tests to pass, men need 1.87. "I'm not saying anything that isn't in the figures," says Cummins. "Of course there are plenty of women who are excellent drivers and plenty of men who are terrible, but overall it does seem to be that men can pick up the basic skills more quickly. With young men there seems to be more natural ability. Some females - though not all - take a lot more teaching." For both sexes the pass rate is highest for 17-year-olds (56% for women and 60% for men) and lowest for those 50 and over (29% for both men and women). Reversing is the most common problem for women failing the test.

The Advertising Standards Authority has rejected complaints that a poster claiming women were better drivers than men was untrue after an insurance company presented evidence to back the statement. It accepted women in general had fewer accidents and had made fewer claims. But a study by another insurance firm showed a woman was, on average, more likely to have an accident and her claims would be higher.

Source



21 March, 2005

THE SICK THINKING BEHIND THE ATLANTA TRAGEDY

Facing reporters after Brian Nichols’s homicidal rampage and escape from the Fulton County Courthouse, Howard was asked about the wisdom in having a lone female deputy sheriff escorting a large man accused of a violent sex crime. A sensible question, certainly, what with three people freshly murdered (a fourth soon would follow) and a madman now running loose on the streets of Atlanta. The gathered reporters and anyone watching on television might have anticipated a reasoned, thoughtful response, perhaps to include a call for the reevaluation of the relevant courthouse policies. Alas, no such response was forthcoming.

“I think that women are capable of doing anything that men are capable of doing,” Howard said. “And I don’t think it’s the weight, I think it’s the heart, the training, and the ability. I don’t think the weight has a whole lot to do with it.” In other words, if it were up to Mr. Howard, men accused of violent crimes would continue to be escorted through the courthouse hallways by female deputies half their size and twice their age. This is what passes for enlightened thinking in downtown Atlanta, where results, no matter how disastrous, count for less than one’s lofty intentions. Let the gutters run with blood, but we dare not show a lack of faith in our diminutive female police officers.

Let us now depart from the utopian fantasies of Paul Howard and turn our attention to the real world, where the typical man is stronger than the typical woman, and where no 100-pound woman, no matter how big her heart, how advanced her training, or how superior her ability, can go to Fist City with a 200-pound man and come out on top. Yes, it was a colossal blunder to leave Nichols under the supervision of a single female deputy, but it would be foolish to attribute Nichols’s escape simply to his escort’s sex and stature. It was complacency, that unseen killer of cops, that allowed Nichols to do what he did. He may well have pulled off the same feat had he been guarded by a man his own size or even larger, for Nichols had a plan, one he surely had worked out well in advance of putting it into action. The people guarding him, meanwhile, were merely going through the motions of their daily routine, moving the prisoners — the “bodies,” as they’re known in the argot of the courthouse — from the jail to the courtrooms and back again like so many widgets on an assembly line. Nothing bad happened yesterday, nothing bad will happen today.

But something bad had happened the day before, and it’s unconscionable that nothing was done about it. On March 10, the day before he escaped, Nichols was found in possession of two crudely fashioned knives, known to cops and cons alike as “shanks.” Prisoners can and do make shanks out of toothbrushes, plastic deodorant containers, pieces of their bunks, and just about anything else that can be melted or honed to a sharpened edge or point. It’s bad enough when a prisoner is found with a shank in his cell or in one of the jail’s common areas, but when he is found to be armed while in the “court line,” as was the case with Nichols, that can only signal an attempt to escape or to harm someone in the courtroom, either of which would justify such added security measures as shackles and extra bailiffs. Despite the recovery of these weapons from Nichols, nothing was done to ensure the safety of the courtroom staff the following day. Apparently, not even the female deputy whom Nichols attacked and overpowered was told of the potential threat. When you give a criminal an opportunity, don’t be surprised when he takes it.

Sadly, Paul Howard’s was not the only inane commentary on the Nichols matter. The cable-news channels were chockablock with talking-head attorneys who briefly turned their attentions from the momentous events of the Michael Jackson trial. Such is the demand for high-decibel discourse on these programs that the lawyers were paired off, prosecutors vs. defense attorneys, to all but scream at each other about Nichols’s case. “He should have been shacked,” the prosecutor says. “Rubbish,” answers the defense attorney, “he’s entitled to the presumption of innocence, and a defendant’s appearance in shackles is prejudicial.”

