BlogWonks

Just ask the political left: It’s OK to hate guns and gun owners!

Or ask the right: It’s OK to hate anti-gun-rights bigotry and the smarmy policies and corrupt political hacks who promote it!

Just ask the president: It’s OK to hate broccoli!

Ask anyone but Islamist murderers: It’s OK to hate Islamofascists who blow up little children and behead innocent people as a political statement!

It’s OK to hate your enemies!

But it’s not required. It’s a choice you get to make!

Yes, hatred is as natural a human trait as hunger, and neither one is going away any time soon, no?

And hate-crime laws are as hateful as the hate they hate and impotently seek to ban!

So stop sniveling! Reduce hate in your own life? Fine!

Enforce your will on me? Not so fine, because I hate that!

By Special Guest Columnist Craig “Extremist” Cantoni

Four political groups are unhappy with the current state of affairs in the nation: left-liberals, faux conservatives on the religious right, progressives, and libertarians/true conservatives. Let’s see which group has the biggest beef:

Left-liberals are unhappy about a lot of things, including being born. But when all of that unhappiness is boiled down to its essence, their major beef is that there is not enough redistribution. They want higher taxes on the “rich” so that there will be more social justice, more fairness, less poverty, and fewer Wal-Mart stores. (I don’t understand what Wal-Mart has to do with anything, but my job here is to just repeat what they say.)

Do left-liberals have the biggest beef? No, for two reasons: one, because the government is not forcing them to do something that they don’t want to do; and two, because no one is stopping them from giving their money to their pet causes. They’re even free to start their own retail chain and charge the poor higher prices.

Faux conservatives on the Religious Right are unhappy with the secular state, with the banning of God from classrooms and public squares, and with Americans marrying sheep or people of the same gender. But they don’t have the biggest beef, because no one is stopping them from practicing their faith. Heck, they can even start their own religion, although, admittedly, all of the good ones have already been taken, including the one about God speaking through a burning bush, the one about a prophet flying to heaven on a winged horse, the one about a guy in Italy being infallible, and the one about an angel giving golden tablets to an absentminded prophet who then loses them.

Progressives are unhappy that the government isn’t more of a busybody. But they don’t have the biggest beef, because they’re still free to form their own utopian sub-society with its own busybody rules. It might even become a tourist attraction, like the Amish in Pennsylvania.

Since you’re a smart cookie, you’ve probably concluded through a process of elimination that libertarians and true conservatives have the biggest beef. Yes, indeed. Why? Because the other three groups won’t leave them alone.

Libertarians and true conservatives believe that people can do whatever they want as long as they’re not harming anyone else. Like the Founders, they believe that government should be powerful enough to protect life, liberty and property, but not so powerful that it infringes on basic rights. They even have the quaint notion that the individual comes before the collective.

A typical day for a libertarian or true conservative goes like this: You are sitting at home minding your own business when there is a knock on the door. Opening the door, you find a left-liberal with a collection basket, a member of the religious right with a Bible and a video camera, and a progressive with a new regulation. The left-liberal wants your money, the religious righter wants to put the Bible and camera in your bedroom, and the progressive wants to tax your cigarettes to fund the early childhood development of other people’s kids. If you slam the door in their faces, they’ll come back with federal agents to break down the door and enforce their will upon you.

Libertarians and true conservatives don’t knock on other people’s doors or retain federal agents to break down other people’s doors. Yet, amazingly, they are called names by the other groups, especially the pejorative of “extremist.” Imagine that: The nation has strayed so far from its founding principles that if you mind your own business you’re an extremist.

Well, take it from this extremist that the political group with the biggest beef is the libertarian/true conservative group. Gotta go now. Someone is knocking on the door.

An author, columnist and extremist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Firearms marketers, lead by industry giant Ellet Brothers (a commercial distributor), are expanding their lines of “Homeland Defender” products to the general public.

“Consumer demand for tactical and strategic product lines are fast becoming the growth sector of the market,” said one knowledgable insider. “Americans are increasingly aware that authorities show up only after the fact, and that good old self-reliance gene Americans seem to have is expressing itself with great vigor.” Citizens want to be prepared for anything, and responding to Sep. 11, Katrina, and media-promoted psychotics they are snapping up an array of militia-readiness gear.

In other news, guns sales and gun-book sales are up significantly nationwide.

The lamestream media told you:

Government authorities warned today that, with an aging baby boomer generation, as much as 20 cents of every dollar could be spent on health care in the U.S. by the end of the next decade.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Health care officials were ecstatic on news today that as much as 20% of the entire U.S. economy could go into their pockets within ten years. “The best part is that most of it will just be given to us by the government, which runs the system and controls the insurance industry — which it plans to make mandatory. Consumers, who will pay the bills through forced taxation, could not be reached for comment.

The lamestream media told you:

President Bush went to the Mexican border at Yuma again to tout a four point plan to fix the illegal immigration problem. “Apprehensions are down 30%,” he said, “so we’re making progress.” His plan includes a guest worker program but does not include amnesty for the estimated 11 million illegals already here.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

A reduction in captures is not a reduction in illegal immigration, it is a reduction in captures. Instead of catching one out of two illegals, as the Border Patrol has for years claimed it achieves, this implies it is now catching 0.7 for every two illegals attempting entry, if the President’s numbers are correct. How illegals are improving rates of entry was not reported.

The “news” media has been claiming 11 million illegals in the U.S. since at least 2002. But the Border Patrol has been claiming it catches one million annually at its one-out-of-two success rate. A simple investigative tool called a “calculator” shows this means one million illegals gain entry every year. That would mean at least 16 million illegals here. The Uninvited Ombudsman has shown this evidence to the news media. No correction has been issued, and the 11 million figure remains the standard on the networks, cables, radios, papers and “news” magazines.

Critics charge that reporters are incapable of doing math, possibly because they only study English in J schools. Less than 11 million reporters deny the charge.

The lamestream media told you:

Forming the European Union was a wise and logical step in the development of Western Civilization’s heartland.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The number one name for new baby boys in Belgium is Mohammed. The number one name for new baby boys in Amsterdam is Mohammed. The number one name for new baby boys in Malmo, Sweden is Mohammed. In England, it is only number five.

Unrestrained immigration policies, coupled with lavish welfare cash giveaways to immigrants, funded on the backs of heavily taxed native citizens pounded daily by their media on the wonders of socialist “fairness,” is contributing to the impending destruction of the heart of Western civilization.

Immigration of high birth-rate Muslims, and the low birth rate of native French, now places France in the lead, within two generations of having a Muslim majority and sharia law. Under sharia law, all cultural elements that do not abide with the Koran (music, dance, art, literature, architecture, sculpture, free thought, attractive women, etc.) must be destroyed or enslaved.

The lamestream media has been too busy with American Idol and campaign cash scores to cover this minor story. Read While Europe Slept and America Alone for a wake up call.

The lamestream media told you:

“While once-a-year mammograms are urged for older women, women who haven’t reached their 50th birthday should feel free to make up their own minds about whether to get annual exams, according to new guidelines from the American College of Physicians,” reports Lisa Krieger in the San Jose Mercury News on April 3.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

“Letting women make up their own minds is so radical and dangerous the idea should be abandoned immediately,” according to Counterintutitve Man. “The College of Physicians should be ashamed of themselves for such a preposterous suggestion, clearly only meant to increase the numbers of exams they sell to line their pockets with filthy lucre from unsuspecting patients,” he said.

Correcting Counterintuitive Man, the Uninvited Ombudsman notes that physicians don’t sell exams, they just bill the government (or government-sanctioned insurance monopolies), which takes money by force from the public, to give to doctors.

