Once upon a time, women’s rights groups cried foul about cultural and institutional sexism. In other words, society had too much testosterone and not enough estrogen for balance. True enough.
However, one truth I’ve learned about politics is that it tends to swing on a perpetual pendulum. Instead of simply trying to stop the pendulum from swinging, we just change its direction so that it swings the other way.
This has been as true in gender politics as it has with any other form of inequality. We just don’t seem to be able to find that balance. Our solution to inequality repeatedly seems to be reverse inequality.
Consequently, we no longer live in a man’s world. Popular culture, along with the current sociopolitical climate, increasingly awards the power to women.
One of the alphabet networks recently aired a nightly news story about the growing trend of single women choosing motherhood. The underlying message being sent to all of us men, of course, is that we aren’t necessary anymore. Women don’t need or even want us to be part of a family unit. They can do it all themselves without our help or our influence.
While the story did stress the importance of “male influences”—neighbors, teachers, coaches and relatives—the role of a full-time father figure was notably absent.
One message I received from the story is that a man is needed only as a sperm donor, a checkbook (child support and/or alimony) and an occasional “influence,” but not as a parent. Fatherhood is reduced to a specimen in a Petrie dish.
Needless to say, as a man, I found the story disturbing.
My gender is also the butt of jokes around a female-dominant office in which I work. A few of my co-workers take jabs at the male gender by disparagingly referring to us as the “Y Chromosome.”
Fundamentally, this could be considered sexual harassment; but I could never get away with alleging it because I’m a man. Besides, I try to consider the sources of these comments. Every woman in the office who jokes about the “Y Chromosome” has a history of failed relationships; so I figure that the disparaging gender comments are born out of resentment and their own poor choices in life. It isn’t worth making a big stink over, especially since I would have to continue working with these ladies and deal with the interpersonal repercussions of filing a formal complaint.
But that’s really neither here nor there. It isn’t germaine to the issue, so I digress.
The negative messages against men are everywhere these days: At work, around the community, and diffusely in the media, the last of which permeates the very sanctity of a man’s home.
There are no more destructive messages against masculinity than that which exists in the media—be it news, entertainment, popular culture, or advertising.
The next time you guys sit down to watch a football game on television, take note of the number of ads that show men in a disparaging way or in a negative light. Whenever an advertisement includes competing gender roles, the man is overwhelmingly shown as either the weaker of the two, the least intelligent, the most impulsive, and the least civilized. Beer, soda and car commercials are among the worst offenders when it comes to making men look bad, especially in the presence of women.
What these messages do is reinforce some modern idea that women aren’t merely on equal footing with men these days, but are, in fact, superior to them.
Worse yet, a lot of men seem to have bought into the notion that women are superior to them, because that’s what the media tells them on a daily basis; or it’s the message they hear at the office or even at home each and every day.
The idea of female superiority is evident in the language used by some of society’s notable female leaders.
Nancy Lieberman, current coach of a men’s NBA D-League professional developmental basketball team, the Texas Legends, and a former player who broke a gender barrier by playing on a men’s basketball team herself, has been quoted as saying that men are used to having women tell them what to do.
“We’ve told men what to do since the beginning of time,” she has said. “They’re used to getting information from us.”
Lieberman has also been paraphrased as saying that every man in a locker room has taken instruction from a woman since they were a baby: whether it’s from a mom, a wife or a girlfriend. “They need women in every aspect—why not as coach?” she said.
I don’t mean to knock Lieberman specifically for her comments, but what she said is indicative of the notion of gender superiority that exists among a lot of American women today. Political and cultural feminism has done much to push propaganda that men need women, but women don’t need men.
Well, I take exception to this notion. I don’t need my wife; I want her. I don’t need my mother anymore, either, but I want her to remain a part of my life.
I certainly don’t need anybody to tell me what to do or show me how to do things, either. I may want or seek advice from women, but that doesn’t mean I need them to tell or show me what or how to do something. I don’t need direction from either gender, thank you very much. I’m perfectly capable of being directed on my own. I am my own motivator.
Having said that, I concede that women are superior to men in some ways: They are generally better at multi-tasking and parenting than men are. They tend to have a higher pain tolerance than men. They seem better coordinated, which is probably linked to multi-tasking. They tend to possess a natural, innate ability to bond with children, and they are better at nurturing than men are.
Other than that, I fail to see where they are generally superior to men. In fact, I don’t see where either gender has an advantage over the other when it comes to using the gray matter between the ears.
But this isn’t the message that men are hearing these days. They hear the exact opposite. Comments from women like Nancy Lieberman aren’t helping to change this climate, but rather to perpetuate and exacerbate it. Would it not be more constructive and beneficial to tell men that they don’t need women, but they do need to “man up” and take responsibility for themselves and those who depend upon them—their families, most notably? To say that men need women to direct them is akin to saying that women need men to lead them and make decisions for them. We all know how much feminists appreciate male chauvinism, don’t we?
Well, most men don’t appreciate reverse female chauvinism, either.
The whole "battle of the sexes" mantra is old and cliched.
Sure, there are differences between the two. Always have been, and always will be.
But let's stop the antagonism, shall we?
The one-upmanship (or, in this case, one-upwomanship) of the so-called "battle of the sexes" is really a farce that helps no one get over or beyond discrimination and inequality.
Today's culture is overly feminized, overcharged with an overdose of estrogen. The messages being sent to men today rubs their noses in discrimination and inequality. Nothing constructive is said or done to overcome these pitfalls of a free society.
As such, I am growing more skeptical and have become more suspicious that, to militant feminists who control the national women's rights agenda, the cause isn't really about equality at all, but rather revenge.
Retribution is perhaps the strongest, most pungent motivator for people who feel slighted, cheated, used and patronized. Unfortunately, the pendulum of equality suffers most, because it can never achieve true balance in the center when those forces changing its course are intent on using it as a weapon instead of a tool for justice.
Consequently, I can only expect our society and our culture to navigate in a circle of perpetual inequality that masquerades, ironically, as equality.
The burning question remaining in my mind: Will men just lay down and let all of the estrogen suffocate them? Or, will we put our feet down and start demanding some balance? Can there be room left for comparative levels of testosterone?
I'm afraid only you ladies can answer that question.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Analysis: Cheese versus Steel
Steel is naturally stronger than cheese...except, perhaps, on the gridiron.
Super Bowl XLV will put this theory to the test on February 5, 2011 when the AFC Champion Pittsburgh Steelers square off against the NFC Champion Green Bay Packers.
The Steelers may have their hands full with the Packers, who are poised to give the current "Steel Curtain" D all it can handle.
The Steelers, don't forget, blew a 24-0 lead to the NY Jets last weekend, having given up 19 unanswered points. Poor play calling in the Red Zone at the end of the game doomed the Jets; not the Steelers' D.
Pittsburgh was also in the hole 21-7 at halftime to the Baltimore Ravens two weeks ago before coming back and then holding on to win. The Steelers made some costly, glaring mistakes against the Ravens' defense early in the game. Had it not been for a complete 180 by the team in the second half, it could have turned into a blow-out in favor of Baltimore. Pittsburgh is inconsistent so far in the playoffs. It plays well at times, and at other times it doesn't.
Sure, the same could be said about Green Bay or any other team for that matter. But the Packers right now are gelling together. There's a hunger with this young team that I saw in the 1997 Broncos, 1999 Ravens, the 2000 Rams, 2001 Patriots, the 2002 Buccaneers, the 2005 Steelers, the 2007 Giants, and the 2009 Saints.
I don't get the same sense of hunger from the Steelers, many of whom have been to the Big Show before, and this is just another day at the office for them. Remember the 2007 Patriots, the team that was undefeated going into the SB against the Giants? The game was supposed to be just another day at the office for New England, just another notch in the win column. But that team completely underestimated the NYG-men, dismissing them as the last speed bump in the road to perfection.
Granted, Pittsburgh doesn't appear to be as arrogant as the 2007 Patriots were; but it can easily overlook Green Bay as just another lucky 10-6 No. 6 seed...which Pittsburgh was in 2005 when it won it all. The teams that get hot at the end of the regular season and/or win when it matters most are the most dangerous teams entering the playoffs. Ergo, The Pack.
Having said all of that, Green Bay will certainly have its hands full with the Steelers. On offense, Pitt offers a dual RB threat, as well as lethal weapons on the flank and under center. Pitt has a well-balanced offense quite comparable, if not superior, to Green Bay's O. If the Steelers start eating up chunks of yardage running the football, then they can dominate time of possession and field position, even if the game turns out to be highly defensive with little scoring. Green Bay Linebackers Coach Kevin Greene and his D, led by Matthews and Raji et al, had better bring their A game against Pitt's RBs and Roethlisberger.
On defense, the Steelers are just plain frightening the way they aggressively attack the pocket. Rodgers' one "Achilles Heel" is that he is a much less effective pocket passer than he is an out-of-pocket passer. The Bears flustered him a little in the second half by attacking the pocket and forcing throws from Rodgers. The key for GB will be its O line. It has done a pretty good job so far giving Rodgers time to throw or time to move out of the pocket to find an open receiver. But it has made its share of mistakes, and Rodgers has taken his share of beatings this season, too. The Pack may be well advised to utilize Driver, Kuhn and even Starks as extra blockers on longer routes, which require more time for Rodgers to set up and throw. If anything, blockers should do everything they can to give Rodgers an opening so that he can escape the pocket, because I think the Packers' O line may have a difficult time keeping the Steelers' pass rush at bay for too long. If Pitt ends up flushing Rodgers out of the pocket more often than not, rather than containing him in there and collapsing it, then it risks getting picked apart by a guy who throws better and makes better passing decisions on the run.
My greatest concern about Green Bay's offense is the inconsistency of its receiving corps. I've seen these guys complete some difficult pass plays, but then drop some gimmies. Against Pittsburgh, the Packers will need to be sure to earn their money by catching the gimmie passes.
With an aggressive D line like Pitt's, I wonder if the Packers might do well to draw in a lot of short 5-10 yard pass plays to guys like Kuhn and Driver? As quickly as Pitt gets off the line, the shorter and quicker the passes, probably the better. Screens should work well against a D that zeroes in on the pocket. That's not to say that McCarthy shouldn't keep a few "aces" up his sleeve in the event that the run game finds some success early on. A couple of play action fakes on second and short; maybe a naked boot leg toward the sideline on third and two; and some quick slant routes over the middle to Jordy Nelson when Pitt is looking for a screen pass to Kuhn or a short out to Driver.
And, of course, always keep them guessing on special teams. You never know when GB will try an on-side kick at kick-off.
Most important of all...HOLD ON TO THE FOOTBALL. At all costs. In a defensive ball game, as I suspect this one to be, turnovers are killers. It has long been said that defenses win championships. I don't see this game being any different. Coach Greene's D Machine should attack the football as often as it does the ball carriers. Go after the strip whenever practical. Be aggressive, but not so much so that you show your hand before it’s called.
A level head will go a long way toward defeating the Pittsburgh Steelers. Too much adrenaline, too much emotion could spell trouble for the youthful and largely inexperienced Pack.
I have a gut feeling about Green Bay...not just because I'm a Packer Backer, either. History is often on the side of the hungriest team...And the Packers are starving for a championship right now.
Super Bowl XLV will put this theory to the test on February 5, 2011 when the AFC Champion Pittsburgh Steelers square off against the NFC Champion Green Bay Packers.
The Steelers may have their hands full with the Packers, who are poised to give the current "Steel Curtain" D all it can handle.
The Steelers, don't forget, blew a 24-0 lead to the NY Jets last weekend, having given up 19 unanswered points. Poor play calling in the Red Zone at the end of the game doomed the Jets; not the Steelers' D.