True, the Supreme Court has held that a defendant’s rights are violated if the jurors in his case see him bound in shackles or even dressed in his jailhouse garb. (Nichols was changing into his court clothes when he overpowered the deputy.) The solution to this is simple, and is practiced here in Los Angeles and elsewhere. Simply bring the shackled defendants into court while the jurors wait in the jury room. Once seated, the defendants can be secured with devices that immobilize them without being visible to jurors. When the jury enters, all they see is a meek and mild man holding a Bible and wearing in ill-fitting suit, not the snarling beast who has to be chained up to keep him from eating anyone who gets too close.

More here



Canada Clears Up What Is And What Just Ain't Hate Speech

Post lifted from Moonbat Central

From the National Post, we learn that calling for Jewish civilians to be murdered is protected academic speech in Canada, while reading the Bible is a hate crime.

Dr. Mohamed Elmasry, a University of Waterloo professor and president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, drew widespread public condemnation last October for telling a television panel discussion that all Israelis over the age of 18 should be targets for attacks by Palestinians because they are all members of the country's army. The Egyptian-born professor has said his comments were misunderstood. As you can see, there is a lot of ambiguity in the statement. He also came under investigation by the University of Waterloo, where he is a professor of computer engineering. Elmasry himself in the past led a campaign to indict evangelist Jerry Falwell for hate speech, and has campaigned to have Islamic religious law enforced in Canada. He claims Moslems inside Canada are living "under siege."

Police have decided not to charge a controversial Muslim leader under Canada's hate-crime laws for suggesting on a television talk show last fall that all adult Israelis are "legitimate targets" for Palestinian terrorists. Last November, the university's dean of science decided the professor's statements were "entirely unacceptable," but decided against formal disciplinary action. The local Islamofascists and jihadniks are pleased, while a true Moslem moderate condemned the "Doctor."

So if this is not hate speech in Canada, what is? Come now, grasshopper, don't you know? The Bible has been declared hate speech in Canada. Really! It says things about homosexuality that some PC profs may not like and it says the lands of Israel belong to the Jews.

That bill, passed 59-11 by the Senate, adds sexual orientation as a protected category in Canada's genocide and hate-crimes legislation, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison. The House of Commons passed the bill in September, 141-110.



20 March, 2005

LIMITLESS "RIGHTS"

Post lifted from Chris Brand:

‘LIBERTY vs HUMAN RIGHTS’ -- EXCLUSIVE -- Such was the title of a fine leader in the Sunday Times (13 iii) complaining that Britain’s subscription to the European Human Rights Act (or our judges’ interpretation of that subscription) was putting the courts in control of matters that should be decided by Members of Parliament or just personal choice. In the past year, ‘human rights’ have protected the privacy of celebrities Naomi Campbell (wanting to hide her drug addiction) and Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones (who had struck a lucrative deal that the only photos of their wedding would be by OK magazine); they have given British prisoners a princely £162 million for having to use chamber pots at night; they have given gypsies common land without payment; they gave a Preston tax-evader £10,000 because he had not been prosecuted in quite the right way; they overturned the decision of a Muslim headmistress that she didn’t want her schoolgirls’ bodies fully covered by the hilbab; they gave Army volunteers a right to “care” from regimental sergeant majors – warned not to taunt or tease teenage soldiers tired of doing press-ups; and they prevented several foreign Muslim males from being detained on serious warnings from the intelligence services. Correctly, the Sunday Times concluded that “the Human Rights Act has become the refuge for those with barely deserving and sometimes undeserving cases.”

{Subsequently, Conservative leader Mr Michael Howard seriously courted popularity by promising to scrap Britain’s Human Rights Act if it could not be sensibly amended. He called the HRA a “charter for chancers.” – His move came in response to UK local authorities saying they would give up the task of moving on gypsies because of the latter’s many Euro-decreed ‘rights.’}

{The Sun, the UK’s top-circulation tabloid which deserted the Tories in 1997, quickly came out against puffed-up ‘human rights’ for gypsies (18 iii); and, no sooner had I sent a message of support, the Sun was being discussed on BBC radio as likely to switch its support at the widely expected UK General Election to the Conservatives. Apparently, just as Mr Howard had found his stronger opposition in recent weeks to immigration and crime resonating with voters, the Sun had noticed higher-than-expected popular support for its anti-gypsy-‘rights’ campaign. Perhaps reciprocating the Sun’s coming support, Mr Howard, speaking in Scotland, backed the paper’s anti-‘human-rights’ position. He said the 1998 Human Rights Act was “a charter for chancers [that] makes a mockery of justice” by encouraging a tide of “politically correct” litigation.}



COSMETICS INCORRECT

Agitation for the sake of agitation

Cosmetics and fragrances have long been mixed with politics. Because most users are women, Marxists and some extreme feminists have declared them tools of female oppression. Conversely, dictatorships like Nazi Germany and the Taliban have banned cosmetics out of sheer misogyny. (Never mind the redundancy of forbidding mascara behind a burqa.)