“The Earth is The Lord’s and the Fullness Thereof”– 1 Corinthians 10:26 (KJB)

I do not worry about the Earth…because it DOES belong to The Lord God Almighty.  Therefore, He is in control of what happens to it. Yes I am to be a good steward of the earth and not take advantage of it, but at the same time, I am not going to become obsessive about saving it. Everything is in God’s hands, He is in control.

Global Warming advocates have pushed Global Warming over and over, to the point of hysterics. Al Gore testified before Congress last month on the need to implement changes in American society that would counteract the effects of Global Warming. No doubt there were a few in Congress who disagreed with his assertions, and as Gore continued with his thoughts on the issue, he was clearly irritated.

And at one point, Gore proposed a tax on those who pollute.  Meaning those who insist on using carbon dioxide spewing devices. Well that means he will have to tax most of America. That is so unrealistic and over the top.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032100709.html

Another over the top encounter occurred at the most recent White House Correspondent’s Association Dinner where singer Sheryl Crow and the producer of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”, Laurie David, went up to Karl Rove, President Bush’s advisor and prodded him about Global Warming.

Read about the confrontation here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267727,00.html

Needless to say, the conversation was very tense, tense to the point that Sheryl Crow felt she needed to reach out and grab Rove’s arm to which Rove barks back, “Don’t touch me” as he was turning to leave the conversation with the 2 women. What has happened to respect for our leaders? Surely that was inappropriate.  One can state their case to our leaders without the need to get nasty.

Global Warming advocates have one thing in common, their annoyance with anyone who disagrees with their point of view.  If it is about presenting the facts, then why get angry? Just present your thoughts about the subject and let people make their own decisions about it. Let people separate the facts from the fabrications.

Those who push a biased and an often partly untrue view on Global Warming do not consider other points of view on the issue. It’s their way of seeing things, or else.

Dr. Timothy Ball, a climatologist who has been critical of the prevailing Global Warming view that man is to blame ( http://www.geocities.com/zacherle_hoag/tball ), continues in his harsh commentary of those who continue to mislead the public with a biased view of the Global Warming issue.  

In an email to distinguished writer Noel Sheppard, Dr. Ball says, “…When you go public and allow the output of the models to become the basis of global, national and regional policy there is a different set of responsibilities and these are definitely not being met.”Worse, they are deliberately being manipulated and misused.

Again, it is one thing for uninformed people intimidated or fooled by the manipulation to be pursuing what they’re told is good and necessary, but it is something very different when it is the producers of the models who willfully or through lack of understanding are doing the misleading….”

Read more here: http://newsbusters.org/node/12174

I would rather have a respected member of the scientific community address to me concerns about our environment than a failed Presidential candidate or members of the entertainment industry. Because clearly, there is an agenda behind the Global Warming “scare” without all of the facts being presented. Here is my opinion…let the public hear from as many people from the scientific community as possible on Global Warming, so we do not get a one-sided view of the issue.  

A recent finding that has come forth from another person in the scientific community… sunspots are affecting our warming Earth and other planets in the solar system.

Dr Sami Solanki of the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich studies solar activity. His findings are as follows:

“…looking at the past 1,150 years the Sun has never been as active as it has been during the past 60 years.

Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, a trend that has accelerated in the past century, just at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer.

The data suggests that changing solar activity is influencing in some way the global climate causing the world to get warmer.”

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm

Others in the scientific community seem to support the claim that the sun is responsible for the Earth’s warming, and the warming of other planets in our solar system. Russia’s Habibullo Abdussamatov of Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory, the head of space research there, also asserts that the warming of the Earth and of Mars, is caused by the sun’s changes.

“The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,” said Abdussamatov.

“Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” he said.

Read more: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

As one can see, there are many factors contributing to the condition of our Earth. The Global Warming hype that humans are solely to blame and they need to change their behavior is far fetched.  People need not buy into that hype. Do thorough research on Global Warming before coming to a definitive decision on what is causing our Earth to experience the cycles in warming and cooling.

I want to live in a healthy environment, and I do what I can to make sure that I do, but I am not going to go out of my way to drastically change my way of life.  For example, I am NOT going to take up the suggestion to cut back and use one sheet of toilet paper when using the bathroom, as Sheryl Crow suggested.  Can we get real here?!

Read more: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55342

And I will NOT be suckered into attempts by environmental-crazed celebrities to take money from me for the “Save the Earth” cause.  It’s all hype and nonsense.

Bottom line, the answers are found among various experts in the scientific community and in the belief that God Almighty holds the Earth, and everything He created, in His hands.  Now why should I worry about the Earth when He is ultimately in control?

*Felicia (Fee) Benamon is a political columnist who writes for various conservative sites including RenewAmerica.us, Michnews.com, Daley-Times Post, Renaissance Women ( http://www.rwnetwork.net/ ) , Capitolhillcoffeehouse.com, TheConservativeVoice.com, Mensnewsdaily.com, ConservativeCrusader.com, and other news sites like AmericanChronicle.com.  She is a columnist and a reporter for the Mid-South Patriot ( www.freewebs.com/midsouth-patriot ) in Memphis, TN.  Felicia hails from a military background, and has been politically active since the 2000 elections.  She has been a guest speaker on various conservative internet talk radio shows.

You may email Felicia: Feereports@aol.com

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Now that it’s nearly impossible to sneak onboard a commercial aircraft with a weapon larger than an eyebrow tweezers, the FAA Air Marshals program is growing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman has obtained the actual shooting drill for air marshals, useful to anyone who wants to develop a similar level of proficiency. It is one hard mother of a program.

Like the El Presidente exercise some shooters may be familiar with, the drill is shot cold (no warmup allowed), with all shots at seven yards, at an FBI standard QIT “bottle-shape” center mass target.

The target, timed shot strings and explanations are posted at gunlaws.com. A total of 30 shots must be fired in thirteen stages (6 of which are repeats), in a combined total of 33.8 seconds. The drills involve reloads, multiple targets, and a 180 degree three-target string. Do you think you could qualify?

The lamestream media told you:

Sen. John McCain, once considered the Republican frontrunner for the presidential nomination, has “stumbled,” collecting only $12 million in the first quarter, an amount termed “anemic” when compared to his competitors. Mitt Romney raised $23 million in the same time period to take the Republican lead.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Influence peddlers, power brokers and rank and file have paid John McCain $12 million in just three months, in their bid to seek access, privileges and other benefits from the man who championed campaign finance reform to stop the corrupting influence of money. His bill, when read, actually prevents the public from mentioning a candidate’s name in promotions within 60 days of a national election.

The mind-boggling amounts of money candidates are taking hand over fist from everyone in sight are listed in the daily papers like sport scores:

“By not immediately releasing his first quarter totals, Obama is building suspense about a possible big splash.” “The New Mexico governor, not generally viewed as a major candidate, raised a respectable $6 million, and in doing so, increased his national media profile.” I am not making this up.

No mention of the corrupting influence of money, or the gutless reform act newspapers used to champion, can be found.

If $12 million dollars is stumbling, may you all fall flat on your kisser.

The lamestream media told you:

Iran released 15 British soldiers it accused of trespassing in Iranian waters.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

You will never know what really happened. All the reports that say they know, or speculate they know, or postulate they know, are baloney and just filling airtime and newsprint for the gratification of the masses. The Uninvited Ombudsman has no crystal ball and no independent insight into the situation, just like everyone else.

The lamestream media told you:

Hillary R. Clinton has raised $36 million dollars so far.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Special interests, influence peddlers and rank and file have given $36 million to Hillary Clinton so far. They all expect something in return. Campaign finance reform is a joke, but the media has stayed mum, preferring instead to brag about how much money their favorite horse has “raised.”