Pittsburgh was also in the hole 21-7 at halftime to the Baltimore Ravens two weeks ago before coming back and then holding on to win. The Steelers made some costly, glaring mistakes against the Ravens' defense early in the game. Had it not been for a complete 180 by the team in the second half, it could have turned into a blow-out in favor of Baltimore. Pittsburgh is inconsistent so far in the playoffs. It plays well at times, and at other times it doesn't.
Sure, the same could be said about Green Bay or any other team for that matter. But the Packers right now are gelling together. There's a hunger with this young team that I saw in the 1997 Broncos, 1999 Ravens, the 2000 Rams, 2001 Patriots, the 2002 Buccaneers, the 2005 Steelers, the 2007 Giants, and the 2009 Saints.
I don't get the same sense of hunger from the Steelers, many of whom have been to the Big Show before, and this is just another day at the office for them. Remember the 2007 Patriots, the team that was undefeated going into the SB against the Giants? The game was supposed to be just another day at the office for New England, just another notch in the win column. But that team completely underestimated the NYG-men, dismissing them as the last speed bump in the road to perfection.
Granted, Pittsburgh doesn't appear to be as arrogant as the 2007 Patriots were; but it can easily overlook Green Bay as just another lucky 10-6 No. 6 seed...which Pittsburgh was in 2005 when it won it all. The teams that get hot at the end of the regular season and/or win when it matters most are the most dangerous teams entering the playoffs. Ergo, The Pack.
Having said all of that, Green Bay will certainly have its hands full with the Steelers. On offense, Pitt offers a dual RB threat, as well as lethal weapons on the flank and under center. Pitt has a well-balanced offense quite comparable, if not superior, to Green Bay's O. If the Steelers start eating up chunks of yardage running the football, then they can dominate time of possession and field position, even if the game turns out to be highly defensive with little scoring. Green Bay Linebackers Coach Kevin Greene and his D, led by Matthews and Raji et al, had better bring their A game against Pitt's RBs and Roethlisberger.
On defense, the Steelers are just plain frightening the way they aggressively attack the pocket. Rodgers' one "Achilles Heel" is that he is a much less effective pocket passer than he is an out-of-pocket passer. The Bears flustered him a little in the second half by attacking the pocket and forcing throws from Rodgers. The key for GB will be its O line. It has done a pretty good job so far giving Rodgers time to throw or time to move out of the pocket to find an open receiver. But it has made its share of mistakes, and Rodgers has taken his share of beatings this season, too. The Pack may be well advised to utilize Driver, Kuhn and even Starks as extra blockers on longer routes, which require more time for Rodgers to set up and throw. If anything, blockers should do everything they can to give Rodgers an opening so that he can escape the pocket, because I think the Packers' O line may have a difficult time keeping the Steelers' pass rush at bay for too long. If Pitt ends up flushing Rodgers out of the pocket more often than not, rather than containing him in there and collapsing it, then it risks getting picked apart by a guy who throws better and makes better passing decisions on the run.
My greatest concern about Green Bay's offense is the inconsistency of its receiving corps. I've seen these guys complete some difficult pass plays, but then drop some gimmies. Against Pittsburgh, the Packers will need to be sure to earn their money by catching the gimmie passes.
With an aggressive D line like Pitt's, I wonder if the Packers might do well to draw in a lot of short 5-10 yard pass plays to guys like Kuhn and Driver? As quickly as Pitt gets off the line, the shorter and quicker the passes, probably the better. Screens should work well against a D that zeroes in on the pocket. That's not to say that McCarthy shouldn't keep a few "aces" up his sleeve in the event that the run game finds some success early on. A couple of play action fakes on second and short; maybe a naked boot leg toward the sideline on third and two; and some quick slant routes over the middle to Jordy Nelson when Pitt is looking for a screen pass to Kuhn or a short out to Driver.
And, of course, always keep them guessing on special teams. You never know when GB will try an on-side kick at kick-off.
Most important of all...HOLD ON TO THE FOOTBALL. At all costs. In a defensive ball game, as I suspect this one to be, turnovers are killers. It has long been said that defenses win championships. I don't see this game being any different. Coach Greene's D Machine should attack the football as often as it does the ball carriers. Go after the strip whenever practical. Be aggressive, but not so much so that you show your hand before it’s called.
A level head will go a long way toward defeating the Pittsburgh Steelers. Too much adrenaline, too much emotion could spell trouble for the youthful and largely inexperienced Pack.
I have a gut feeling about Green Bay...not just because I'm a Packer Backer, either. History is often on the side of the hungriest team...And the Packers are starving for a championship right now.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
This Christmas
This Christmas is different from others in my life.
The music thus far has been the same as Christmases past; so has the food.
The atmosphere is still festive, full of joy and cheer over the birth of our Savior, and the gathering of family and close friends in celebration.
But I am regarding at it all very differently this year, because this Christmas is my first as a father.
Granted, I’m just a foster dad, but a dad nonetheless to children who need one in their lives right now. And, while every moment of every day is special in the life of a child, there is something extra special about this time of year. There is a special something that happens in a child at Christmas time.
Yes, they do try extra hard to be extra good, don’t they? Nonetheless, their eyes fill with the wonder of the holiday season. The sights and the sounds tickle their senses. They become all giddy inside the way Ebenezer Scrooge felt upon his Christmas awakening.
Their excitement builds over the wait for Christmas morning when they know Santa Claus has left them something special for them under the Christmas tree.
Even my two foster sons, each only 11 months old, seem to have become giddier over the past month. Their baby senses must tell them that something good is going to happen. I look forward to the day that these boys will understand that something good happened a long, long time ago halfway around the world. The feeling of joy and excitement they get each Christmas season is the same that the shepherds and the wise men felt inside when they heard the news of the birth of baby Jesus and went to worship him at the manger.
I’ve known since I was a little boy myself the true meaning of Christmas, and what it means for my life. But this is the first Christmas in which I shall actually experience the true meaning of Christmas as it happens before my very eyes.
As I watch the two little boys in my care open their presents from Santa Claus, I just know that I will get a warm feeling inside; the realization that I have now just witnessed the true meaning of Christmas in action.
This Christmas I am gaining a completely new appreciation for the spirit of giving. Not that I haven’t given in Christmases past; but this year, I’m giving something else besides a present or a gift. I’m giving my heart and my love the way our heavenly Father gave to us when He sent His Son to earth as man-flesh in the form of a newborn babe.
For the first time in my life, I understand where God is coming from. I can now truly appreciate firsthand the joy He must have felt when He gave His multitude of children something very special; something from and of Himself.
This Christmas I am experiencing the kind unconditional love that only a parent can give to his or her child(ren). I cannot wait to see the joy, the smiles and the happiness on the faces of my two foster boys as they receive and open the gifts given to them out of unconditional love. That will be the most precious and important gift I shall receive this Christmas, and hopefully many more Christmases to come.
My eyes have been mercifully opened by the grace and blessings of the Lord. I once was blind, but now I see the truth of what I’ve been missing all these years.
Christmas isn’t just a holiday or a month-long season that comes once a year. Rather, it is a living example—a reminder, really—of how we should be treating one another and living all year long.
I’ve been blessed to have given so much of myself unconditionally to these boys over the past several months, because I’ve been practicing Christmas in my heart toward them each and every day; oftentimes without even noticing that I am. I just give to my foster sons because I want to, and because I love them. Until now, I haven’t really stopped to think that Christmas this year has lasted almost the whole year.
This Christmas the holy day of Christ’s birth is a culmination of all that giving to my foster babies; a manifestation of the way I’ve been living my life these past several months.
This Christmas is a reminder to me that the spirit of giving shouldn’t be limited to a single holiday or a brief season. God gave his Son, the Christ child and Savior, to all mankind, all people everywhere and for all time. His gift wasn’t just for the shepherds, the wise men or the Israelites living two thousand years ago. It was for all of us, too.
Thus, the lesson that Christmas isn’t just a holiday, or a holiday season. Rather, it’s an example for how each of us ought to live our lives and treat others each and every day: Like it is a gift…because it is.
My sincerest prayer for those still searching for and hoping to find the true meaning of Christmas is that you will come to actually experience it as I have. To know the true meaning of Christmas is one thing; but quite another to actually experience it for yourself.
For those who have already experienced Christmas truth, then my hope is that each holiday hereafter is a reminder of what you have been blessed to witness: The manifestation of God’s love for us.
May each Christmas also remind us that the holiday and its season don’t have to end or be limited to only this time of year. If we choose to let it, then Christmas can exist and be manifest in our hearts every day throughout the year.
Here’s wishing you and yours daily joy and Christmas cheer.
The music thus far has been the same as Christmases past; so has the food.
The atmosphere is still festive, full of joy and cheer over the birth of our Savior, and the gathering of family and close friends in celebration.
But I am regarding at it all very differently this year, because this Christmas is my first as a father.
Granted, I’m just a foster dad, but a dad nonetheless to children who need one in their lives right now. And, while every moment of every day is special in the life of a child, there is something extra special about this time of year. There is a special something that happens in a child at Christmas time.
Yes, they do try extra hard to be extra good, don’t they? Nonetheless, their eyes fill with the wonder of the holiday season. The sights and the sounds tickle their senses. They become all giddy inside the way Ebenezer Scrooge felt upon his Christmas awakening.
Their excitement builds over the wait for Christmas morning when they know Santa Claus has left them something special for them under the Christmas tree.
Even my two foster sons, each only 11 months old, seem to have become giddier over the past month. Their baby senses must tell them that something good is going to happen. I look forward to the day that these boys will understand that something good happened a long, long time ago halfway around the world. The feeling of joy and excitement they get each Christmas season is the same that the shepherds and the wise men felt inside when they heard the news of the birth of baby Jesus and went to worship him at the manger.
I’ve known since I was a little boy myself the true meaning of Christmas, and what it means for my life. But this is the first Christmas in which I shall actually experience the true meaning of Christmas as it happens before my very eyes.
As I watch the two little boys in my care open their presents from Santa Claus, I just know that I will get a warm feeling inside; the realization that I have now just witnessed the true meaning of Christmas in action.
This Christmas I am gaining a completely new appreciation for the spirit of giving. Not that I haven’t given in Christmases past; but this year, I’m giving something else besides a present or a gift. I’m giving my heart and my love the way our heavenly Father gave to us when He sent His Son to earth as man-flesh in the form of a newborn babe.
For the first time in my life, I understand where God is coming from. I can now truly appreciate firsthand the joy He must have felt when He gave His multitude of children something very special; something from and of Himself.
This Christmas I am experiencing the kind unconditional love that only a parent can give to his or her child(ren). I cannot wait to see the joy, the smiles and the happiness on the faces of my two foster boys as they receive and open the gifts given to them out of unconditional love. That will be the most precious and important gift I shall receive this Christmas, and hopefully many more Christmases to come.
My eyes have been mercifully opened by the grace and blessings of the Lord. I once was blind, but now I see the truth of what I’ve been missing all these years.
Christmas isn’t just a holiday or a month-long season that comes once a year. Rather, it is a living example—a reminder, really—of how we should be treating one another and living all year long.
I’ve been blessed to have given so much of myself unconditionally to these boys over the past several months, because I’ve been practicing Christmas in my heart toward them each and every day; oftentimes without even noticing that I am. I just give to my foster sons because I want to, and because I love them. Until now, I haven’t really stopped to think that Christmas this year has lasted almost the whole year.
This Christmas the holy day of Christ’s birth is a culmination of all that giving to my foster babies; a manifestation of the way I’ve been living my life these past several months.