Unsurprisingly, then, it's activism and not science that's behind the latest push to restrict access to cosmetics, with the activists targeting something called phthalates. (Pronounced "thal-lates.") Many of these ingredients are used in cosmetics. They can make perfume scents last longer, make nail polish more flexible, and keep hairspray from stiffening.

Activist groups seem to have joined the anti-phthalate campaign just to have something to agitate against. An umbrella group seeking to ban the chemicals, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, includes extremist environmentalist outfits like Friends of the Earth, the Environmental Working Group, and the Breast Cancer Fund. The last argues that as many as half of all breast cancers are chemically induced.

The current anti-cosmetics crusade is trying to force U.S. companies to comply with a European Union ban on some cosmetic phthalates. The activists say they will publish a "report card" this month to show which companies appeared to yield the most. Supposedly the EU knows something we don't. Yet a 2003 EU scientific report on one of the banned chemicals concluded that for consumers, "There is at present no need for further information or testing or risk reduction beyond those which are applied already." Why was such a clear finding utterly ignored? In part, it's because the EU recently adopted something called "the precautionary principle," whereby synthetic chemicals are presumed harmful until "proven" safe. Since it's impossible to prove anything safe, merely that there's no evidence of harm, this allows EU regulators to willy-nilly ban any man-made chemical they wish.

Whether a government bans something is often merely a reflection of the power and geographic location of activist groups. That's why the agricultural chemical Alar was banned over a decade ago in the United States but not in the EU. In Europe, the anti-cosmetic activists are much more powerful.

Yet the research stubbornly refuses to support them or their campaign. Every few years a group called the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel evaluates new data on cosmetic ingredients and issues updated reports. It's a massive undertaking precisely because cosmetic ingredients are so heavily researched. The conclusion of the panel's latest re-evaluation, from 2003, is unequivocal. All three of the EU-banned chemicals are "safe for use in cosmetic products in the present practices of use and concentrations, and therefore, the safety assessment of these compounds was not reopened."

While harmful phthalate effects have been found in massive doses in animal studies, CIR Director F. Alan Anderson told me, "Actual exposures are so low there could be no adverse effects from cosmetics." More specifically, "The exposure you get from cosmetics is 5,000 times lower than that shown to produce any kind of observable effect" in test animals and an "observable effect" may not even be harmful. Warning: Do not apply perfume more than 5,000 times in one evening.

The U.S. government has also weighed in. The "FDA believes that at the present time there is no reason for consumers to be alarmed at the use of cosmetics containing phthalates."

More here



19 March, 2005

THE "LADIES AGAINST FEMINISM" ORGANIZATION NOTES WHAT FEMINISTS SAY

An excerpt from their website:

"As a woman, I do not understand how you can form a website based on such a disgraceful idea. Everyone is obviously entitled to their own opinion, but your opinion lacks intelligence and is solely based on ignorance. Feminism is not about shunning the idea of being a housewife, etc. In fact it has nothing to do with that. It is simply a choice. For whoever wrote the article I was reading, how can you say that feminists basically look down on women who are housewives? I have never in my research, schooling, etc. heard such a ridiculous comment and criticism of feminism. I suggest that your website educate itself more on what feminism is all about before you contain ignorant articles on your website".

The quote above comes from one of many "Scorching Rhetoric" notes we've received here at LAF. One complaint we often hear is that we know nothing about feminism and that what we claim feminism stands for (or has stood for in the past) is not true. As will be obvious to anyone who takes the time to carefully read this site (particularly our Theme Articles), we do not seek to lump all those who call themselves feminists into the same category. Even feminists disagree about what feminism means (see "What Is Feminism?"). You can no more stereotype feminists than you can stereotype all women. Just as there is no consensus within the Church about what constitutes a homemaker (sadly enough), there is no consensus within the feminist movement about what constitutes a true feminist. This can make it extremely difficult to nail down just what feminism is about and where the movement desires to take women and society in the future. But we can learn about the various objectives it has promoted and claimed as its own down through the decades.