Promoting racist stereotypes while attacking free speech: “If a white kills a black, it’s riot time. If a black kills a white, it’s execution time. If a black kills a black it’s Miller time.”

–Rev. Jesse Jackson, 4/9/07 on CNN’s Lou Dobbs show, 3:40 p.m.,while complaining about Don Imus.

“Nappy headed ho… nappy headed ho… nappy headed ho… nappy headed ho.”

–Rev. Al Sharpton on Politically Correct with Bill Maher, complaining about Don Imus’ use of a now-popular new phrase (unimportant portions of his interview have been edited out for clarity).

“Don Imus stole our glory.”

-Member of the Rutgers women’s basketball team, mistakenly attributing one fleeting morning comment of little significance to the non-stop tirade that did steal their glory, promoted by the nation’s two most prolific racists, Sharpton and Jackson, who staged endless events to publicize a three-word phrase spoken once by a morning radio talk show host.

“Ron Paul [excellent but obscure and media-ignored Libertarian candidate for President] is the injection of the Libertarian infection into the bone marrow of American politics, for which there is no cure.”

–Libertarian activist Ernest Hancock

This is quoted from the AAUW “wage gap” study previously mentioned in Part I of this series:

http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/jobseeker/tools/ept/careerArticlesPost.html?post=103

Another site alleges this explanation of comparable worth:

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v3n2/comparable.html

http://www.hillaryc linton.com/ video/13. aspx

When I turned my computer on this afternoon, this Yahoo news story, originally from AP, was the first thing to come up.

http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/jobseeker/tools/ept/careerArticlesPost.html?post=103

“NEW YORK, April 23 — Women make only 80 percent of the salaries their male peers do one year after college; after 10 years in the work force, the gap between their pay widens further, according to a study released Monday.

The study, by the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, found that 10 years after college, women earn only 69 percent of what men earn.

Even after controlling for hours, occupation, parenthood, and other factors known to affect earnings, the study found that one-quarter of the pay gap remains unexplained. The group said that portion of the gap is “likely due to sex discrimination.’”

This latest gender feminist wage gap propaganda appears to me to be yet another gender feminist, myth-making attempt, taking shape before my very eyes.  One can only wonder if we’re seeing, yet again, the gender feminist process, where gender feminist propaganda is repeated, again and again and again, until it becomes unquestionable in the public consciousness (grows legs and runs).

The timing of this report is curious, coming, as it does so coincidentally close to Hillary Clinton’s promotion of this same gender feminist, “wage gap” propaganda.

http://www.hillaryc linton.com/ video/13. aspx

Let’s not forget FOX News contributor, Lis Wiehl’s contribution to this issue.  She just released a new book that apparently parrots this same gender feminist propaganda.  One editorial review attributes to the book, “A woman earns seventy-three cents for every dollar a man makes.”

http://tinyurl.com/2oxgzg

The 51% Minority: How Women Still Are Not Equal and What You Can Do About It

Warren Farrell in his book, Why Men Earn More, refutes the wage gap myth in a scholarly manner so I’m a little surprised to see the same old gender feminist propaganda being recycled, and put forth, yet again.

http://tinyurl.com/yp48nf

Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap — and What Women Can Do About It

Before Warren Farrell wrote on this subject, the Independent Women’s Forum debunked the “wage gap myth,” and has veritably been debunking the “wage gap myth” from the beginning of the new millennia.

http://www.iwf.org/issues/issues_detail.asp?ArticleID=515

http://www.iwf.org/issues/issues_list.asp?sType=73

IWF provides a succinct refutation to the Wage Gap Myth here:

http://www.iwf.org/issues/issues_print.asp?ArticleID=117

Myth #1: Women earn 72 cents for every dollar that men earn.
If this myth were true, employers would be eager to replace their male workers with cheaper (and better) female workers, and thus increase their profits. But the “72 cents” claim is misleading because it only refers to the median wages of all men and all women in the work force, without regard to age, education, occupation, experience or working hours — factors that even the NCPE admits are valid explanations for different pay rates.  When those key factors enter the equation, the “wage gap” disappears. Studies based on data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, taking into account these key variables, reveal that among people ages 27-33 who have never had a child, women’s earnings are actually 98 percent of men’s.

Myth #2: The “wage gap” is the result of discrimination.
Remember, such discrimination has been unlawful since 1963. You would not be surprised to know that bosses earn more than their assistants or that full time workers are paid more than their part-time colleagues.  Market forces and common sense dictate that some people earn more than others because of their education and skills, their experience, the demand for their services, or their willingness to work longer, harder or under more difficult conditions. Differing wages exist for many reasons and are not in themselves an indication of discrimination.

Myth #3: Women are funneled into low-paying jobs by a sexist society.
The NCPE claims that certain jobs (like sales, clerical and service work) are paid less because they are held by women, and they say that any earnings differences not explained by differences in education, experience or time in the work force are “proof” of discrimination. But the NCPE is overlooking some important facts. First, the value of a job is determined by the supply and demand of able and willing workers.  Women who might be able to hold a better-paying job often choose a job that pays less but provides more flexibility.  This is not discrimination

From an even earlier time, “Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Christine Stolba” as one Amazon.com reviewer comments, “’explain with tons of data why the “wage gap” and “glass ceiling” are myths based on bad statistics and a less than thorough investigation of the facts.’”

http://tinyurl.com/2hsgpk

Women’s Figures: An Illustrated Guide to the Economic Progress of Women in America

I am left to wonder, “’Who in America will exert the lobbying power of a Hillary Clinton, to bring to America’s attention, the “real” truth about men’s and women’s wages?’”  I mentioned that Hillary Clinton is actively promoting the “wage gap myth” as fact in her campaign, but did I mention that she is actively calling for legislation to remedy it?  Who in America’s pantheon of politics will counter her fallacious and biased legislative proposal?

http://www.nysun.com/article/49942

As I blogged this afternoon, I found the comments of a certain Dr. E of the Stand Your Ground blog to be of particular interest, concerning the AAUW study.  He appears to be pointing out that the AAUW is misreporting the results of their own study.

http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=13018.0

He writes: “From the AAUW study (bottom of page 40 of a 45 page paper, buried in the methodology section):

“Overall, the regression analysis of earnings one year after graduation suggests that a 5 percent pay gap between women and men remains after accounting for all variables known to affect earnings.  Women who choose male-dominated occupations appear to earn more than do other women. Undergraduate majors in business and management, engineering, health professions, or public affairs and social services enhance both women’s and men’s earnings.”

I wasn’t content with taking just the information Dr. E provided as proof that something suspicious is afoot so I did a little online, background research on the AAUW and found some interesting “herstory.”

http://www.amazon.com/WAR-AGAINST-BOYS-Misguided-Feminism/dp/product-description/0684849577

or

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/sommers-war.html

From Christina Hoff Sommers, The War Against Boys,

http://tinyurl.com/245la2

“Chapter One

In 1990, Carol Gilligan announced to the world that America’s adolescent girls were in crisis. In her words, “As the river of a girl’s life flows into the sea of Western culture, she is in danger of drowning or disappearing.”  Gilligan offered little in the way of conventional evidence to support this alarming finding.  Indeed, it is hard to imagine what sort of empirical research could establish so large a claim.  But Gilligan quickly attracted powerful allies.”

and

“Gilligan’s ideas had special resonance in women’s groups already committed to the proposition that our society is unsympathetic to women.  Such organizations were naturally receptive to bad news about girls.  The interest of the venerable and politically influential American Association of University Women (AAUW), in particular, was piqued.  Officers at the AAUW were reported to be “intrigued and alarmed” by Gilligan’s findings. “Wanting to know more,” they commissioned a polling firm to study whether American schoolgirls were being drained of their self-confidence.