This Christmas is a reminder to me that the spirit of giving shouldn’t be limited to a single holiday or a brief season. God gave his Son, the Christ child and Savior, to all mankind, all people everywhere and for all time. His gift wasn’t just for the shepherds, the wise men or the Israelites living two thousand years ago. It was for all of us, too.
Thus, the lesson that Christmas isn’t just a holiday, or a holiday season. Rather, it’s an example for how each of us ought to live our lives and treat others each and every day: Like it is a gift…because it is.
My sincerest prayer for those still searching for and hoping to find the true meaning of Christmas is that you will come to actually experience it as I have. To know the true meaning of Christmas is one thing; but quite another to actually experience it for yourself.
For those who have already experienced Christmas truth, then my hope is that each holiday hereafter is a reminder of what you have been blessed to witness: The manifestation of God’s love for us.
May each Christmas also remind us that the holiday and its season don’t have to end or be limited to only this time of year. If we choose to let it, then Christmas can exist and be manifest in our hearts every day throughout the year.
Here’s wishing you and yours daily joy and Christmas cheer.
Monday, December 13, 2010
A case against Roe v. Wade
In 1973 the United States Supreme Court ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to choose an abortion. What is known today as Roe v. Wade became case law 410 U.S. 113 (1973), a legal precedent that extends the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to a woman’s decision to abort her unborn child. Specifically, the ruling invoked the Fourteenth Amendment’s privacy clause, which states, in effect, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
While a woman’s decision to end her pregnancy is now protected under the law of the land, the Supreme Court held in the same ruling that the “right” to abort must be balanced against the state’s interests in protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother’s health. It was determined that these interests of the state become stronger over the course of a pregnancy, and that the balancing test should be related to the current trimester of pregnancy.
The legal findings further determined that the state’s interests in regulating abortions are at their weakest in the first trimester when a fetus is less like a fully developed human being than at any other time; but those interests gain strength with each successive trimester of prenatal development. In the second and third trimester, abortion regulation must be related primarily to, and giving weight to the life and health of the mother over that of the fetus.
For the past 38 years the abortion debate has raged, at times more intensely than others. Abortion opponents maintain that life begins at conception, while abortion supporters say the issue isn’t about life, but rather the right to choose.
Abortion proponents, those who call themselves “pro-choice,” have even gone so far as to argue that an unborn child is not the same as a birthed child, and, therefore, is not entitled to the same rights.
Those identifying themselves as “pro-life,” or abortion opponents, have vehemently disagreed with this argument, defending the unborn as human beings without a voice of their own.
Personally, I am anti-abortion, too. Although I am usually a staunch advocate of essential liberty—i.e., the ability to choose without compulsion—I have determined in this case to error on the side of life instead of choice. The reason why is because abortion, while preserving choice for one party—the biological mother—simultaneously denies that same choice to another other party; that being the unborn child, who has no say, no voice and no choice in the decision of whether or not it will die.
Besides essential liberty, and the fundamental right to choose without compulsion, abortion consequently denies another of man’s fundamental rights: Life.
Founding father Thomas Jefferson summarized very succinctly the fundamental rights of man in the July 1776 Declaration of Independence for the American colonies: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Jefferson’s use of the term “unalienable rights” refers to the fundamental rights of man as articulated by the avant-garde of the European Age of Enlightenment. These are natural rights, God created and God given. They are universal and self-evident.
Jefferson references this, too, in the same document, as well as many other letters he wrote in his lifetime on a host of political and philosophical positions.
Other fundamental rights of the Age of Enlightenment and natural law theory include the right to property, security and resistance to oppression. Each of these is addressed in the Bill of Rights, or the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.
I find it compelling, though, that the very first fundamental or natural right that Jefferson articulates is the right to life: the right to be and to exist. It came before even the right to liberty and happiness.
The right to life is also protected by the United States Constitution in Amendment V, which states, in part, that “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
And, yet, despite the obvious importance of the right to life in the minds of America’s founders and her constitution’s framers, it is the one right that is routinely ignored and sorely neglected among the unborn.
An important feature of the Fifth Amendment is the use of the term “person” instead of “citizen” or “the people,” the last two of which refer to those who are either naturally born or legalized Americans. To be a “person” protected by the U.S. Constitution does not require citizenship, residency or any other legal nomenclature, but rather just “being” a human individual.
The root of the debate, then, over abortion should not just be when human life begins, but also when “personhood” begins.
Medical facts establish that “life” begins at conception. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines life, in part, as “an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.” Since very basic cellular development includes all of these traits, establishing life at conception is not only reasonable, but also rational.
But when does conceived human life become a “person” who is protected by the law? Pro-abortion advocates insist that personhood begins at the moment of birth, while anti-abortion activists argue that “personhood” begins while the unborn child is still developing in the womb.
Merriam-Webster further defines “person,” in part, as “the body of a human being.” The dictionary also defines “being,” in part, as “conscious existence,” and it defines “individual,” in part, as “existing as an indivisible whole” and “as a [separate] distinct entity.”
To be individual requires a level of autonomy that permits one to exist independently. Or, as Merriam-Webster defines, “existing or capable of existing independently of the whole.”
Millions children are born prematurely, and many of them are capable of living outside of the womb despite their prematurity. As such, they are capable of existing independently before they reach full term, and their autonomy can be established prior to birth. What, then, is the difference between a child physically born a month premature and an unborn child a month away from full-term birth?
They are the exact gestational age.
Scientifically and philosophically speaking, there is no distinction. One child is born while the other is unborn; but their functions are essentially the same and so is their physical development.
In addition to autonomy, an individual or person must also be sentient in their actions. That is, “responsive to or conscious of sense impressions” and “finely sensitive in perception or feeling,” as Merriam-Webster defines sentient beings.
Medical facts show that the development of a nervous system starts in the first trimester, as early as the fifth week of pregnancy, beginning with the brain and spinal cord. By week six of the pregnancy, the brain normally has developed into five distinct areas and some cranial nerves are visible.
At the end of 14 weeks, the “fetus” is very well distinguishable as human, with many recognizable physical traits, including head, limbs, beating heart and genitalia. And the baby is even able to make a fist with its fingers.
At week 15, the fetus can make active movements, including sucking motions with the mouth to demonstrate its awareness of hunger and efforts to communicate its needs.
By the end of week 21, the baby should be able to hear. There is hand and startle reflex present during week 26; the eyelids open and close, and the nervous system is developed enough to control some body functions between weeks 27 and 30.
Considering that a full-term pregnancy is about 42 weeks, the evidence is pretty clear that by the end of the first trimester, or after the first 14 weeks, an unborn human child not only looks physically human, but is also able to act human, too, by making a fist with the fingers to demonstrate functional independence.
The unborn child further demonstrates human being qualities within the first trimester by moving about (kicking and swimming) independently of the whole, on its own and self-aware that it can do so. The fetus is conscious at this point that it can move, and how it can move.
Early in the second trimester, the child can arrange its mouth muscles well enough to form sucking motions, indicating that it is aware of its need to satisfy the feeling of hunger and is trying to communicate hunger to its host (the mother). This is evidence of sensitive perception, as well as responsiveness to and consciousness of sense impressions.
The unborn child learns quickly that kicking becomes a form of communicating with its host (the mother) about its needs; specifically hunger. Prenatal babies, though, have also been shown to kick and move around playfully because they may feel good and are happy. They are communicating pleasure and comfort to the mother at these times. At other times, their moving about and kicking may be due to discomfort.
The point is that the moving about isn’t just a physical reflex. There becomes a purpose behind it long before the unborn child is ever delivered.
There is even evidence showing that unborn babies are able to recognize their mother’s voice by the second trimester of pregnancy, and they can grasp the umbilical cord when they feel it with their hands and fingers.
In the third and final trimester, evidence shows that the eyelids open and close; four of the five sense are used, including vision, hearing, taste and touch; the child can distinguish for itself the difference between being asleep and awake; and they are able to relate and respond to the moods of the mother.
The medical findings of prenatal development offer compelling evidence that autonomy to some degree is demonstrated by the unborn child, which can also show at least basic sentience by the end of the very first trimester of pregnancy.
Considering that “personhood” is dependent upon autonomy and sentience to establish that a human is “being,” I can see no valid reason why unborn humans should not be granted “person” status as early as the 14th week of pregnancy. Not only can the child make a fist with its fingers, kick its legs and swim independently of the whole, or host, but it does so freely and consciously without influence of outside forces.
I am convinced that medical facts establish the viability of a human fetus as more than just a “ball of flesh” with physical human likenesses. With sensory perceptions, consciousness and independent movements or actions, an unborn human is sentient and autonomous enough to meet the definition of “being,” and therefore, a person.
As such, I submit that “personhood” can and should exist before birth, and that full protection under the law ought to be given to all “persons” and all “human beings,” born or unborn.
These individuals can and should be given equal protection under the law, as dictated by the Fourteenth Amendment, and their lives as "persons" guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
This would be consistent with the interests of preserving what our Founding Fathers and constitutional framers believed to be the first and most important fundamental right of man: Life.
An unborn child, having been established to possess degrees of autonomy and sentience, should not be considered as part of the mother’s “person,” or that which makes up her human “being.” Unborn humans are also not property, because they do not belong to the body. If they did, then they would function like an organ of the body: an essential part of what makes the whole thing work.
But we know that pregnancies are only temporary conditions that resolve by birth and when the womb is empty again. Pregnancies do not interrupt the normal, essential functioning of the mother’s body, although chemical and hormonal imbalances often occur.
As such, an unborn human cannot and should not be considered part of the body, or its effects, either.
The conflict that arises with the Fourteenth Amendment would then be, when and where do the rights of the mother end and those of the unborn child begin?
When a conflict like this surfaces between the rights of one and those of another, I believe that it is government’s responsibility to error on the side of life, simply because without that one right, all other rights are non-existent. There can be no right to liberty, property, happiness or resistance to tyranny without first being a right to life, and the protection of that right.
I don’t believe pregnancy should be forced on a woman, and that part certainly falls within the Fourteenth Amendment. In cases where the life of the mother is in imminent and immediate danger, then, again, it behooves society to error on the side of life and save the mother. To willingly put that life in jeopardy is to violate the natural right to life.
The conflict that results—the unborn life sacrificed to preserve the life of the mother—is not one easily remedied or dealt with. However, to trade the mother’s life for the baby could put the lives of the baby and any siblings in danger, and then the rights of those other individuals are impacted. The choice then comes down to which loss of life will cause the most damage, and clearly, losing the mother to save the baby would do just that.
In cases of rape or incest, I maintain that the Fourteenth Amendment applies. However, I think every reasonable effort should be made to counsel victims on their choices and the alternatives to abortion, because while the conception may have been a crime, the child that results from it is as innocent a victim as the woman.
Error on the side of life. And, whenever or wherever possible, both lives.
While a woman’s decision to end her pregnancy is now protected under the law of the land, the Supreme Court held in the same ruling that the “right” to abort must be balanced against the state’s interests in protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother’s health. It was determined that these interests of the state become stronger over the course of a pregnancy, and that the balancing test should be related to the current trimester of pregnancy.
The legal findings further determined that the state’s interests in regulating abortions are at their weakest in the first trimester when a fetus is less like a fully developed human being than at any other time; but those interests gain strength with each successive trimester of prenatal development. In the second and third trimester, abortion regulation must be related primarily to, and giving weight to the life and health of the mother over that of the fetus.
For the past 38 years the abortion debate has raged, at times more intensely than others. Abortion opponents maintain that life begins at conception, while abortion supporters say the issue isn’t about life, but rather the right to choose.