Those who read widely and who have studied the feminist movement from its earliest roots to the present know that some of the most prominent women (and men) involved in the movement have been rabidly anti-homemaker. In fact, the more radical feminists of the 19th and 20th centuries wholeheartedly embraced Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, which called for women to be pushed out of the home and into factories, since the labor of men and women must be made "equal" while capitalism and private property were abolished. Engels wrote, "The overthrow of mother right was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children" (The Origin of the Family, 1884). This view of the woman at home as some poor slave "reduced to servitude" and "a mere instrument for the production of children" is echoed over and over again in the writings of feminists who are now enshrined as patron saints of the women's movement. Let's allow them to speak for themselves:

"[The] housewife is a nobody, and [housework] is a dead-end job. It may actually have a deteriorating effect on her mind...rendering her incapable of prolonged concentration on any single task. [She] comes to seem dumb as well as dull. [B]eing a housewife makes women sick." ~ Sociologist Jessie Bernard in The Future of Marriage, 1982.

"Housewives [are] an endless array of 'horse-leech's' daughters, crying Give! Give! -- [a] parasite mate devouring even when she should most feed [and who has] the aspirations of an affectionate guinea pig." ~ Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Women and Economics: A Study of the Economic Relations Between Men and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution, 1898.

"A parasite sucking out the living strength of another organism...the [housewife's] labor does not even tend toward the creation of anything durable.... [W]oman's work within the home [is] not directly useful to society, produces nothing. [The housewife] is subordinate, secondary, parasitic. It is for their common welfare that the situation must be altered by prohibiting marriage as a 'career' for woman." ~ Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1949.

"[Housewives] are mindless and thing-hungry...not people. [Housework] is peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls. [It] arrests their development at an infantile level, short of personal identity with an inevitably weak core of self.... [Housewives] are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps. [The] conditions which destroyed the human identity of so many prisoners were not the torture and brutality, but conditions similar to those which destroy the identity of the American housewife." ~ Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 1963.

"[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children...parasites." ~ Gloria Steinem, "What It Would Be Like If Women Win," Time, August 31, 1970.

"[The husband's work] provides for greater challenges and opportunities for growth than are available to his wife, [whose] horizons are inevitably limited by her relegation to domestic duties. [This] programs her for mediocrity and dulls her brain.... [Motherhood] can only be a temporary detour." ~ Nena O'Neill and George O'Neill, Open Marriage: A New Lifestyle for Couples, 1972.

"Women owe Frieden an incalculable debt for The Feminine Mystique.... Domesticity was not a satisfactory story of an intelligent woman's life." ~ Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Feminism Is Not the Story of My Life, 1996.

"Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that." ~ Vivian Gornick, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981.

"[As long as the woman] is the primary caretaker of childhood, she is prevented from being a free human being." ~ Kate Millett, Sexual Politics, 1969.

"[A]s long as the family and the myth of the family and the myth of maternity and the maternal instinct are not destroyed, women will still be oppressed.... No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction." ~ Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975.

"Feminism was profoundly opposed to traditional conceptions of how families should be organized, [since] the very existence of full-time homemakers was incompatible with the women's movement.... [I]f even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are very young.... If women disproportionately take time off from their careers to have children, or if they work less hard than men at their careers while their children are young, this will put them at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis men, particularly men whose wives do all the homemaking and child care.... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole had reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." ~ Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, 1986.

All of this would be bad enough by itself, but the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s did not stop at verbal attacks against wives, homemakers, and mothers. They pushed relentlessly to change laws which both protected wives and mothers and which encouraged men to provide for their own families. They did not rest until they had triumphed through the elimination of the "family wage," the reduction of tax benefits for single-earner households, and the passage of "no-fault" divorce laws. Sociologist Jessie Bernard (quoted above), remarked that the "very deprivation of assured support as long as they live may be one of the best things that could happen to women" (The Future of Marriage, 1982). In other words, if men can walk away from marriage easily, leaving women with no support, women will be forced to take up careers whether or not they desire to do so. Carolyn Graglia explains this in her book, Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism (Spence Publishing, 1998):

"A primary factor contributing to the feminization of poverty has been the change to a system of no-fault divorce under which divorce is easily obtained, even when opposed by one of the parties, and men are often able to terminate marriages without providing adequate alimony or child support. The feminist quest for female fungibility with males has led the women's movement to support the invalidation of laws benefiting and protecting women. This was the thrust, for example, of litigation directed by Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was director of the Women's Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union and, often using male plaintiffs, secured invalidation of laws that favored women. The theory was that obliteration of all legal sex distinctions would ultimately be in the best interests of working women; those women, including homemakers, who wished to retain the benefits of protective legislation were never the women with whose rights the Project was concerned" (p. 295).