In 1991, the AAUW announced the disturbing results: “Most [girls] emerge from adolescence with a poor self-image.”  Anne Bryant, then executive director of the AAUW and an expert in public relations, organized a media campaign to spread the word that “an unacknowledged American tragedy” had been uncovered.  Newspapers and magazines around the country carried the bleak tidings that girls were being adversely affected by gender bias that eroded their self-esteem. Susan Schuster, at the time president of the AAUW, candidly explained to The New York Times why the AAUW had undertaken the research in the first place:  “We wanted to put some factual data behind our belief that girls are getting shortchanged in the classroom.”

At the time the AAUW’s self-esteem results were making headlines, a little-known journal called Science News, which has been supplying information on scientific and technical developments to interested newspapers since 1922, quoted leading adolescent psychologists who questioned the validity of the self-esteem poll.  But somehow the doubts of the experts were not reported in the hundreds of news stories the AAUW study generated.

The AAUW quickly commissioned a second study, How Schools Shortchange Girls. This new study, carried out by the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women and released in 1992, asserted a direct causal relationship between girls’ (alleged) second-class status in the nation’s schools and deficiencies in their level of self-esteem.  Carol Gilligan’s psychological girl crisis was thus transformed into a pressing civil rights issue: girls w…”

I dug further to find out what university Carol Gilligan has been affiliated with and found this.
http://gseweb.harvard.edu/news/features/gilliganchair09101997.html
 

“Harvard
September 10, 1997 CONTACTS:
Ariadne Valsamis, 617-496-1895
Carol Gilligan Named to Chair in Gender Studies “

An additional hit brought up this information:
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gilligan.html

“There has been criticism of Gilligan’s work and much of it has come from Christina Hoff Sommers, PhD.  She says that Gilligan has failed to produce the data for her research.  She condemns the fact that Gilligan used anecdotal evidence, that researchers have not been able to duplicate her work, and that the samples used were too small.  She thinks the field of gender studies needs to be put to the test of people from fields such as neuroscience or evolutionary psychology rather than from the area of education.  She feels strongly that promoting an anti-male agenda hurts both males and females.  Public policy and funding has been allocated based on Gilligan’s data, which Sommers says is not publicly available.”

At this point in time, after considering all of the above information, I must say that I’m very highly suspicious of the reported findings of the AAUW study.  I would forthwith call on scholars of high integrity and good will everywhere, to peer review the findings of the AAUW study and publicly report their findings, but I’m aware of the lobbying efforts of gender feminist, women’s studies departments to integrate women’s studies curriculum (propaganda) into all other college and university disciplines.

http://tinyurl.com/2qldgu

Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women’s Studies

I‘ve also just read a sizeable portion of David Horowitz‘s new book,

Indoctrination U: The Left’s War Against Academic Freedom

http://tinyurl.com/3aznwm

Consequently, I’ve lost all confidence in our American educational institution’s ability to do an unbiased peer review, let alone an objective, scholarly study on a perceived “wage gap” (or any other topic for that matter), devoid of gender feminist prejudices and propaganda.

No wonder some people feel compelled to protest the activities of university pedagogy.

Do Only the Female Victims of the Virginia Tech Shootings Count?  In coverage of the Virginia Tech shootings, night before last on FOX News’s Hannity and Colmes, I heard Jennifer Pozner of Women in Media and News (WIMN) say, “Violence against women is at the heart of it,” and :

Here’s an open letter I just sent to “a decent reporter” at FOX News, regarding the V.T. shootings.  I copied 17 other email addresses at FOX News:

You are the most decent reporter on the FOX News channel (IMO) so I address this to you, after just watching your show today.
 
I heard you mention that maybe “the rich” were a target in the shootings at Virginia Tech.  Has it ever occurred to anyone to check out all the cultural Marxist, “race, class, and gender” instruction that goes on at college and university campuses across Amerika everyday.  News media really needs to do its homework in this area (for a change) and report on the curriculum, and the required books in the classes Cho took at Virginia Tech. 
The Liberal Arts, Humanities, English, Sociology, Polly sci., Psych. are all disciplines where that kind of “vilification,” yes “vilification” of certain groups is taught on college and university campus across Amerika everyday, and it’s in the text books.  You only need browse the campus bookstores to verify that.  If you don’t believe any of this, then you should attend or work at one of those educational institutions (as I did for 16 years, until retirement) and see how “race, class and gender” politics targets for “vilification,” everyone who is not a member of a cultural Marxist identity group.
 
How popular are “race, class and gender” books in curriculums and cultures these days.  Check this page out at Amazon books.
 
http://tinyurl.com/2v2qvg
 
or
 
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/002-6478055-3977644?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=race+class+and+gender&Go.x=11&Go.y=6
 
I highly recommend David Horowitz’s new book, Indoctrination U to help understand the indoctrination that goes on at college and university campuses across Amerika, the kind of Indoctrination that Cho was quite likely subjected to.
 
http://tinyurl.com/2ujdby

or
 
http://www.amazon.com/Indoctrination-Lefts-Against-Academic-Freedom/dp/1594031908/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6478055-3977644?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177015694&sr=1-1[/size][/quote]

Virginia Is Latest State to Suffer

Another armed murderer has used the so-called Gun-Free-School-Zones law to simply walk onto school grounds and with impunity begin killing innocent children.

These dangerous criminals rely on the fact that no one on campus will be able to offer resistance. Congress passed the law in 1990 and renewed it in 1995 after the famous “Lopez” case declared it unconstitutional. Though it cannot stop murderers it has enabled many, experts say. States and schools themselves have copied the law locally for a false sense of security with disastrous effect.

“The Gun-Free-School law is a cruel hoax that costs lives,” said Alan Korwin, author of Gun Laws of America. “Time and time again, psychotic killers are using the law to provide a safe haven, where they are the only people with guns.” It’s no surprise these madmen never attack gun stores, police stations, military facilities or other places where people are known to be armed, he says, and news reports tend to overlook this point.

Hoplophobic (gun-fearing) teacher’s unions, school administrators and many legislators project their fears onto the system and disarm honest people, instead of taking prudent steps to protect the kids from a known menace. Hoplophobia is a poorly understood morbid fear of weapons that afflicts millions. It is one of the greatest undiagnosed and untreated sources of harm in the country, Korwin and other experts believe.

People who are terrified of guns give themselves a good feeling but false sense of security by passing such dangerous laws. “All they have done is create target-rich, no-risk environments for monsters who have no fear of encountering an armed teacher or administrator, or a legally-armed private citizen who might happen to be in the building,” says Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Second Amendment Foundation. The Virginia attack follows the precise model of murderers in other states. Some observers suggest the incessant media replays of the atrocities inspire copycats.

“Gun-control extremists will use this incident to claim we have not done enough,” Gottlieb predicted, and in the past, the harm caused by gun-free laws has lead to calls for more of the same. This is irrational, which is a sign of hoplophobic behavior. “They have disarmed the wrong people and left our schools, and the children inside, vulnerable to this kind of atrocity.”

“We need empowerment, not avoidance,” Korwin says, who believes that properly trained and prepared teachers are at least one prudent step to take against a rash of homicidal maniacs preying on schools.

Hundreds of thousands of FBI-certified individuals, who routinely use personal firearms for crime deterrence and safety, but are kept out of the news, are also banned from school grounds under many states’ laws. They can provide little help against the criminals who simply ignore the words in a distant law book. Virginia lawmakers recently voted down an effort to allow the FBI-certified civilians to carry on campus.

Several states have introduced Gun-Free-Zone-Liability laws, which would allow people to make the arbitrary and unenforced gun-free zones, but would hold them liable for any harm the zones facilitate. It is believed this would make people think twice about making the dangerous and negligent zones. Sample bill language is here.