Abortion proponents, those who call themselves “pro-choice,” have even gone so far as to argue that an unborn child is not the same as a birthed child, and, therefore, is not entitled to the same rights.
Those identifying themselves as “pro-life,” or abortion opponents, have vehemently disagreed with this argument, defending the unborn as human beings without a voice of their own.
Personally, I am anti-abortion, too. Although I am usually a staunch advocate of essential liberty—i.e., the ability to choose without compulsion—I have determined in this case to error on the side of life instead of choice. The reason why is because abortion, while preserving choice for one party—the biological mother—simultaneously denies that same choice to another other party; that being the unborn child, who has no say, no voice and no choice in the decision of whether or not it will die.
Besides essential liberty, and the fundamental right to choose without compulsion, abortion consequently denies another of man’s fundamental rights: Life.
Founding father Thomas Jefferson summarized very succinctly the fundamental rights of man in the July 1776 Declaration of Independence for the American colonies: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Jefferson’s use of the term “unalienable rights” refers to the fundamental rights of man as articulated by the avant-garde of the European Age of Enlightenment. These are natural rights, God created and God given. They are universal and self-evident.
Jefferson references this, too, in the same document, as well as many other letters he wrote in his lifetime on a host of political and philosophical positions.
Other fundamental rights of the Age of Enlightenment and natural law theory include the right to property, security and resistance to oppression. Each of these is addressed in the Bill of Rights, or the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.
I find it compelling, though, that the very first fundamental or natural right that Jefferson articulates is the right to life: the right to be and to exist. It came before even the right to liberty and happiness.
The right to life is also protected by the United States Constitution in Amendment V, which states, in part, that “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
And, yet, despite the obvious importance of the right to life in the minds of America’s founders and her constitution’s framers, it is the one right that is routinely ignored and sorely neglected among the unborn.
An important feature of the Fifth Amendment is the use of the term “person” instead of “citizen” or “the people,” the last two of which refer to those who are either naturally born or legalized Americans. To be a “person” protected by the U.S. Constitution does not require citizenship, residency or any other legal nomenclature, but rather just “being” a human individual.
The root of the debate, then, over abortion should not just be when human life begins, but also when “personhood” begins.
Medical facts establish that “life” begins at conception. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines life, in part, as “an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.” Since very basic cellular development includes all of these traits, establishing life at conception is not only reasonable, but also rational.
But when does conceived human life become a “person” who is protected by the law? Pro-abortion advocates insist that personhood begins at the moment of birth, while anti-abortion activists argue that “personhood” begins while the unborn child is still developing in the womb.
Merriam-Webster further defines “person,” in part, as “the body of a human being.” The dictionary also defines “being,” in part, as “conscious existence,” and it defines “individual,” in part, as “existing as an indivisible whole” and “as a [separate] distinct entity.”
To be individual requires a level of autonomy that permits one to exist independently. Or, as Merriam-Webster defines, “existing or capable of existing independently of the whole.”
Millions children are born prematurely, and many of them are capable of living outside of the womb despite their prematurity. As such, they are capable of existing independently before they reach full term, and their autonomy can be established prior to birth. What, then, is the difference between a child physically born a month premature and an unborn child a month away from full-term birth?
They are the exact gestational age.
Scientifically and philosophically speaking, there is no distinction. One child is born while the other is unborn; but their functions are essentially the same and so is their physical development.
In addition to autonomy, an individual or person must also be sentient in their actions. That is, “responsive to or conscious of sense impressions” and “finely sensitive in perception or feeling,” as Merriam-Webster defines sentient beings.
Medical facts show that the development of a nervous system starts in the first trimester, as early as the fifth week of pregnancy, beginning with the brain and spinal cord. By week six of the pregnancy, the brain normally has developed into five distinct areas and some cranial nerves are visible.
At the end of 14 weeks, the “fetus” is very well distinguishable as human, with many recognizable physical traits, including head, limbs, beating heart and genitalia. And the baby is even able to make a fist with its fingers.
At week 15, the fetus can make active movements, including sucking motions with the mouth to demonstrate its awareness of hunger and efforts to communicate its needs.
By the end of week 21, the baby should be able to hear. There is hand and startle reflex present during week 26; the eyelids open and close, and the nervous system is developed enough to control some body functions between weeks 27 and 30.
Considering that a full-term pregnancy is about 42 weeks, the evidence is pretty clear that by the end of the first trimester, or after the first 14 weeks, an unborn human child not only looks physically human, but is also able to act human, too, by making a fist with the fingers to demonstrate functional independence.
The unborn child further demonstrates human being qualities within the first trimester by moving about (kicking and swimming) independently of the whole, on its own and self-aware that it can do so. The fetus is conscious at this point that it can move, and how it can move.
Early in the second trimester, the child can arrange its mouth muscles well enough to form sucking motions, indicating that it is aware of its need to satisfy the feeling of hunger and is trying to communicate hunger to its host (the mother). This is evidence of sensitive perception, as well as responsiveness to and consciousness of sense impressions.
The unborn child learns quickly that kicking becomes a form of communicating with its host (the mother) about its needs; specifically hunger. Prenatal babies, though, have also been shown to kick and move around playfully because they may feel good and are happy. They are communicating pleasure and comfort to the mother at these times. At other times, their moving about and kicking may be due to discomfort.
The point is that the moving about isn’t just a physical reflex. There becomes a purpose behind it long before the unborn child is ever delivered.
There is even evidence showing that unborn babies are able to recognize their mother’s voice by the second trimester of pregnancy, and they can grasp the umbilical cord when they feel it with their hands and fingers.
In the third and final trimester, evidence shows that the eyelids open and close; four of the five sense are used, including vision, hearing, taste and touch; the child can distinguish for itself the difference between being asleep and awake; and they are able to relate and respond to the moods of the mother.
The medical findings of prenatal development offer compelling evidence that autonomy to some degree is demonstrated by the unborn child, which can also show at least basic sentience by the end of the very first trimester of pregnancy.
Considering that “personhood” is dependent upon autonomy and sentience to establish that a human is “being,” I can see no valid reason why unborn humans should not be granted “person” status as early as the 14th week of pregnancy. Not only can the child make a fist with its fingers, kick its legs and swim independently of the whole, or host, but it does so freely and consciously without influence of outside forces.
I am convinced that medical facts establish the viability of a human fetus as more than just a “ball of flesh” with physical human likenesses. With sensory perceptions, consciousness and independent movements or actions, an unborn human is sentient and autonomous enough to meet the definition of “being,” and therefore, a person.
As such, I submit that “personhood” can and should exist before birth, and that full protection under the law ought to be given to all “persons” and all “human beings,” born or unborn.
These individuals can and should be given equal protection under the law, as dictated by the Fourteenth Amendment, and their lives as "persons" guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
This would be consistent with the interests of preserving what our Founding Fathers and constitutional framers believed to be the first and most important fundamental right of man: Life.
An unborn child, having been established to possess degrees of autonomy and sentience, should not be considered as part of the mother’s “person,” or that which makes up her human “being.” Unborn humans are also not property, because they do not belong to the body. If they did, then they would function like an organ of the body: an essential part of what makes the whole thing work.
But we know that pregnancies are only temporary conditions that resolve by birth and when the womb is empty again. Pregnancies do not interrupt the normal, essential functioning of the mother’s body, although chemical and hormonal imbalances often occur.
As such, an unborn human cannot and should not be considered part of the body, or its effects, either.
The conflict that arises with the Fourteenth Amendment would then be, when and where do the rights of the mother end and those of the unborn child begin?
When a conflict like this surfaces between the rights of one and those of another, I believe that it is government’s responsibility to error on the side of life, simply because without that one right, all other rights are non-existent. There can be no right to liberty, property, happiness or resistance to tyranny without first being a right to life, and the protection of that right.
I don’t believe pregnancy should be forced on a woman, and that part certainly falls within the Fourteenth Amendment. In cases where the life of the mother is in imminent and immediate danger, then, again, it behooves society to error on the side of life and save the mother. To willingly put that life in jeopardy is to violate the natural right to life.
The conflict that results—the unborn life sacrificed to preserve the life of the mother—is not one easily remedied or dealt with. However, to trade the mother’s life for the baby could put the lives of the baby and any siblings in danger, and then the rights of those other individuals are impacted. The choice then comes down to which loss of life will cause the most damage, and clearly, losing the mother to save the baby would do just that.
In cases of rape or incest, I maintain that the Fourteenth Amendment applies. However, I think every reasonable effort should be made to counsel victims on their choices and the alternatives to abortion, because while the conception may have been a crime, the child that results from it is as innocent a victim as the woman.
Error on the side of life. And, whenever or wherever possible, both lives.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Brett Favre: Hall of Shamer?
As a Green Bay Packer loyalist, I used to marvel at the way NFL superstar quarterback Brett Favre would connect with Sterling Sharpe, Mark Chmura, Robert Brooks, and Antonio Freeman et al on some seemingly improbable pass plays. He was the maestro, the conductor of a symphony of talent that made beautiful music together.
Now, though, the name Brett Favre only produces sour notes.
The so-called Jenn Sterger scandal involving Favre and a former New York Jets “game hostess” has turned the prolific career of one of professional football’s most endearing figures upside down. If the allegations turn out to be true—that is, the voice in those voice messages, and the, uh, pictures in those “sexts” indeed belong to Brett Favre—then he will be enshrined into the hall of shame long before he makes it to Canton, Ohio.
I only hope for Brett and Deanna Favre’s sake that the allegations aren’t true, and that the perpetrator was an imposter.
But if recent history has proven something, it is that professional athletes are capable of anything. Just a year ago, professional golfer Tiger Woods went from mega sports idol to chump all in one night.
The same thing could happen to Favre, too, in much the same way.
A lot of people have thrown in their two cents about Favre, Sterger and the entire sleazy mess. I guess I’ll put mine in, too.
I don’t know how far Favre took this. There aren’t enough facts about the case yet. What we do know is that Favre has admitted to leaving the voice mails on Sterger’s phone, but he denies sending the “sexts.” Of course, if the telephone number used to send the voice mails and the “sexts” turns out to be the same, then Brett will have a lot more explaining to do. I figure the chickens will come home to roost eventually.
But that doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion about the whole mess.
Brett appears to be guilty of flirting with the “game hostess” by his own admission that he left the voice mails for her. Considering that Brett is a married man to a wife battling cancer, a father, grandfather and a role model—whether he wants to be or not—to millions of youth, this doesn’t speak well for him, his character or his credibility.
There is a lot of noise out there in cyberspace complaining about how the scandal is really nobody else’s business except for the parties involved. If these were obscure, private individuals, then I’d agree.
However, Brett Favre is a public figure; he has been for 20 years. He implicitly accepted this responsibility when he signed his first professional football contract back in 1991. Privacy is traded for wealth, fortune, glitz, glamour, fame and notoriety.
I want to laugh when a celebrity insists on privacy—to which they are entitled, but should have little expectation of—when they spend so much of their time in the public eye, influencing what people see, hear and ultimately think. While privacy should be respected for everybody, public figures should expect much less if only because the very nature of their work puts them under the scrutiny of the public eye to begin with, and they can often have a great deal of influence on public opinion and behavior.
Former NBA basketball star Charles Barkley once remarked that he is not a role model, and that children shouldn’t be looking to him as a role model. Instead, children should be looking to their parents and others in their communities to be role models for them.
I don’t disagree with Barkley on this; but his expectation is also unrealistic. Professional athletes, movie stars and entertainers all have a responsibility to act and behave in a manner that is appropriate for the people who admire them. This is because they are public figures, which are positions of great power and influence over others. People become captivated with celebrities, and as such, they can easily become a captive audience for a public figure to influence with his or her speech, actions and behavior.