So, in the name of "all women," the feminist movement cavalierly did away with the very rights that guaranteed the wife peace of mind in her choice to remain at home and bring up her own children. Mary Ann Glendon, writing in Abortion and Divorce in Western Law (1987) states, "Divorce law in practice seems to be saying to parents, especially to mothers, that it is not safe to devote oneself primarily or exclusively to raising children." We don't need to recite long lists of statistics here, I trust, though they are readily available from the Census Bureau and other government entities, but in the past thirty years, divorce and abandonment have skyrocketed, leaving women the victims of poverty in far greater numbers than men. Instead of admitting culpability, feminists have moved on to push for taxpayer-funded daycare and greater welfare benefits for those mothers left in the lurch. Again, Carolyn Graglia:

"[F]eminists nevertheless often try to disclaim responsibility for no-fault's results. Liberationists of the 1970s blathered mindlessly about the oppressiveness of the family, exhorting women to break the chains of their confinement, to cease being parasites in their suburban havens, to cease holding husbands in marriages the men no longer wanted, and to set out on the road to true fulfillment and equality by finding some rewarding career. Yet, having been taken seriously by every state legislature in the country and with the divorce revolution accomplished, feminists seek to absolve themselves of blame, as if society should have known better than to listen to them. No longer concentrating on the oppressiveness of the home and family for women, feminists argue instead that, unfortunately, married mothers must remain in the work force to protect themselves from the very likely possibility of becoming single parents by divorce. This is a likelihood, they choose not to remember, their movement was highly instrumental in creating" (Domestic Tranquility, p. 296).

Now we live in a culture where the term "trophy wife" isn't just a joke and where men can abandon their wives and children as easily as they shuck off their dress shoes at the end of the day. Instead of deploring this development, women have been urged to become just as promiscuous and irresponsible as the men. Somehow, if we all descend to the lowest common denominator, we'll find happiness in the mess we've created. "There isn't a venerable history of women celebrating promiscuity;" writes columnist Frederica Mathewes-Green. "[I]f anything, women's wisdom over the ages taught that emotional security was the precondition for sex being fun, and a wedding ring was the best aphrodisiac. But again, what did stupid old housewives know? Men called them prudish, so that's what they were. Thirty years later women are still going morosely out into the night in dutiful pursuit of fun. And if it's not fun, she presumes, it must be because something is wrong with her." So now those of us who reject the doctrines of the sexual revolution (which had their roots in the "free love" movement of Marxism in the 1840s and in Margaret Sanger's writings in the early 20th century) are expected to just go along with the "brave new world" the radical feminists created in the name of all women. We are not supposed to protest when tax laws are changed to favor double-income households that use state-funded daycare or when laws protecting widows and orphans are obliterated in the name of "gender equality" and "fairness."



Group challenges CDC obesity claims: "Several well-established, incontrovertible, scientific studies conclude that the United States has the fattest people on Earth, with two-thirds of the population overweight or obese. Those same studies argue that obesity itself is a disease, a position so accepted that even Medicare pays for weight control plans. But one group, the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Consumer Freedom argues those studies are not up to snuff. 'America is now suffering from an epidemic of obesity myths much more than an epidemic of obesity,' said CCF senior analyst Dan Mindus. Mindus authored a report that attempts to shatter 'obesity myths' and takes direct aim at what Mindus says is the principal culprit for obesity hysteria in America -- the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."



18 March, 2005

MOM AND DAD NOW INCORRECT

Back in 2003, a few days after the highest court in Massachusetts unveiled a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, I ventured a prediction.

''Sooner than you think, it will become improper to speak of unique sex roles in family life," I wrote. ''The meanings and status associated with words like 'husband' and 'wife' will be erased from the law; most likely, the words themselves will be replaced in statutes with the unisex 'spouse,' just as 'father' and 'mother' will give way to 'parent.' "

The changes soon began. Massachusetts rolled out a new marriage license shorn of any reference to bride and groom. Couples getting married were now to be officially identified as ''Party A" and ''Party B." The department of public health proposed a similar rewrite of the state's birth certificate, replacing ''mother" and ''father" with ''Parent A" and ''Parent B." To that, Governor Mitt Romney objected, though it is probably only a matter of time until a court orders him to make the change.