Gottlieb categorizes gun-free zones as a myth, since they stop no one, leaving victims defenseless.

An unintended consequence of the federal gun-free-school-zones law, 18 USC 922(q), is to criminalize millions of citizens who travel near schools. Because the law stipulates a 1,000-foot gun-free perimeter around schools, virtually all private travel with firearms in American cities violates the law.

This creates tens of millions of federal felonies, of unsuspecting citizens, with no enforcement, but no actual harm done. The law is a travesty needing repeal. See maps and details here.

CONTENTS

1- Foreword — Virginia Tech

2- Author Begs Senator Webb — Fix Bad Gun Laws

3- MIT Wins Handgun Tournament

4- Insider Details on NRA “Plan” to Overturn Parker Case

5- Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

1- Foreword: Virginia Tech

The world is jumping on the latest homicidal atrocity with familiar, predictable results:

News-media feeding frenzy

Identical footage airing incessantly

Knowledge-free pundits mouthing off

Breathless reporters repeating themselves

Piles of combat cops too late doing nothing but looking tough

Camera angles of official body armor and unfired AR-15s

Blame making

Guns are bad

Excuses for homicidal maniacs

Justifications for psychopathology

Innocent helpless victims

Defenseless free-fire zones

Denial-of-rights issues

Calls for laws

The gun-free-school-zones charade

Recriminations

Politicians getting good face time

Violent video-culture hand wringing

Flashing lights, lots of flashing lights

You could predict the coverage without seeing any. If you need that garbage, just look anywhere, but I recommend against it. Remember, many more people died that day, and today, and will die tomorrow, from other horrible causes, many avoidable, and are all equally deserving of deepest sympathy, whether featured by news media or flatly ignored.

The Gun-Free-Zone Liability Law would let people create gun-free zones, but hold them responsible for any harm their zones facilitate: http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/index.htm

Desperate screams for gun registration schemes are answered here: http://www.gunlaws.com/gunreggie.htm

2- Set Senator Webb’s Gun-Aide Free

“The arrest of U.S. Sen. Jim Webb’s aide Phillip Thompson for possession of private property (the Senator’s alleged sidearm) is an affront to our rights and the U.S. Constitution,” said Alan Korwin, author of Gun Laws of America. “In America, you’re supposed to have done something inherently wrong before you’re subject to arrest,” he and other experts said.

“Ownership of a car, which can easily be used for good or for lethal evil is not sufficient grounds for an arrest,” Korwin noted. “It’s exactly the same for a gun and a decent supply of ammunition. Guns are designed to protect, to stop crime, and to save lives. That should not give authorities an excuse to put a person in jail if they didn’t do anything wrong.” Think of the harm that could do, he added, suggesting a defenseless person makes an easy victim.

Anti-gun-rights advocates, fearing firearms and believing only government officials should have them, have succeeded in making mere private possession of a firearm a crime in some jurisdictions, depending on arbitrary circumstances like where you possess the property.

“It’s time for legislators to stand up to such abrogation of the Bill of Rights, and abusive treatment of the public, and Sen. Webb is now in that spotlight. Will he let his aide twist in the wind, or will he stand up and say that there was no harm done, no victims, no one was hurt, and Americans should never suffer under such worthless charges?”

On a legal, note, author Korwin, a nationally recognized gun-law expert, points out that the language in federal statute explicitly allows firearm possession in federal facilities in Title 18, U.S. Code, section 930(d), where it says in simple terms that the general ban on firearms in federal facilities, “shall not apply to — (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.” It was not known if judges or local “officials” have made up rules that conflict with federal law enacted by Congress.

Washington Post reporter Allison Klein wrote that, “Members of Congress and designated employees can bring unloaded guns into the Capitol. The lawmakers can even load the guns once inside their offices,” but did not cite any authority for that statement. Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Terrance W. Gainer later said the “Capitol Police Board” had made up regulations to that effect.

“Thompson should never have been arrested, and should be freed as an example to other decent law-abiding citizens,” Korwin says. “Disarming an innocent person is an abuse of government power.” Top-flight Second Amendment attorney Richard Gardiner has been retained to defend the Senator’s aide.

“Look how bad this has gotten — a Senator’s top aide, who has harmed no one, is in serious trouble for possessing private property. This has to be fixed. I personally call on Senator Webb to introduce legislation that would protect citizens from arbitrary property bans. Keeping or bearing arms, if you have done nothing wrong, must not remain a criminal act anywhere in this free country. The safety risk to innocent citizens is just too great.”

The news media, in typically bigoted fashion, referred to the Senator as a pistol-packing tough guy former Marine whose loose-fitting suit might have concealed heat. One reporter, thinking himself funny and wearing his bias on his sleeve, shouted “Duck!” as Webb approached microphones.

“I have had a permit to carry a weapon in Virginia for a long time, and I believe that it’s important for me personally and for a lot of people in the situation that I am in — to be able to defend myself and my family,” the Senator said, implying his elite position carries extra rights regular citizens do not have. “Since 9/11, for people who are in government, I think in general there has been an agreement that it’s a more dangerous time,” he said. “If you look at people in the executive branch… there is not that kind of protection available to people in the legislative branch. We are required to defend ourselves, and I choose to do so.” He made no mention of the public in the “citizen branch” post 9/11.

Pestered by reporters to reveal his defense tactics, and possibly admit carrying in the D.C. gun-free victim zone, he said, “I’m not going to comment in any level in terms of how I provide for my own security.”

3- MIT Takes Pistol Championship

The National Shooting Sports Foundation reports that: “The Massachusetts Institute of Technology won the national title at the 27th NRA Intercollegiate Pistol Championships held last month at West Point, N.Y. More than 90 shooters represented 16 educational institutions, including four ROTC teams. The host and defending champion U.S. Military Academy team took second place, and the U.S. Naval Academy finished third.” These are the kind of students you would want on your side in an emergency.

4- Insider Details on NRA “Plan” to Overturn Parker Case

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Parker v. D.C. was a milestone in Second Amendment decisions — the court declared in no uncertain terms that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Gun lovers popped champagne and gun haters popped an artery.

But talk on the street says the NRA didn’t want this case to be heard, doesn’t want this case appealed to the Supreme Court (which may very well occur), and wants it vacated and moot by repealing the D.C. gun ban in the first place. That would erase the gains made by the brilliant decision. A good deal of evidence implies a degree of truth to the rumor. What’s up?

The NRA is indeed promoting the “D.C. Personal Protection Act,” which if enacted would repeal the 31-year-old D.C. total gun ban. If that bill succeeds it will make the Parker case moot. Parker is a superb gun case — the plaintiffs include a black woman in a dangerous neighborhood threatened by vicious thugs, an officer who can carry on the job but not in his own apartment, a member of the Cato Institute… not the usual bottom-feeding criminals trying to squirm out of felony criminal charges by challenging the constitutionality of a law. Why would the NRA try to derail that?

I asked around at the NRA convention in St. Louis last weekend (4/12-4/15), and there were plenty of answers. Some you may like and some you may reject.

[Comments from the chief sponsor of the case, attorney Robert Levy, appear in brackets. Levy is a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, but is acting independent of the Institute.]

If you get a sense that there are personality conflicts or some bad blood underlying parts of this, you wouldn’t be completely wrong. You get the NRA and this many powerful attorneys buzzing around a crucial case and you’re going to have some friction and disagreement — and I’m being nice about it.

Now, don’t get angry at me — I’m not necessarily agreeing with any of this — I’m just the messenger, so you can know what’s floating around:

- In all seriousness NRA Exec. VP Wayne LaPierre announced publicly at the Grassroots seminar, “Parker is going to go up and we have a damn good chance of winning it!”