We can tell our children until we are blue in the face who real role models are—and we should—but ultimately it is up to the child to decide who to admire and emulate. As such, every adult has an implicit responsibility to model positive behavior for impressionable youth who will one day become adults, leaders and role models in their own communities. If we don’t insist on responsible behavior from ourselves, then how can we expect future generations to do the same? All of a sudden, society faces a slippery slope.
As Uncle Ben once told Peter Parker, “With great power comes great responsibility.”
Athletes like Barkley, Favre and others should heed this advice, because it applies directly to them.
Do I really care whether Favre flirted with a former Playboy model a third of his age? No, not really. I don’t want to know the salacious details of the voice mails or the texts. But what I do care about is that Favre’s behavior is a model for the youths that follow him—in some cases religiously—every Sunday afternoon. I certainly don’t want my own little boys admiring a professional athlete who disrespects his wife by playing around with other women.
Having said all of this about Brett Favre, I also have to wonder the extent to which Jenn Sterger was involved with Favre. Was she really the innocent victim of unwanted solicitations, or did she perhaps flirt with him at first and the whole situation got out of hand?
Does anyone else wonder why it took Jenn Sterger two years to release the “sexts” that allegedly came from Favre? If the voice mails, texts and images were that disturbing to her, then why didn’t she report them right away and file a harassment complaint against the perpetrator?
In addition, there are two former New York Jet team massage therapists who both claim Favre made advances toward them, or looked at them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable.
But why are we hearing about all of this now? Does it not hurt the credibility of the accusers if they wait two years before saying something? It isn’t as though anyone was holding a gun to their heads and threatening to kill them if they talked.
Therefore, I must ask: Why now? Why not then, when it actually happened?
Sterger herself isn’t exactly a paragon of credibility, either. After all, her claims to fame (until Favre) were nude or nearly nude photo spreads in Playboy and Maxim magazines. She was discovered in the stands during a Florida State University football game by a television camera man, who probably wasn’t thinking at the time that she would qualify as a New York Jets sideline reporter.
In short order, several magazines subsequently solicited her for modeling opportunities that accentuated her, uh, assets. Among them were Maxim and Playboy, well known as either smut or borderline smut material.
Somehow she got hired by the New York Jets as a “game hostess,” whatever that is.
Frankly, I’m not really sure how someone gets hired as a “game hostess” for a professional football team. My best guess is that it had less to do with any credentials or qualifications—either academic or intrinsic—she may have had, and more to do with her magazine spreads.
What’s more, Sterger is now supposedly a sports reporter who hosts her own cable sports show. She also identifies herself as an entertainer, actress and model (no surprise) by profession.
Is there anyone naïve enough to think that Sterger got to where she’s at because of what she has between her ears? The truth is, Sterger can attribute her success to what’s below the neck and above the knees.
Sorry, but that’s just the cold, hard truth of it all.
I don’t mean to knock Sterger here. This wasn’t meant to be a roast of the woman who claims to be the victim in this “sexting” scandal co-starring Brett Favre.
But to ignore the obvious might just be to dismiss some mighty big clues.
Sterger claims the salacious voice mails and texts were unsolicited and unwanted. Strange, though, that she has been silent about these disturbing phone calls and “sexts” for two years until just last month.
According to media reports, Sterger had given her phone number out at the request of an unnamed New York Jets football player. Why? The player who requested her telephone number remained unidentified to Sterger, and yet she released it anyway to someone she did not know or even recognize.
All right, maybe as a “game hostess” it was her job to talk to the players on her phone. I don’t know. Somehow, though, I doubt it.
Based on the limited information out there about Sterger’s actual duties, she was a “hostess” in the fundamental sense: She greeted customers (fans) at the place of business (in the stands of the stadium). This means her contact with players would have been minimal, at best, because her contact with the general public was maximal.
So, assuming that Sterger’s job with the Jets primarily involved fan contact, then why was she so willing to give out her telephone number to an unidentified player? For all she knew, the person wasn’t a player at all, but some deranged fan who was stalking her.
How stupid is that?
Perhaps most strange about Sterger’s involvement is her apparent complete naivete in the whole matter.
This is a woman who flaunts her sexuality the way Arnold Schwarzenegger used to flaunt his muscles as a former bodybuilder and Mister Universe.
It isn’t as though sex and the sale of it are new to Sterger. After all, she has uninhibitedly taken most or all of her clothes off for Hugh Hefner’s Playboy magazine and Maxim, having known full well what both her body and the magazines publishing images of it were selling. A woman doesn’t agree to pose for smut publishers and not know the purpose of those products.
Yet, somehow, she was shocked and surprised to receive flirtatious voice mails and dirty text messages?
Okay, I’ll cut her some slack here. Unwanted sexual advances are exactly that: Unwanted. If she didn’t want them, and she got them anyway, then that is harassment. Period. I don’t care how “hot” Sterger is or that she is a sex symbol and a bimbo. If she didn’t want it, then the perpetrator shouldn’t have forced it on her.
On the other hand, do we really know that the “Favre” flirts were unwanted? She insists that they were; but then again, we have to consider Sterger’s credibility here, too.
She knows that she’s got it where it counts. She has used her body to her advantage. She has willingly sold sex with it. Then, she gives out her telephone number to an anonymous football player, and we are supposed to believe that this was all done innocently?
Either Sterger is not being entirely truthful in the matter, or she has got to be the epitome of bimbo naivete.
Her brain may be the least exercised part of her body, because she didn’t have the sense enough to report the harassment when it happened. She didn’t have the sense to avoid selling sex with pictures of her naked body and still insist on being taken seriously as a sports entertainment intellectual. And, she certainly exercised poor judgment by giving out her telephone number to an unnamed and unidentified player, who, for all she knew, wasn’t a player at all but a stalker.
What is with the news media these days hiring former models to “pose” as reporters? Whether it’s TV Azteca reporter Ines Sainz or Jenn Sterger, there seems to be a bimbo eruption going on in the media industry these days. I guess the sports news media has reached the same conclusion that advertising did years ago: Sex sells.
Jenn Sterger evidently knows this, too. Her notoriety with Playboy and Maxim speaks volumes about her understanding of the direction sports entertainment has been heading. Otherwise, she wouldn’t dress the way she does at games or in the studio where she hosts her cable sports show.
Because sex sells, then maybe—just maybe—that’s why this so-called “scandal” surfaced in the first place.
Could it be a set up? Hmmm.
If, by chance, it is then Brett Favre is perhaps more naïve than Sterger. It sucks to go from champ to chump. Just ask Tiger.
Now, though, the name Brett Favre only produces sour notes.
The so-called Jenn Sterger scandal involving Favre and a former New York Jets “game hostess” has turned the prolific career of one of professional football’s most endearing figures upside down. If the allegations turn out to be true—that is, the voice in those voice messages, and the, uh, pictures in those “sexts” indeed belong to Brett Favre—then he will be enshrined into the hall of shame long before he makes it to Canton, Ohio.
I only hope for Brett and Deanna Favre’s sake that the allegations aren’t true, and that the perpetrator was an imposter.
But if recent history has proven something, it is that professional athletes are capable of anything. Just a year ago, professional golfer Tiger Woods went from mega sports idol to chump all in one night.
The same thing could happen to Favre, too, in much the same way.
A lot of people have thrown in their two cents about Favre, Sterger and the entire sleazy mess. I guess I’ll put mine in, too.
I don’t know how far Favre took this. There aren’t enough facts about the case yet. What we do know is that Favre has admitted to leaving the voice mails on Sterger’s phone, but he denies sending the “sexts.” Of course, if the telephone number used to send the voice mails and the “sexts” turns out to be the same, then Brett will have a lot more explaining to do. I figure the chickens will come home to roost eventually.
But that doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion about the whole mess.
Brett appears to be guilty of flirting with the “game hostess” by his own admission that he left the voice mails for her. Considering that Brett is a married man to a wife battling cancer, a father, grandfather and a role model—whether he wants to be or not—to millions of youth, this doesn’t speak well for him, his character or his credibility.
There is a lot of noise out there in cyberspace complaining about how the scandal is really nobody else’s business except for the parties involved. If these were obscure, private individuals, then I’d agree.
However, Brett Favre is a public figure; he has been for 20 years. He implicitly accepted this responsibility when he signed his first professional football contract back in 1991. Privacy is traded for wealth, fortune, glitz, glamour, fame and notoriety.
I want to laugh when a celebrity insists on privacy—to which they are entitled, but should have little expectation of—when they spend so much of their time in the public eye, influencing what people see, hear and ultimately think. While privacy should be respected for everybody, public figures should expect much less if only because the very nature of their work puts them under the scrutiny of the public eye to begin with, and they can often have a great deal of influence on public opinion and behavior.
Former NBA basketball star Charles Barkley once remarked that he is not a role model, and that children shouldn’t be looking to him as a role model. Instead, children should be looking to their parents and others in their communities to be role models for them.
I don’t disagree with Barkley on this; but his expectation is also unrealistic. Professional athletes, movie stars and entertainers all have a responsibility to act and behave in a manner that is appropriate for the people who admire them. This is because they are public figures, which are positions of great power and influence over others. People become captivated with celebrities, and as such, they can easily become a captive audience for a public figure to influence with his or her speech, actions and behavior.
We can tell our children until we are blue in the face who real role models are—and we should—but ultimately it is up to the child to decide who to admire and emulate. As such, every adult has an implicit responsibility to model positive behavior for impressionable youth who will one day become adults, leaders and role models in their own communities. If we don’t insist on responsible behavior from ourselves, then how can we expect future generations to do the same? All of a sudden, society faces a slippery slope.
As Uncle Ben once told Peter Parker, “With great power comes great responsibility.”
Athletes like Barkley, Favre and others should heed this advice, because it applies directly to them.
Do I really care whether Favre flirted with a former Playboy model a third of his age? No, not really. I don’t want to know the salacious details of the voice mails or the texts. But what I do care about is that Favre’s behavior is a model for the youths that follow him—in some cases religiously—every Sunday afternoon. I certainly don’t want my own little boys admiring a professional athlete who disrespects his wife by playing around with other women.
Having said all of this about Brett Favre, I also have to wonder the extent to which Jenn Sterger was involved with Favre. Was she really the innocent victim of unwanted solicitations, or did she perhaps flirt with him at first and the whole situation got out of hand?
Does anyone else wonder why it took Jenn Sterger two years to release the “sexts” that allegedly came from Favre? If the voice mails, texts and images were that disturbing to her, then why didn’t she report them right away and file a harassment complaint against the perpetrator?
In addition, there are two former New York Jet team massage therapists who both claim Favre made advances toward them, or looked at them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable.
But why are we hearing about all of this now? Does it not hurt the credibility of the accusers if they wait two years before saying something? It isn’t as though anyone was holding a gun to their heads and threatening to kill them if they talked.
Therefore, I must ask: Why now? Why not then, when it actually happened?
Sterger herself isn’t exactly a paragon of credibility, either. After all, her claims to fame (until Favre) were nude or nearly nude photo spreads in Playboy and Maxim magazines. She was discovered in the stands during a Florida State University football game by a television camera man, who probably wasn’t thinking at the time that she would qualify as a New York Jets sideline reporter.
In short order, several magazines subsequently solicited her for modeling opportunities that accentuated her, uh, assets. Among them were Maxim and Playboy, well known as either smut or borderline smut material.
Somehow she got hired by the New York Jets as a “game hostess,” whatever that is.