Meanwhile, others have gone far beyond Massachusetts in embracing the brave new world of unisex marriage. Last month, lawmakers in Ontario enacted Bill 171, stripping the statute books of all references to gender in connection with marriage. No longer do Ontario's laws use words and phrases like ''husband," ''wife," ''widow," ''widower," or ''persons of the opposite sex." And it is not just family and marriage laws that have been de-sexed. Bill 171 eliminates the traditional language of matrimony from more than 70 provincial statutes, including the Gasoline Tax Act and the Public Libraries Act.

What is underway here is not simply a tweaking of legal terminology. The crusade for same-sex marriage has never been aimed merely at adjusting the familiar boundaries of married life to make it more inclusive. The real target is the significance of marriage itself -- the idea, fundamental to human happiness and all successful societies, that the purpose of marriage is to bring men and women together for their mutual welfare and for the protection and well-being of any children they create or adopt. It is that deeply ingrained belief that the marriage radicals are determined to do away with. One purpose of the official marriage Newspeak is to make such thoughts increasingly unthinkable.

Already it is becoming hazardous to speak of marriage as an opposite-sex institution or to suggest that one of its core functions is to provide children with fathers and mothers. Just ask actress Jada Pinkett Smith or Governor Romney.

When Pinkett Smith received an award at Harvard two weeks ago, she used her acceptance remarks to splash cold water on the idea that family obligations can make it difficult for married women to reach the top of the career ladder -- a hypothesis recently voiced by the university's president, Lawrence Summers.

''Women," Pinkett Smith told the audience, ''you can have it all -- a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career. They say you gotta choose. Nah, nah, nah. We are a new generation of women. We got to set a new standard of rules around here. You can do whatever it is you want."

That harmless bit of you-go-girl boosterism was all it took to arouse the wrath of Harvard's Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance. It denounced Will Smith's wife for her ''extremely heteronormative" comments, which ''made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable." The group demanded -- and received -- an apology. And those who brought Pinkett Smith to campus will now undergo reeducation: The Harvard Crimson reports that the Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations is working with the BGLTSA ''to increase sensitivity toward issues of sexuality." Translation: There will be no more talk of loving men or devoted husbands at Harvard. At least not from married women.

Romney's offense against the new marital correctness was considerably more serious. In a couple of speeches to Republican groups out of state, he condemned same-sex marriage on the grounds that ''every child has the right to have a mother and a father."

The words were hardly out of his mouth before protesters were at his State House office, blasting him as ''mean-spirited." Editorial writers launched an attack on his ''ignorance" and charged him with ''stooping to pander to the rigid right." In the Berkshire Eagle, one columnist slammed his statement of the obvious -- that every child deserves a mom and a dad -- as ''really disturbing" and the brainless ''fuzzy stuff of 1940s movies." He was accused elsewhere of succumbing to the kind of thinking that once barred blacks from white lunch counters.

Be forewarned: This is just the start. The assault is not going to let up until the heteronormative deviants among us have all been silenced. You think the marriage radicals have gone too far? You ain't seen nothin' yet.

From Jeff Jacoby



ENEMIES OF FREE SPEECH LOSE A ROUND

Fort Wayne Community Schools officials violated an Elmhurst High School student's free-speech rights when they suspended him for wearing a T-shirt bearing the likeness of an M-16 rifle and the text of the Marine Corps creed, a federal court ruled Friday. The district suspended Nelson Griggs in March 2003 for violating a provision of the school dress code that prohibits students from wearing clothing depicting "symbols of violence." Griggs, now a 17-year-old junior at Elmhurst, and his father, David, sued the school system in U.S. District Court in Fort Wayne in February 2004, arguing the dress code was overly broad.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Roger B. Cosbey agreed in his 30-page ruling Friday. "Schools are under undeniable pressure to prevent student violence," and the anti-violence section of the dress code is "a reasonable, constitutional tool toward that end," Cosbey wrote. But in the case of Griggs' Marine creed shirt, officials went too far, the ruling said. "Griggs' shirt has no relation to the (school) board's legitimate concerns about school violence, nor is it likely to disrupt the educational process," wrote Cosbey.

Nelson Griggs wore the T-shirt to Elmhurst High School on March 17, 2003, and was told by an official he would be disciplined if he wore it again. But he believed the shirt was protected under the First Amendment and wore it again the next day, court documents said. Then, Elmhurst Principal Laura Taliaferro ordered the teen to serve an in-school suspension and told him he would be given an out-of-school suspension if he wore the shirt again, the documents said.