- In contrast, NRA president Sandy Froman accurately said during her formal remarks at the Member’s Meeting, “Although we know what the outcome (of Parker) should be, there’s no guarantee that it will be what it should be.”

- Froman did the math and said two votes are sure, and two more are likely. “Two and two makes four. But four Justices out of nine is not a majority.” Just that suggestion is chilling, implying we have a Court of people not laws. But we do, and both sides know it. The details of the case are less of an issue than the people on the bench.

- Strategy-wise, this is “a dual-track plan,” one wonk notes. “Hope for the best, prepare for the worst,” another says cautiously. Parker would make good law, but it’s not guaranteed to succeed. If it fails, you want a backup strategy.

[Levy notes: Why have a backup more than a year before the Supreme Court could possibly decide Parker? If a backup is necessary, there's plenty of time without risking that the DC Personal Protection Act will be added as a rider to some legislation that has bi-partisan support (that almost happened a couple of weeks ago).]

- Congress has numerous new players with no grade on gun issues. The push to repeal the gun ban has the side benefit of getting both chambers on the record — do you support a particularly bad gun ban or not? Congress members recognize this.

[Levy notes: Ditto, previous comment. Why run the risk now? There's plenty of time to score members of Congress. If the DC Personal Protection Act is such a rush issue, where has it been for the past 31 years?]

- Legislators who commit to repeal the ban by co-sponsoring the bill earn an “A” as far as it goes, and we’ll see what the future brings.

- Three tries to repeal the ban didn’t pass when Republicans controlled Congress so it has a low chance of passage now. Unlikely for Waxman to allow it heard in committee, or a unanimous consent resolution to take it to the floor. Its chances of making Parker moot are thus slim, and no effort will go into forcing that prematurely. This is no secret to Congress watchers.

[Levy notes: If the DC Voting Rights bill hadn't been pulled from the floor, it might well have passed with a rider that mooted the Parker litigation. Those kinds of things happen in Congress, all the time ... and they're not entirely predictable. ]

[Korwin points out: If it isn't obvious by now it should be -- the NRA is less than pleased that it isn't running this show, and the various players are not tightly aligned on strategy. Well-meaning individuals can have legitimate differences of opinion. You're getting to see the fly-on-the-wall perspective that is so often hidden from view.]

- 41 Senators are on the bill at introduction, which is itself a good thing. Those commitments have value later (69 are on the House bill).

- The Cato Institute (presumed by many to be the force behind the case, though it is actually a private effort that includes some Cato members), according to random scuttlebutt: understands the law well but doesn’t understand the politics at all; doesn’t care; doesn’t “get” it; can just walk away later; won’t have to pick up the pieces like the NRA will if the case fails, is rolling the dice with your kid’s tuition on the line.

[Levy notes: Let me say this in plain terms: the Cato Institute did not start this case, has nothing to do with the litigation, hasn't even filed an amicus brief, and won't be involved in any legal tactics or strategy at any point. At most, Cato will help generate media support, and file a brief with the Supremes. So to suggest that Cato "can just walk away later" is irrelevant and absurd. Cato can't walk away from something it never has been associated with. As for the "private effort that includes some Cato members" -- i.e., me -- I have years of work and plenty of bucks invested in constitutional issues like this one. I'll match my commitment of time and resources against anyone at the NRA or elsewhere. It's frankly offensive for someone to suggest that I "don't understand," "don't care," "don't get it," or that I'm "rolling the dice." That applies doubly with respect to both of my co-counsel.]

[Korwin points out: People were willing to speak to me, an arms-length third party, in realistic and candid terms they would likely not use face-to-face, which is why I have identified none by name. Some remarks were made in personal confidence and do not appear here at all. I told everyone I spoke with that I don't know what to say when people ask me why NRA objects to the Parker case, or seems to be trying to scuttle it, and openly sought help in understanding so I could explain it (I have not even begun to explore the Seegars debacle). It is clearly instructive to hear what's going on, though it's perhaps less than satisfying, or painful, to hear what people really think about you when you're not in the room, whether they're right, wrong, or nuts.]

- Everyone expects a conservative outcome. So where was that on the Kelo case (eminent domain)? On McCain Feingold campaign finance reform (suppression of speech before an election)? On the EPA case (global warming pollution from CO2)? The results are far from guaranteed.

- “Show me five votes! Show me five! You can only show me four.”

- This case was filed when O’Conner was on the bench — it was terrible timing, even though the timing now is better, and might get even better if there’s another vacancy soon.

[Levy notes: When this case was filed (Feb. 2003), it was virtually certain that the Court would look better by the time Parker went up. That's what we told the NRA when its representatives cautioned against filing the case. Our prediction turned out to be 100% correct. The Court now looks better than anytime in recent memory, and better than it's going to look longer-term.]

- Just because a vacancy may come up doesn’t mean Bush can get a good appointee through the Democrat controlled Senate and committees.

- Just because there’s a vacancy doesn’t mean Bush won’t fold with a squishy candidate, or a candidate who changes stripes once appointed.

- NRA filed a powerful and significant amicus brief, documenting state-level Second Amendment actions that invalidated unconstitutional gun bans.

- NRA also supported a Congress of Racial Equality amicus brief.

- The Parker decision still blatantly denies rights to residents that a ban repeal would fix — it only allows possession by registration and permit, at government discretion, only at home, with no way to get a gun to the home, and no way to purchase across state lines. What good is a registered permitted gun that you can’t obtain? A ban repeal addresses that (somewhat).

[Levy notes: Anything that Parker doesn't address can certainly be addressed by suitable legislation -- but NOT a bill with a provision that would moot Parker. By all means, let the NRA introduce legislation that will accomplish all of its many goals. In fact, my co-counsel and I have already drafted legislation (sent to selected senators) that does everything the NRA-sponsored bill does, without putting Parker at risk. And of course, it's too obvious to point out that the DC Personal Protection Act addresses only DC; a Supreme Court pronouncement applies everywhere.]

- You’re talking about arguing the most crucial issue at the highest court in the land, with an attorney some observers at the NRA do not hold in high esteem. One person questioned whether any attorney at the NRA itself was of sufficient mettle to tackle the case, and suggested you want someone of at least the stature and competence of Ted Olson, or perhaps Lawrence Tribe, on something this big.

[Levy notes: Well, let's see: Which lawyers sued the Justice Department in Seegars, only to have the DOJ attorneys prevail on a standing argument that DC lawyers never thought of? Which lawyers neglected to have one of the Seegars plaintiffs apply for registration to ensure there would be legal standing? Which lawyers asserted every cause of action imaginable in Seegars, giving the court a non-Second-Amendment path to resolving the case? Then again, which attorneys won in Parker?]

[Korwin points out: And just for the record, lead attorney Alan Gura, a graduate of Cornell (1992) and Georgetown Law (1995), does have an impressive list of accomplishments, including the stunning win in the Parker case.]

- The devastation of a loss is so great that of course you have to be reluctant to jump into the fray. (I’ve been saying this for years — that both sides are terrified to bring a case, and rightly so.) A lack of reluctance to proceed is viewed by some as reckless.

[Levy notes: There are more than enough reasons to go for the Supremes NOW. But if only one reason were needed, here it is: Virtually every wrongly-decided 2d Amendment case has been US v. Someone -- in other words, a criminal case -- brought by an accused felon-in-possession or some bank robber or crackhead seeking to reverse a sentencing enhancement. Sooner or later, when four liberal justices sense that the time is right, the Court is going to reach down and grab one of those cases. We warned the NRA about that four years ago. And we still haven't heard a game plan to avoid the problem. In short, if a good case doesn't go up, a bad one will.]