Frankly, I’m not really sure how someone gets hired as a “game hostess” for a professional football team. My best guess is that it had less to do with any credentials or qualifications—either academic or intrinsic—she may have had, and more to do with her magazine spreads.
What’s more, Sterger is now supposedly a sports reporter who hosts her own cable sports show. She also identifies herself as an entertainer, actress and model (no surprise) by profession.
Is there anyone naïve enough to think that Sterger got to where she’s at because of what she has between her ears? The truth is, Sterger can attribute her success to what’s below the neck and above the knees.
Sorry, but that’s just the cold, hard truth of it all.
I don’t mean to knock Sterger here. This wasn’t meant to be a roast of the woman who claims to be the victim in this “sexting” scandal co-starring Brett Favre.
But to ignore the obvious might just be to dismiss some mighty big clues.
Sterger claims the salacious voice mails and texts were unsolicited and unwanted. Strange, though, that she has been silent about these disturbing phone calls and “sexts” for two years until just last month.
According to media reports, Sterger had given her phone number out at the request of an unnamed New York Jets football player. Why? The player who requested her telephone number remained unidentified to Sterger, and yet she released it anyway to someone she did not know or even recognize.
All right, maybe as a “game hostess” it was her job to talk to the players on her phone. I don’t know. Somehow, though, I doubt it.
Based on the limited information out there about Sterger’s actual duties, she was a “hostess” in the fundamental sense: She greeted customers (fans) at the place of business (in the stands of the stadium). This means her contact with players would have been minimal, at best, because her contact with the general public was maximal.
So, assuming that Sterger’s job with the Jets primarily involved fan contact, then why was she so willing to give out her telephone number to an unidentified player? For all she knew, the person wasn’t a player at all, but some deranged fan who was stalking her.
How stupid is that?
Perhaps most strange about Sterger’s involvement is her apparent complete naivete in the whole matter.
This is a woman who flaunts her sexuality the way Arnold Schwarzenegger used to flaunt his muscles as a former bodybuilder and Mister Universe.
It isn’t as though sex and the sale of it are new to Sterger. After all, she has uninhibitedly taken most or all of her clothes off for Hugh Hefner’s Playboy magazine and Maxim, having known full well what both her body and the magazines publishing images of it were selling. A woman doesn’t agree to pose for smut publishers and not know the purpose of those products.
Yet, somehow, she was shocked and surprised to receive flirtatious voice mails and dirty text messages?
Okay, I’ll cut her some slack here. Unwanted sexual advances are exactly that: Unwanted. If she didn’t want them, and she got them anyway, then that is harassment. Period. I don’t care how “hot” Sterger is or that she is a sex symbol and a bimbo. If she didn’t want it, then the perpetrator shouldn’t have forced it on her.
On the other hand, do we really know that the “Favre” flirts were unwanted? She insists that they were; but then again, we have to consider Sterger’s credibility here, too.
She knows that she’s got it where it counts. She has used her body to her advantage. She has willingly sold sex with it. Then, she gives out her telephone number to an anonymous football player, and we are supposed to believe that this was all done innocently?
Either Sterger is not being entirely truthful in the matter, or she has got to be the epitome of bimbo naivete.
Her brain may be the least exercised part of her body, because she didn’t have the sense enough to report the harassment when it happened. She didn’t have the sense to avoid selling sex with pictures of her naked body and still insist on being taken seriously as a sports entertainment intellectual. And, she certainly exercised poor judgment by giving out her telephone number to an unnamed and unidentified player, who, for all she knew, wasn’t a player at all but a stalker.
What is with the news media these days hiring former models to “pose” as reporters? Whether it’s TV Azteca reporter Ines Sainz or Jenn Sterger, there seems to be a bimbo eruption going on in the media industry these days. I guess the sports news media has reached the same conclusion that advertising did years ago: Sex sells.
Jenn Sterger evidently knows this, too. Her notoriety with Playboy and Maxim speaks volumes about her understanding of the direction sports entertainment has been heading. Otherwise, she wouldn’t dress the way she does at games or in the studio where she hosts her cable sports show.
Because sex sells, then maybe—just maybe—that’s why this so-called “scandal” surfaced in the first place.
Could it be a set up? Hmmm.
If, by chance, it is then Brett Favre is perhaps more naïve than Sterger. It sucks to go from champ to chump. Just ask Tiger.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Being conservative
There are a number of popular misconceptions circulating about American conservatism that have been spun by the progressive left-wing political machine, and that are also widely believed by progressive and even centrist moderate voters.
My purpose in writing this commentary is to set the record straight about what being a traditional American conservative is really all about. After all, I am one myself, and I ought to know my own mind better than any progressive leftist claims to.
So, without further ado, I present my rebuttal of common misperceptions by the left and offer a defense in my case as a traditional American conservative.
Admittedly, I feel a little bit like a defendant representing himself at his own trial, because I am not only rebutting accusations made against my political persuasion, but I also must argue in defense of what I believe in.
To be a conservative in America today feels like being an ostracized family member with a scarlet letter on his back, because popular culture—heavily influenced and arguably controlled by the political left—shuns anything remotely perceived as right of center. I am guilty until proven innocent by virtue of the fact that I identify myself as a conservative.
I suppose this is the left wing’s way of exacting some retribution for former U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s 1950s “Red Scare” and Hollywood blacklist of suspected communists.
Today the political left is conducting its own version of the “Red Scare” by stereotyping traditional American conservatives and trying to fit us all neatly into their little bottle of right-wing ideology, so that it can rubber stamp us all whenever our dissenting voices start to annoy them. The left wing then pulls tricks out of the little bottle in an effort to discredit each and every conservative voice that challenges it.
Among the more predictable little tricks is the accusation of bigotry.
The left seeks to immediately discredit conservatives, so that it can avoid debate of any kind at all with them. By accusing conservatives of a character flaw, the left tries to neutralize right-wing arguments by assassinating character and calling credibility into question.
The political left tends to see things in colors anyway, so it has painted traditional American conservatives as predominantly white, which ultimately translates into racism. Anytime there is found a bunch of mostly white Americans under one umbrella, racism is naturally and automatically suspected by the left. Even though there are plenty of socially and/or fiscally conservative blacks, Hispanics and other races in America, conservatism is seen by the left as mostly white and generally racist. Any racial minorities who fall under the right-wing umbrella are either misled, ignorant, gullible, or just plain shallow and unenlightened. The left wing has all but concluded that there can’t possibly be any remotely intelligent people on the right; especially minorities who don’t know what’s good for them.
Unfortunately, conservatives are dismissed as idiots before they even have a chance to defend themselves. That is the second trick that the left pulls out of its little ideological bottle: Conservatives are all just plain stupid, so there’s no point in debating the issues with them.
In other words, neutralize the opponent with absolutist blanket statements that paint all conservatives as one color…and a singular level of intelligence.
Diversity, after all, is supposed to be an invention of the progressive mind, and to have conservatives practicing it sort of takes the fire out of left-wing ideology and steals the thunder from its storm.
As far as the political left is concerned, conservatives are supposed to be closed-minded, simple reactionaries whose views are so extreme that they become irrelevant in the arena of ideas and circles of debate. Conservatives like me aren’t supposed to be reasonable people who think for themselves and deliberate about their opinions. We are supposed march lock-step to the trumpets of conservative talk radio. We are supposed to let the Rush Limbaughs, Glenn Becks, Sean Hannitys, and Michael Savages et al do the thinking and speaking for us. We are supposed to fit neatly into the left wing’s little ideological bottle, after all.
Nothing perturbs a leftist more than a conservative who refuses to be a peg shaped to fit into a particular hole.
When conservatives defy the left-wing stereotype, then that’s when the left launches its credibility assaults with character flaw bombs meant to assassinate who we are and sabotage what we believe in. The resulting carnage includes racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia, among many other forms of irrational thought.
The political left has worked very hard over the years to corner the market on tolerance, open-mindedness and compassion, while alienating conservatives as the antithesis of these virtues. In large part, it has succeeded where popular perceptions are concerned.
Common misperceptions of conservatives these days are that they are intolerant, closed-minded and uncompassionate.
Being a conservative myself, I can say categorically that these beliefs are not based on anything factual, or even substantive. The misconceptions about conservatives have been fabricated by the left wing for one distinct purpose: To discredit and make them irrelevant to the political debate.
Leftists routinely misinterpret and take what a conservative says out of context.
For instance, when I say that I oppose affirmative action, the left-wing reaction is to automatically assume that my opposition to a program that promotes minority equality in the workplace is because I am a bigot. There is no effort made to get clarification, and no attempt to understand why I oppose reverse discrimination. It is just assumed that I do so because I am an intolerant racist, sexist homophobe.
Another example is when a conservative like me opposes abortion or welfare, and supports a privatized option to Social Security. First, I am closed-minded and not being reasonable. Then I am being an uncompassionate slob.
Why, because I think that abortion rights ignore the fundamental human right to life for the unborn child? Or because I think the welfare system is being abused by people with no intention of improving themselves or the lives of their children? Or because I think the individual is being cheated out of a much better retirement with compulsory FICA withholdings?
Once again, the left never has and never will make any effort to understand my reasons. What matters is that I fundamentally oppose things that the left wing supports. As such, I am the enemy not to be understood and certainly not to be negotiated with; not one iota.
The left’s ruthless and merciless attitude toward conservatives seems inconsistent with the image of tolerance, compassion and understanding that it tries to market itself with to the apathetic populace. Go figure.
Yet, in spite of its own contradictions, the left wing is somehow able to require conservatives like me to be more open-minded and tolerant of it. Go figure again.
I used to get really angry about being stereotyped as a mean-spirited bigot by virtue of my political ideology.
Not anymore.
I have had to teach myself to laugh and chuckle at the gross misrepresentation of conservatism by the left wing. The accusations made by the left against the right are so baseless that they sound like stand-up comedy jokes…without the punch lines.
I just can’t help but think that leftists are really being facetious and sarcastic when they are calling me a racist, homophobic bigot or a sexist pig.
But I also have to remind myself that the left wing is entirely serious in its accusations, even though it knows that what it charges against conservatives is laughably baseless, unsubstantiated and largely false. The point is to sabotage conservatism by branding it as an evil ideology; or at the very least, an antiquated way of thinking that is far outmoded by more progressive thought.
As such, it is imperative that we conservatives don’t just sit back, laugh and take it the way Stan Laurel would verbal abuse from Oliver Hardy. When the left makes an accusation against conservatism, conservatives should speak up and denounce it.
Yeah, I know that anything we say in our defense lands on deaf ears, because the court of the progressive left is set up much like the old English courts of law where a defendant is guilty unless he can prove himself innocent of a crime.
But that shouldn’t stop us from telling Oliver Hardy that the mess we are in may not be Stan Laurel’s fault at all, but rather Ollie’s.
Truth be told, Ollie got the two of them into as much or more trouble with his self-righteous indignation of others than Stan did with his bumbling.
Speaking as a traditional American conservative—not to be confused with left of center new or neo-conservatism—I’ll spell out in very clear, concise and succinct English language my values, the virtues I hold dear to, and the principles that I believe in.
First, I am not a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a xenophobe or a bigot of any kind. I don’t hate all non-Christian beliefs. I am not an anti-government or anti-tax lout, either. Those would be anarchists—not conservatives—anyway.
I have close friends and family members who are ethnic minorities. I have a foster child who is mixed race.
I supported my wife in going back to school for a college education, and put my own graduate education on hold so that she could complete hers. I perform domestic tasks because I want my wife to know that I believe in a fair division of labor, and that these chores are not below me.