School officials objected in particular to a part of the text on the shirt that read, " I must shoot him before he shoots me," the document said. The creed is also known as "My Rifle." "We haven't seen the ruling yet," FWCS spokeswoman Debbie Morgan said. "When we get the ruling, we'll review it. But we'll certainly comply with the ruling."

Source



17 March, 2005

DOUBLETALK FROM BRITAIN'S RACE EQUALITY HONCHO

Yes. Fiona Mactaggart really is the Fascist-sounding "Minister for race equality and community cohesion". Hmmmm... "Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuehrer?"

"We've heard a lot from the Lords recently about protecting our country's traditions of justice and fairness. Today, as the Lords debate the government's proposals on incitement to religious hatred, I want to challenge them to deliver justice and fairness to members of minority faiths.....

The offence we propose will not prevent people from debating or ridiculing religions and beliefs as robustly as happens today. Evangelical Christians will still be free to preach the gospel and warn of the evils they perceive in other religions. We are not banning critical and offensive remarks or extending the law of blasphemy. The bill focuses on something very specific, namely the conduct of those who try to propagate hatred of people and communities because of their religion or belief. Surely we can all accept that this is not what we want to happen in our society....

Today is a crucial test of the society we want to create. By supporting the government's proposals, the Lords would send a clear message to stop people who are currently beyond reach of the law from promoting hatred of others because of their faith. This behaviour has no place in modern Britain, and there can be no more excuses for not taking action."

Now let me see if I have got this straight: "debating or ridiculing religions and beliefs" will be legal but "to propagate hatred of people and communities because of their religion or belief" will be illegal. But if I ridicule Islam is that not likely to promote hatred of those who adhere to it? It would certainly be open for public prosecutors and learned judges to conclude so. Fiona seems to be proposing a distinction without a difference. And given the capricious way judges interpret law, I doubt that any critic of Islam would be safe from this law. A pastor making criticisms of Islam in his own church was convicted of an offence under a similar law in the Australian State of Victoria.

More of Fiona's article here



YIKES! A WOMAN DEFENDS LARRY SUMMERS --- AND IN "THE GUARDIAN" TOO

Maybe Britsish feminists are less hysterical

I often feel as if I'm in a Bateman cartoon: "The Feminist Who Said She Was a Darwinian". Gasps of horror and disbelief. After all, it's well known that Darwinism spells reductionism, essentialism and genetic determinism (whatever they mean) and is an agent of the male conspiracy to chain women to kitchen sinks.

This caricature has been much on my mind since the president of Harvard, Larry Summers, dared to get biological about women in the natural sciences, engineering and maths. Talking at a closed conference about why so few women occupy top academic jobs in these disciplines, he attempted to probe beyond such familiar issues as childcare, role models, confidence (lack of) and prejudice (lots of). Summers made the modest claim that evolved sex differences, though not the sole reason for this male predominance, are among the reasons that should be considered. Outrage ensued. Not least, would-be feminists got the vapours, exacted apologies, mooted no-confidence motions, demanded resignation, and told the world of their hurt and humiliation.

But, as evolutionary science shows, Summers was right - for three reasons.

First, men, on average, have an advantage in certain quantitative and spatial abilities - particularly intuitive mechanics and "3-D thinking" (mental rotation of three-dimensional objects) - that are key for engineering and maths.

Second, there are, on average, sex differences in dispositions, interests, values. Men are far more competitive, ambitious, status-conscious and single-minded; and they'd rather work with abstract ideas or objects than with humans. Women are more focused on family and other relationships; they have wider interests and prefer not to work in people-free zones. When women leave high-powered jobs to "spend more time with the family", it's truth, not euphemism. In the US, even in the top 1% of mathematical ability, only one woman to eight men makes a career in maths, engineering or science; the other seven choose medicine, biology, law or even the humanities - typically, to work with, and help, people.

Third, sex differences exhibit greater male than female variance. Females are much of a muchness, clustering round the mean. But among males, the difference between the most and the least, the best and the worst, can be vast. So, when it comes to science, more men than women will be dunces but more will be geniuses - although the means are close. The maths averages of American teenage boys and girls are not dramatically different; but among the most mathematically gifted there are 13 boys for every girl. Sex differences are crucially about variance as well as means.

Now combine these three factors. Isn't it unlikely that the distribution of men and women working in science will be identical? And the higher the echelon, the greater will be the preponderance of men - with obvious outcomes for elite institutions such as Harvard.