- A cogent case can be made for a collective rights view (Militia as response to Founders’ fear of standing army, recent-history court activity, foreign precedents, etc.) which although bogus, can be used by ideologues on the Court to justify a decision that is results driven, instead of law, fact or precedent driven. If some Justices are seeking a means to an end, do you give them the opportunity?

[Levy says: That's an argument for never doing anything. There's always a risk in going to the Supremes. But this time we have a good Court, a great case, the perfect venue, a sympathetic Justice Department, no incorporation issue, outstanding plaintiffs, 47 states to win, only 3 to lose, and a terrific appellate opinion. In the unlikely event that 5 of the current justices decide to read the 2d Amendment out of the Constitution by upholding a total ban on handguns, that would be the time for Congress to act. Furthermore, a ruling that the 2d Amendment is effectively meaningless seems unlikely during the heat of the '08 election, when it would be a rallying cry for the pro-gun community. Finally, if the Court is so inclined, it has ways to reverse Parker without reaching the merits (e.g., standing). Wayne is supposed to have some insight on these matters. Let's take him at his word: "Parker is going to go up and we have a damn good chance of winning it!"]

So there it is. The NRA is not ipso facto fighting Parker. They are addressing a complex issue in a complex way. And Levy, leading the charge for the best case to come along in decades has all the compelling points you would want a good lawyer to have. Whether you think it’s time to make the play or not, the game is on.

5- Don’t ask, don’t tell.

Always thinking, the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) has decided that, “when on private property (stores, malls, etc), if you don’t see an obvious ‘no guns’ sign posted on an entrance way, then do not ask if it is OK to carry there.” They suggest, “It is legal (barring obvious notification otherwise). Asking only forces the management to make a spot decision and that is often not a good idea.” The legality depends to some extent on jurisdiction and other factors — they are only speaking for their understanding in Virginia (which would be similar to my home state Arizona). They continue, “Basically, management typically doesn’t want to have to give you SPECIFIC permission to carry for fear of some kind of liability. Management usually prefers that you go about your business without forcing them into making a policy decision.”

The VCDL suggestion is similar to the Arizona Citizens Defense League policy which suggests you simply, “Come and go in peace,” without raising an issue or a fuss as you discreetly carry under the law. Not valid in all locations, some restrictions apply, see state codes for details. http://www.gunlaws.com/links/index.htm

As we’ve all seen from the Duke Lacrosse case, the methodologies employed by American law enforcement, and America’s legal system, have some very real prejudices regarding males.

But is it possible that biased, Violence Against Women Act, police profiling training was a factor in the deaths of 29 or 30 people in the recent shootings at Virginia Tech?  No, police were not directly involved in pulling the trigger, but given the events of the first few hours at Virginia Tech, one must at least ask if police training was so flawed that it followed gender profiling prejudices over objective investigative techniques, and evidence gathering.  As we all now see in 20/20 hindsight, police were clearly, “barking up the wrong tree,” while the real murder was preparing his more deadly assault.

Untold numbers of law enforcement in America, among others in the legal system, have been trained under STOP Grants funded by the gender biased Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and the same man (President Bush) who signed that memorial at Virginia Tech yesterday, signed the gender biased Violence Against Women Act into law.

Routinely, VAWA funded, STOP Grant trainings, and other domestic violence trainings, follow the biased, gender feminist, ideological profile of husbands, boyfriends, etc. (men) as batterers and wives and girlfriends (women) as victims.

http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/grants/grantDescription.cfm?grant=22

In an article by Glenn Sacks, we get a glimpse of how domestic violence training of police works.  Here is an excerpt from that article, where a domestic violence trainer was being interviewed:

http://www.glennsacks.com/baseball_players_domestic.htm

“Part of the problem is the training that police officers receive from the domestic violence industry, which insists that 95% of domestic violence is committed by men. Southern California domestic violence consultant Anne O’Dell, who has conducted over 500 domestic violence trainings of police officers and commanders, judges, district attorneys, and victim advocates, tells her trainees that “if a police officer is arresting more than 8% women, you’ve got a real problem. When an officer arrests 12% or 15% women, I’m outraged.” O’Dell says that dual arrests should occur in no more than 3% of incidents.

There is virtually no current data which supports the “95%” myth. According to the US Department of Justice’s 1998 Report on the National Violence Against Women Survey, men comprise nearly 40% of all domestic violence victims.”

In responding to the first shootings on the Virginia Tech campus, numerous news sources give an account of police finding a dead woman and a dead man in one of the campus buildings.  Upon inquiring about the circumstances of the shooting, police obtained information about the dead woman’s boyfriend from a woman they interviewed.  They also found out that the dead woman’s boyfriend allegedly ”had guns.”  Evidently, that was enough for the police to profile the dead woman’s boyfriend as the primary suspect in this shooting to the exclusion of all others.  That gave the real murderer more than ample time to put into place the logistics necessary for him to carry out the heinous murders of 29 other human beings in the hours and minutes that followed.

The boyfriend of the dead woman was stopped in his car at an off campus location and questioned by police.  It was during the time that police were questioning the dead woman’s boyfriend that reports of the second series of shootings came into police.  It appears the boyfriend of the dead woman in the first shooting was not arrested, although he remains an “important witness.”

I offer the followning general opinions for police everywhere, to counter the misandrist training coming from the, Violence Against Women (VAWA), STOP Grants:

# If the police spent as much time looking for real evidence of domestic violence as they do looking for rationalizations to fit their gender profiling prejudices,

# If the police spent as much time looking for real evidence of domestic violence as they do fabricating evidence to fit their gender profiling prejudices,

# If the police spent as much time looking for real evidence of domestic violence as they do destroying (or ignoring) real evidence to fit their gender profiling prejudices,

then there wouldn’t be nearly so many men being railroaded in our gender biased courts and having their lives destroyed by false charges of domestic violence - - - and to whatever extent it applies, there might possibly be 29 more people alive today at Virginia Tech, maybe 30.

In doing a search of the Internet, I see that Virginia Tech has a Women’s Studies program, Women’s Center, Take Back The Night Rallies, etc. to promote “women’s issues.”  I could find no similar venues for Men’s Studies, or a Men’s Center, or “men’s issues.”  One can only wonder what the atmosphere was like for men on this campus, and if curriculums in disciplines like English (the shooters major), have been infused with less than male friendly propaganda.  Someone at Virginia Tech really needs to take a hard look at that, or even better, have someone accountable for accrediting Virginia Tech take a look.

Here are links to:

The Women’s Center At Virginia Tech

http://www.womenscenter.vt.edu/

The Women’s Center At Virginia Tech

Counseling and Advocacy Services

http://www.womenscenter.vt.edu/ADVOCACY.HTM

“Take Back the Night Rally and March set for March 29 (2007)

Blacksburg’s 18th annual Take Back the Night Rally and March will be held on Thursday, March 29 to bring the community together to reject violence against women…”

http://tinyurl.com/2wjqzb

http://courseware.cc.vt.edu/users/toni/ws/wssyll.html

“One of the major contributions of women’s studies is the realization that white, middle-class, heterosexual and middle-aged men do represent the reality of all human society. Importantly, it is just as inappropriate to use the experience of white, middle-class, heterosexual women to represent all women. Thus, in this class we will focus on the interlocking systems of gender, race/ethnicity, class, and, ultimately, age oppression. We will assume that “reality” as we know it, including our social practices, beliefs, and knowledge, are heterosexist as well as racial/ethnic-, class-, gender-, and age-based.”

In my opinion, if less than male friendly propaganda were present at Virginia Tech leading up to these murders, such propaganda likely would not contribute to the well-being of any mentally disturbed male student(s) present there.  