I have a gay brother who I love and for whom I am there to support if or when he ever needs it.
I believe in immigration, and that America should remain open for the oppressed, the tired and the huddled masses to come here legally.
I unconditionally and categorically support religious liberty for all belief systems, because religion is a cornerstone for family and community stability, and more often than not, promotes positive behavior and spiritual wellness.
As a traditional American conservative, I am not—let me repeat that—I am not anti-government or anti-tax. Did I make that clear enough? If not, then read the first line over again.
I am fed up with local, state and federal governments that seem to only be getting bigger and more intrusive. I am against big and intrusive government. I believe in a government with limited powers, and one that respects those limited powers.
I don’t like government that acts in the name of compassion, but ends up just becoming larger, more intrusive in the lives of individuals, and a glutton for revenue.
Being a traditional American conservative is all about enough government and enough taxes. As the national TEA party stands for: “Taxed Enough Already.”
What I don’t like is government doing for people that the vast majority of them are capable of doing for themselves, like providing for retirement, health care, employment, income, and even school lunches, which my mom always made sure I had when I left the house for school every morning.
New York City government has already outlawed certain transfats and lipids in foods sold within municipal limits in an effort to battle obesity and diseases caused by unhealthy eating habits. The city of Santa Barbara, California, has also made the sale of fast food meals with toys illegal, because city leaders say that the toys entice children to eat food that is unhealthy and bad for them.
Should it really be the government’s role to tell the individual what they can or cannot eat? Where is the line drawn between empowerment of the individual consumer to make choices for themselves and the government to make choices for them?
Essential liberty to choose to do the right thing is being trampled by municipal, county, state and federal laws and regulations meant to protect the people from themselves, because we are not capable of being trusted to do the right thing or make the right decisions.
Modern American government has become far too paternalistic in its approach, its management and its enforcement or delivery.
Consequently, we are allowing government to do things for us, make choices and decisions for us, and provide for us that which we should be capable of doing, choosing and providing for ourselves.
I believe in the old proverb, “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.”
I believe in the individual: Individual initiative, individual ingenuity and innovation, individual pursuit of opportunity, individual fortitude, and especially essential liberty of the individual to do what is right. I believe that the individual is capable of righting wrongs and solving problems, and that the government does not always have to be there to do it for us.
I believe in self-sovereignty of the individual above the sovereignty of the state.
I believe in common sense laws and their enforcement; not redundancies in the law or regulations so weighted down in bureaucracy that their enforcement is inefficient and ineffective. Most importantly, I believe in laws and regulations that do not trample on opportunity and essential liberty of the individual.
I believe in a government that is a supporter of individual prosperity, rather than a barrier to it.
I believe in a government that promotes opportunity by empowering the individual to make a better life for himself, his family and his community. I don’t believe in a government that takes the initiative itself to try to better our lives for us.
I believe that fundamental rights secured by the U.S. Constitution, freedom and essential liberty are given by the grace of God; not the grace of government or men.
I believe in the unalienable rights articulated by founding father and former U.S. President Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
To make a long story short, this pretty much sums up the values, principles and virtues of the American Revolution, which traditional American conservatives like me are devoted to preserving. Jefferson’s conclusion also sums up the values, virtues and principles to which American conservatives hold dear.
If believing in the things that I do still makes me an extremist or a bigoted, ignorant wretch in the eyes of a leftist, then so be it. I can go on forever trying to explain that the left’s perceptions of conservatives are grossly exaggerated or outright false, but that will not change the mind of one whose mind is closed to correction.
There’s nothing more I can say or do that would convince a closed-minded left-wing progressive that I’m not at all what they have conceived me to be in their own minds.
Take it or leave it. That’s the choice.
My purpose in writing this commentary is to set the record straight about what being a traditional American conservative is really all about. After all, I am one myself, and I ought to know my own mind better than any progressive leftist claims to.
So, without further ado, I present my rebuttal of common misperceptions by the left and offer a defense in my case as a traditional American conservative.
Admittedly, I feel a little bit like a defendant representing himself at his own trial, because I am not only rebutting accusations made against my political persuasion, but I also must argue in defense of what I believe in.
To be a conservative in America today feels like being an ostracized family member with a scarlet letter on his back, because popular culture—heavily influenced and arguably controlled by the political left—shuns anything remotely perceived as right of center. I am guilty until proven innocent by virtue of the fact that I identify myself as a conservative.
I suppose this is the left wing’s way of exacting some retribution for former U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s 1950s “Red Scare” and Hollywood blacklist of suspected communists.
Today the political left is conducting its own version of the “Red Scare” by stereotyping traditional American conservatives and trying to fit us all neatly into their little bottle of right-wing ideology, so that it can rubber stamp us all whenever our dissenting voices start to annoy them. The left wing then pulls tricks out of the little bottle in an effort to discredit each and every conservative voice that challenges it.
Among the more predictable little tricks is the accusation of bigotry.
The left seeks to immediately discredit conservatives, so that it can avoid debate of any kind at all with them. By accusing conservatives of a character flaw, the left tries to neutralize right-wing arguments by assassinating character and calling credibility into question.
The political left tends to see things in colors anyway, so it has painted traditional American conservatives as predominantly white, which ultimately translates into racism. Anytime there is found a bunch of mostly white Americans under one umbrella, racism is naturally and automatically suspected by the left. Even though there are plenty of socially and/or fiscally conservative blacks, Hispanics and other races in America, conservatism is seen by the left as mostly white and generally racist. Any racial minorities who fall under the right-wing umbrella are either misled, ignorant, gullible, or just plain shallow and unenlightened. The left wing has all but concluded that there can’t possibly be any remotely intelligent people on the right; especially minorities who don’t know what’s good for them.
Unfortunately, conservatives are dismissed as idiots before they even have a chance to defend themselves. That is the second trick that the left pulls out of its little ideological bottle: Conservatives are all just plain stupid, so there’s no point in debating the issues with them.
In other words, neutralize the opponent with absolutist blanket statements that paint all conservatives as one color…and a singular level of intelligence.
Diversity, after all, is supposed to be an invention of the progressive mind, and to have conservatives practicing it sort of takes the fire out of left-wing ideology and steals the thunder from its storm.
As far as the political left is concerned, conservatives are supposed to be closed-minded, simple reactionaries whose views are so extreme that they become irrelevant in the arena of ideas and circles of debate. Conservatives like me aren’t supposed to be reasonable people who think for themselves and deliberate about their opinions. We are supposed march lock-step to the trumpets of conservative talk radio. We are supposed to let the Rush Limbaughs, Glenn Becks, Sean Hannitys, and Michael Savages et al do the thinking and speaking for us. We are supposed to fit neatly into the left wing’s little ideological bottle, after all.
Nothing perturbs a leftist more than a conservative who refuses to be a peg shaped to fit into a particular hole.
When conservatives defy the left-wing stereotype, then that’s when the left launches its credibility assaults with character flaw bombs meant to assassinate who we are and sabotage what we believe in. The resulting carnage includes racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia, among many other forms of irrational thought.
The political left has worked very hard over the years to corner the market on tolerance, open-mindedness and compassion, while alienating conservatives as the antithesis of these virtues. In large part, it has succeeded where popular perceptions are concerned.
Common misperceptions of conservatives these days are that they are intolerant, closed-minded and uncompassionate.
Being a conservative myself, I can say categorically that these beliefs are not based on anything factual, or even substantive. The misconceptions about conservatives have been fabricated by the left wing for one distinct purpose: To discredit and make them irrelevant to the political debate.
Leftists routinely misinterpret and take what a conservative says out of context.
For instance, when I say that I oppose affirmative action, the left-wing reaction is to automatically assume that my opposition to a program that promotes minority equality in the workplace is because I am a bigot. There is no effort made to get clarification, and no attempt to understand why I oppose reverse discrimination. It is just assumed that I do so because I am an intolerant racist, sexist homophobe.
Another example is when a conservative like me opposes abortion or welfare, and supports a privatized option to Social Security. First, I am closed-minded and not being reasonable. Then I am being an uncompassionate slob.
Why, because I think that abortion rights ignore the fundamental human right to life for the unborn child? Or because I think the welfare system is being abused by people with no intention of improving themselves or the lives of their children? Or because I think the individual is being cheated out of a much better retirement with compulsory FICA withholdings?
Once again, the left never has and never will make any effort to understand my reasons. What matters is that I fundamentally oppose things that the left wing supports. As such, I am the enemy not to be understood and certainly not to be negotiated with; not one iota.
The left’s ruthless and merciless attitude toward conservatives seems inconsistent with the image of tolerance, compassion and understanding that it tries to market itself with to the apathetic populace. Go figure.
Yet, in spite of its own contradictions, the left wing is somehow able to require conservatives like me to be more open-minded and tolerant of it. Go figure again.
I used to get really angry about being stereotyped as a mean-spirited bigot by virtue of my political ideology.
Not anymore.
I have had to teach myself to laugh and chuckle at the gross misrepresentation of conservatism by the left wing. The accusations made by the left against the right are so baseless that they sound like stand-up comedy jokes…without the punch lines.
I just can’t help but think that leftists are really being facetious and sarcastic when they are calling me a racist, homophobic bigot or a sexist pig.
But I also have to remind myself that the left wing is entirely serious in its accusations, even though it knows that what it charges against conservatives is laughably baseless, unsubstantiated and largely false. The point is to sabotage conservatism by branding it as an evil ideology; or at the very least, an antiquated way of thinking that is far outmoded by more progressive thought.
As such, it is imperative that we conservatives don’t just sit back, laugh and take it the way Stan Laurel would verbal abuse from Oliver Hardy. When the left makes an accusation against conservatism, conservatives should speak up and denounce it.
Yeah, I know that anything we say in our defense lands on deaf ears, because the court of the progressive left is set up much like the old English courts of law where a defendant is guilty unless he can prove himself innocent of a crime.
But that shouldn’t stop us from telling Oliver Hardy that the mess we are in may not be Stan Laurel’s fault at all, but rather Ollie’s.
Truth be told, Ollie got the two of them into as much or more trouble with his self-righteous indignation of others than Stan did with his bumbling.
Speaking as a traditional American conservative—not to be confused with left of center new or neo-conservatism—I’ll spell out in very clear, concise and succinct English language my values, the virtues I hold dear to, and the principles that I believe in.
First, I am not a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a xenophobe or a bigot of any kind. I don’t hate all non-Christian beliefs. I am not an anti-government or anti-tax lout, either. Those would be anarchists—not conservatives—anyway.
I have close friends and family members who are ethnic minorities. I have a foster child who is mixed race.
I supported my wife in going back to school for a college education, and put my own graduate education on hold so that she could complete hers. I perform domestic tasks because I want my wife to know that I believe in a fair division of labor, and that these chores are not below me.
I have a gay brother who I love and for whom I am there to support if or when he ever needs it.
I believe in immigration, and that America should remain open for the oppressed, the tired and the huddled masses to come here legally.
I unconditionally and categorically support religious liberty for all belief systems, because religion is a cornerstone for family and community stability, and more often than not, promotes positive behavior and spiritual wellness.
As a traditional American conservative, I am not—let me repeat that—I am not anti-government or anti-tax. Did I make that clear enough? If not, then read the first line over again.
I am fed up with local, state and federal governments that seem to only be getting bigger and more intrusive. I am against big and intrusive government. I believe in a government with limited powers, and one that respects those limited powers.
I don’t like government that acts in the name of compassion, but ends up just becoming larger, more intrusive in the lives of individuals, and a glutton for revenue.
Being a traditional American conservative is all about enough government and enough taxes. As the national TEA party stands for: “Taxed Enough Already.”