These differences are not recent or artificial or arbitrary. They have deep evolutionary reasons, which are well understood. Sexual reproduction as we know it began with one sex specialising slightly more in competing for mates and the other slightly more in caring for offspring. This divergence became self-reinforcing, widening over evolutionary time, with natural selection proliferating and amplifying variations on the differences, down the generations, in every sexually reproducing species that has ever existed. Thus, from this slight but fundamental initial asymmetry, flow all the characteristic differences between males and females throughout the living world. Now, 800 million years later, in our species as in all others, these differences pervade what constitutes being male or female, from brains to bodies to behaviour.

A wealth of evidence backs up this view of our evolutionary endowment, ranging from newborns (even at one day old, girls prefer a human face, boys a mechanical mobile) to pathology (females exposed to "male" hormones in the womb are typically "tomboyish" and surpass the female average in spatial skills - and vice versa for males) and children's play (boys' games are competitive, big on rules and establishing a winner, girls' are more cooperative and end in consensus). These and other predictable sex differences are robust across cultures, and throughout history.

So much for Darwinism. What about feminism? Well, how could one be a feminist and not a Darwinian? If feminists want to change the world, they need first to understand it. And, when it comes to sex differences, Darwinian science provides the authoritative understanding.

Indeed, Darwinian insights open up promising avenues for policy. Consider the assumption that women academics are under-represented in science and maths - and the conclusion that prejudice must be to blame. Given what we know from evolutionary biology, that can't be the whole story. Shouldn't that knowledge influence feminist demands? If, for instance, fairness can no longer be identified with 50:50 representation, why the mission to equalise numbers - and what sex ratios should we aim for? And if the main evidence for discrimination was an imbalance, what should now be considered as evidence? Indeed, should discrimination occupy so much of the feminist agenda?

Or consider the cognitive differences that disadvantage girls in maths. Shouldn't we be drawing more - not less - attention to them? How else will interventions be devised that don't treat girls as default males? Bear in mind that mathematical ability itself is not an evolved ability; maths is far too recent for that. Rather, mathematical talent borrows eclectically from abilities evolved for other purposes. Much of the mathematical advantage of boys lies in spatial abilities for navigation - an area in which females are notoriously weaker; in particular, boys are better than girls at using these innate capacities to turn quantitative relations into diagrams. So why not help girls improve their skills? When males and females (both adults and children) are helped with translating word problems into diagrams, the performance of females improves more than that of males - thus closing some of the gap between the sexes. By contrast, self-confidence in maths, which also favours boys, makes some impact; but it is relatively small. So forget classes in "self-esteem" or "empowerment". Go for evolutionarily informed teaching in maths classes. Admittedly, more female-friendly maths won't guarantee more female Nobel prize-winners. But it should enable more girls to realise their potential. And isn't that what fairness is about?

So it is not Darwinian feminists but the anti-Darwinians that should feature in the Bateman cartoon. I nominate those Harvard protesters. It is scandalous that educated women should be so profoundly ignorant of scientific and statistical thinking; even more scandalous that, rather than learn, they slam the door and sneak to the media; and more scandalous still that they do this in the name of feminism. It is not sex differences but sexism that is iniquitous. And it is not science but injustice that should be opposed. For how can we forge a fairer world if we lack a proper understanding of how the sexes differ?

Source



16 March, 2005

A LEFTIST KU KLUX KLAN: SECRET RACIAL TEACHINGS

The Guilford County Schools invited the public to attend an anti-racism workshop held for teachers, parents and community leaders last week, but refused to allow a reporter to stay in the room once he was identified as such. In fact, Crossroads Ministry, who held the seminar, has such clout that the second day, a reporter was thrown out after Guilford County School Superintendent Terry Grier had given permission for him to attend. Considering what they were teaching at this seminar, which teachers from Southwest, Andrews and High Point Central high schools were required to attend, it is no wonder they didn’t want a reporter present.

The participant manual used by Crossroads Ministry is not only outdated, talking about understanding racism in the 1990s, but it also contains some pretty strong statements regarding racism and white people, such as, “Racism is the collective actions of a dominant racial group,” and “Every system and every institution in the US was created originally and structured legally and intentionally to serve white people exclusively.” Crossroads Ministry also identifies ways in which racism “misuses power,” some of which are “Racism’s power over People of Color,” and “Racism’s power to preserve and maintain power and privilege for white