What I don’t like is government doing for people that the vast majority of them are capable of doing for themselves, like providing for retirement, health care, employment, income, and even school lunches, which my mom always made sure I had when I left the house for school every morning.
New York City government has already outlawed certain transfats and lipids in foods sold within municipal limits in an effort to battle obesity and diseases caused by unhealthy eating habits. The city of Santa Barbara, California, has also made the sale of fast food meals with toys illegal, because city leaders say that the toys entice children to eat food that is unhealthy and bad for them.
Should it really be the government’s role to tell the individual what they can or cannot eat? Where is the line drawn between empowerment of the individual consumer to make choices for themselves and the government to make choices for them?
Essential liberty to choose to do the right thing is being trampled by municipal, county, state and federal laws and regulations meant to protect the people from themselves, because we are not capable of being trusted to do the right thing or make the right decisions.
Modern American government has become far too paternalistic in its approach, its management and its enforcement or delivery.
Consequently, we are allowing government to do things for us, make choices and decisions for us, and provide for us that which we should be capable of doing, choosing and providing for ourselves.
I believe in the old proverb, “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.”
I believe in the individual: Individual initiative, individual ingenuity and innovation, individual pursuit of opportunity, individual fortitude, and especially essential liberty of the individual to do what is right. I believe that the individual is capable of righting wrongs and solving problems, and that the government does not always have to be there to do it for us.
I believe in self-sovereignty of the individual above the sovereignty of the state.
I believe in common sense laws and their enforcement; not redundancies in the law or regulations so weighted down in bureaucracy that their enforcement is inefficient and ineffective. Most importantly, I believe in laws and regulations that do not trample on opportunity and essential liberty of the individual.
I believe in a government that is a supporter of individual prosperity, rather than a barrier to it.
I believe in a government that promotes opportunity by empowering the individual to make a better life for himself, his family and his community. I don’t believe in a government that takes the initiative itself to try to better our lives for us.
I believe that fundamental rights secured by the U.S. Constitution, freedom and essential liberty are given by the grace of God; not the grace of government or men.
I believe in the unalienable rights articulated by founding father and former U.S. President Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
To make a long story short, this pretty much sums up the values, principles and virtues of the American Revolution, which traditional American conservatives like me are devoted to preserving. Jefferson’s conclusion also sums up the values, virtues and principles to which American conservatives hold dear.
If believing in the things that I do still makes me an extremist or a bigoted, ignorant wretch in the eyes of a leftist, then so be it. I can go on forever trying to explain that the left’s perceptions of conservatives are grossly exaggerated or outright false, but that will not change the mind of one whose mind is closed to correction.
There’s nothing more I can say or do that would convince a closed-minded left-wing progressive that I’m not at all what they have conceived me to be in their own minds.
Take it or leave it. That’s the choice.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
What is so bad about privatizing Social Security?
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle of Nevada has created quite a stir with her candid remarks about privatizing Social Security. She has softened her stance as of late, though, stating that she wants to fix Social Security by putting a lockbox on the trust fund. Perhaps she fears that her original message may alienate voters and end up costing her votes in the election. The campaign of her opponent—incumbent Harry Reid, D-NV, and current U.S. Senate Majority Leader—certainly has used Angle’s original privatization message to its advantage by preying upon voter fears.
Before we just summarily dismiss Sharron Angle as a loon for suggesting that Social Security be privatized, though, let’s look more critically at the proposal.
Privatization of Social Security is not a new concept. You may recall that former President George W. Bush proposed establishing a private account option for younger workers to place their FICA (Social Security) withholdings into. This idea was met with scorn, of course, by the progressive left, which claims proud ownership of the program originally introduced by one of its own, former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in 1935.
Consequently, the Bush proposal never saw the light of day in Congress.
As things stand right now, though, I’m not confident that the money I have been paying into Social Security will be there for me in 31 years when I finally retire. The safeguard of a trust fund disappeared years ago when (1) the Social Security Administration began using that money to pay out disability insurance benefits, and (2) when lawmakers borrowed money from the account to pay for spending bills.
In other words, bureaucrats and politicians took money from our retirement savings to pay for other things that the trust fund was not intended to be used for. As far as I know, the Social Security Trust Fund has not been fully reimbursed, either. The money borrowed from it has not been paid back yet. We are still waiting for the bureaucrats and politicians to make good on IOUs that they never signed.
As such, I am skeptical that the supplemental security income I’ve paid into Social Security will even be there for me in the next three decades. For my sake, that of my spouse, and our family, I must assume that it won’t be.
Fortunately, I have a 401(k) portfolio that I’m building and paying into with each paycheck, and I set up a deferred compensation account as a safeguard against insufficient retirement funds come the day I hang it all up.
However, I shake my head in disgust when I think about how much better my retirement outlook would be had I been free to choose where my FICA withholdings were invested in. Heck, had I been able to invest all of the money withheld for FICA into a private savings account—where I could earn compounded interest over time—then I’d be coming out much farther ahead in my future retirement than I am on pace to now.
I imagine where my retirement portfolio might be today if the $100 a month or so in FICA withholdings could have been diverted into a private individual retirement account (IRA), certificate of deposit or some other high-yield interest savings account when I first started working at age 17. My account would be considerably wealthier, and my retirement portfolio substantially more robust, than it is now.
This is because FICA withholdings do not compound with interest over the years the way contributions do in private savings accounts. Under the current system, benefits are calculated based on what one has paid into the system and how long one has worked. There’s no interest factored into the Social Security check.
I’ve worked and paid into the system since age 17. I am now 36 years old. Let’s say that my average monthly FICA withholding is $100. Over 18 years, that calculates out to a little less than $22,000 paid into the system to date. Now let’s say I work another 31 years and retire at age 67. I will have paid roughly $59,000 to FICA over my employment lifetime. Of course, FICA withholdings are graduated, not flat, which means they go up as income increases. So, I’m paying more in withholdings now than I did when I was 17. Just bear that in mind when calculating what you could have been saving had your FICA withholdings been diverted into a private account earning compounded interest.
But, for the sake of argument, and because it’s easier to do the math, I’ll say that my average FICA withholding over the years has been $100 a month. Now, imagine if I could have put the $100 a month in FICA withholdings into an IRA with a five percent fixed annual percentage yield (APY). That’s five dollars in interest earned every month with each withholding, and $60 earned in interested the first year. This annual number doubles the second year when I’ve paid a total of $2,400 in withholdings, and goes up 50 percent more in the third year, and so on. The more I pay into an interest account, the larger it gets and the more in interest I earn on APY over the life of the account. In other words, with an interest savings account, you make money on the money you put into it. You never lose money.
So, after working 50 years and paying, on average, $100 a month in retirement withholding, the principal works out to be about $59,000. By the time I retire, my APY has grown to nearly $3,000 a year in interest alone. After just 25 years (my halfway point), my five percent APY would have been $1,500 a year, or $125 a month, in interest alone. This means that annual interest payments on my account would then gradually increase from $1,500 to $3,000 until my retirement, or from $125 a month to $250 a month on interest alone. Not too shabby at all.
But we can’t get that same yield from the current public FICA withholdings and Social Security retirement program. You get what you get based on a formula that considers how much you’ve paid into the system and how long you’ve worked.
My point here is that a privatized option to the current Social Security system isn’t irrational or unreasonable. It makes sense to those of us who would like to maximize our supplemental retirement income, but cannot under current law, which compels us all to pay into a system that is really cheating us out of a better retirement.
Before we just summarily dismiss Sharron Angle as a loon for suggesting that Social Security be privatized, though, let’s look more critically at the proposal.
Privatization of Social Security is not a new concept. You may recall that former President George W. Bush proposed establishing a private account option for younger workers to place their FICA (Social Security) withholdings into. This idea was met with scorn, of course, by the progressive left, which claims proud ownership of the program originally introduced by one of its own, former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in 1935.
Consequently, the Bush proposal never saw the light of day in Congress.
As things stand right now, though, I’m not confident that the money I have been paying into Social Security will be there for me in 31 years when I finally retire. The safeguard of a trust fund disappeared years ago when (1) the Social Security Administration began using that money to pay out disability insurance benefits, and (2) when lawmakers borrowed money from the account to pay for spending bills.
In other words, bureaucrats and politicians took money from our retirement savings to pay for other things that the trust fund was not intended to be used for. As far as I know, the Social Security Trust Fund has not been fully reimbursed, either. The money borrowed from it has not been paid back yet. We are still waiting for the bureaucrats and politicians to make good on IOUs that they never signed.
As such, I am skeptical that the supplemental security income I’ve paid into Social Security will even be there for me in the next three decades. For my sake, that of my spouse, and our family, I must assume that it won’t be.
Fortunately, I have a 401(k) portfolio that I’m building and paying into with each paycheck, and I set up a deferred compensation account as a safeguard against insufficient retirement funds come the day I hang it all up.
However, I shake my head in disgust when I think about how much better my retirement outlook would be had I been free to choose where my FICA withholdings were invested in. Heck, had I been able to invest all of the money withheld for FICA into a private savings account—where I could earn compounded interest over time—then I’d be coming out much farther ahead in my future retirement than I am on pace to now.
I imagine where my retirement portfolio might be today if the $100 a month or so in FICA withholdings could have been diverted into a private individual retirement account (IRA), certificate of deposit or some other high-yield interest savings account when I first started working at age 17. My account would be considerably wealthier, and my retirement portfolio substantially more robust, than it is now.
This is because FICA withholdings do not compound with interest over the years the way contributions do in private savings accounts. Under the current system, benefits are calculated based on what one has paid into the system and how long one has worked. There’s no interest factored into the Social Security check.
I’ve worked and paid into the system since age 17. I am now 36 years old. Let’s say that my average monthly FICA withholding is $100. Over 18 years, that calculates out to a little less than $22,000 paid into the system to date. Now let’s say I work another 31 years and retire at age 67. I will have paid roughly $59,000 to FICA over my employment lifetime. Of course, FICA withholdings are graduated, not flat, which means they go up as income increases. So, I’m paying more in withholdings now than I did when I was 17. Just bear that in mind when calculating what you could have been saving had your FICA withholdings been diverted into a private account earning compounded interest.
But, for the sake of argument, and because it’s easier to do the math, I’ll say that my average FICA withholding over the years has been $100 a month. Now, imagine if I could have put the $100 a month in FICA withholdings into an IRA with a five percent fixed annual percentage yield (APY). That’s five dollars in interest earned every month with each withholding, and $60 earned in interested the first year. This annual number doubles the second year when I’ve paid a total of $2,400 in withholdings, and goes up 50 percent more in the third year, and so on. The more I pay into an interest account, the larger it gets and the more in interest I earn on APY over the life of the account. In other words, with an interest savings account, you make money on the money you put into it. You never lose money.
So, after working 50 years and paying, on average, $100 a month in retirement withholding, the principal works out to be about $59,000. By the time I retire, my APY has grown to nearly $3,000 a year in interest alone. After just 25 years (my halfway point), my five percent APY would have been $1,500 a year, or $125 a month, in interest alone. This means that annual interest payments on my account would then gradually increase from $1,500 to $3,000 until my retirement, or from $125 a month to $250 a month on interest alone. Not too shabby at all.
But we can’t get that same yield from the current public FICA withholdings and Social Security retirement program. You get what you get based on a formula that considers how much you’ve paid into the system and how long you’ve worked.
My point here is that a privatized option to the current Social Security system isn’t irrational or unreasonable. It makes sense to those of us who would like to maximize our supplemental retirement income, but cannot under current law, which compels us all to pay into a system that is really cheating us out of a better retirement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