Lastly, the appearance that police seem to follow along so unquestionably with the politically correct, profiling prejudices so prevalent in America’s VAWA trained, legal system, does little to comfort me in this case, or assuage my suspicions that this type of profiling “screw up” may well happen again in other circumstances.

This article is also available as a podcast. Click below to listen, or download the mp3 here. (iPod users can download the mp4 file here.)

[coolplayer width="250" height="30" autoplay="false" download="hide" type="audio/mpeg"]
http://mensnewsdaily.com/mp3s/chapin-on-imusFINAL.mp3[/coolplayer]

In Chicago, one must pity the atheists. Imagine how difficult it is to argue that Heaven and Hell are a fairy tale when one of the Devil’s chief operatives makes daily broadcasts from a fashionable address in the West Loop. Of course, the operative I refer to is none other than the phenomenally successful multi-billionaire, and supposedly oppressed person, Oprah Winfrey.

Today, the talk show host applied her fantastically ignorant mind to the question of Don Imus. The episode was called, “Oprah’s Town Hall: Now What?” The now what must be truly perplexing because she has dedicated tomorrow’s show to the subject as well. Her angle is not difficult to discern as it provides her with yet another fabricated opportunity to cast shame upon men and Caucasians in general.

As most readers already know, Don Imus is a person and not merely a question. The sixtyish shock jock recently got fired by both CBS and MSNBC for calling the Rutgers female basketball players, “nappy-headed hos.” To the normal person, his statement was strange and inexplicable.

When the actual telecast is viewed its context becomes clearer. Imus attempted to make light of the toughness of the player’s physical appearance. He thought they looked like a bunch of tattoo scarred thugs. Imus (unwisely) compared them to gangstas in the language of the street. Everyone then assumed that his intent was racist, but that’s far from certain—even though perpetual PC dupes like ESPN have no doubts. “Nappy headed ho” by itself, while admittedly dumb and in poor taste, does not only refer to black women because many white youths of both sexes Africanize their hair. Making one’s straight hair kinky appears to be in style at the moment. As far as humor goes, his attempt missed the mark by many miles, but I see no hatred in his words.

If anything, what he said seemed to be more of a class comment as the Tennessee team to which he compared the Rutgers girls is unquestionably racially integrated. Their team picture depicts seven black players and four white players who share a feminine appearance and are devoid of brands or tattoos. This could have been easily clarified by Imus but he was too busy apologizing and making-out with the feet of race shysters to find the time to do so.

Reaction to his faux pas was not immediate. Just as with all politically correct crusades, momentum built slowly before reaching a level of hysteria. The story only reached Shandra Levy proportions after the usual band of jackasses was recruited to harass Imus’s employers and assault the American psyche. With Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Oprah Winfrey, and the mainstream media, any life or career can become forfeit in just a few hours time.

This was all unfortunately brought to my attention today as I sat in the doctor’s office at 9 am. His TV was set to “The Oprah Winfrey Show” and the program was stocked with all manner of luminaries from various parts of the left side of the political spectrum. One of the most offensive was a psychologist named Robin Smith who talked about Imus embodying the sickening racism and systematic oppression that is so rife in other parts of the world but suspiciously absent from the United States. Well, actually, that wasn’t what her position. Her version of reality, issued as she sat upon a perch of privilege, focused only on America and purposely avoided any mention of the greater world.

Oprah placed on her website the supposed theme of the show. She asked viewers as to whether or not there is “a double standard in this country?” I’m glad she did because there are a myriad of double standards in this country. The most obvious one on display here is that only a white American can get fired for making what someone somewhere construes to be a racial comment about somebody else. Nothing like that ever happens to black or Hispanics because they are the chosen mascots of political correctness. A case in point comes from only a few traffic lights away from where I now type, in the person of Ozzie Guillen. He still manages the White Sox despite his calling a sports columnist a “fag.” Pariah status is reserved for white males offenders alone in our anti-intellectual PC society.

Another double standard is that most words of hatred are only words of hatred when they are spoken by Caucasians. A shock jock of a different color could have gotten away with what Imus said and there would have been no drama at all. Had his ancestors hailed from Kenya or Mozambique, Imus could have even said the N-word. White people have numerous words with which they’re not allowed to say and many of them we don’t even know about until after we say them [recall the infamous “niggardly” incident].

Everyday it seems as if there are more and more words that result in our being condemned by some kind of ism. For the last twenty years, I always thought that the “N-word” was the only one truly off limits. Last month, I discovered that faggot has also been added to the list while today, Oprah, informed her audience that “bitch” and “ho” are words of devastation as well. Here we see yet another reason why PC is so pernicious. In the case of all these words, arbitrary distinctions have been made in an attempt to control our actions and dominate our speech. In my opinion, there should be no words whose utterance automatically equates with an individual having some sort of psychological condition—particularly not ones as mundane and overused as “bitch” and “ho” [rather delicious it is that “ho” stands for “whore” but is now referred to as the h-word].

Here, yet again, is another double standard because there are all sorts of words which men are not allowed to call women, such as the c-word, the h-word, and the b-word, but there are none for which women are not allowed to call men. A woman can say anything she wants to about a man and get away with it. The reason for this is that women are yet another privileged class within America today. Our society is loath to hold them responsible for anything that they might say or do. They are the most comical of PC mascots as their heartiness and extended lifespan make a mockery out of their supposed sensitivity and vulnerability.

Here we come to a double standard within a double standard as there’s absolutely no equality at all within Oprah’s treatment of women on her show. They allegedly are the superiors of men yet their beings can be torn asunder by merely having a few banal, uncreative names tossed their way. Only weaklings suffer psychological trauma when they are exposed to insults by persons they don’t know and who have no meaning or importance in their lives. No superhero in history ever shattered like porcelain after hearing a term of disparagement. As a society, all of our citizens must learn to deal with criticism and getting insulted. There’s no need to conduct a witch hunt, a town hall meeting or a therapy session after noting the hostility of another. Defending oneself or refusing to associate with those who demean you is best practice in such a situation.

It’s a fine habit to get into even if you don’t happen to be a PC avatar of goodness and glory on this earth. Let’s consider for a moment what would happen if your narrator was placed in the position of those Rutgers girls and a guy like Tavis Smiley called him a “bald-headed cracker” on the air. Obviously, no one would be too bothered by this—although there really isn’t much of a parallel here as Imus said no terms of racial derision—but my way of dealing with it would be first to grant out that I was bald-headed and second to inquire if Smiley had any idea where the next International Brotherhood of the Crackerazzi Convention was going to be held so I could acquire some advance tickets.* Please note that I suspiciously left out of my response: “I’m going to call you an ism.”

Whenever I argue along these lines someone usually claims that it isn’t an accurate comparison because “white people are bothered by stuff like that,” but the fact is that nobody is really bothered by much of anything unless society tells them that they should be. Being called a name is not a nuclear weapon of interpersonal interaction and it doesn’t “dehumanize” anyone. It’s just a name, and, unless one has a criminally inflated sense of self-esteem, it means very little. America’s true sickness isn’t racism; it’s PC therapism which is interposed upon our relations with one another.

The major mission of political correctness is to subjugate our thoughts, feelings, and souls within a dungeon of sterility wherein the definition of being human is morphed into “never saying anything wrong or offensive to anyone.” Human beings simply aren’t like that. We frequently get mad or angry and say things we don’t really mean. That’s what happens when blood, rather than synthetic oil, courses through one’s capillaries. Every time somebody says something that we don’t like it doesn’t equate with their being abnormal and some kind of “ism.” I wish the American population would save their resentment for the self-glorifying buffoons demanding our eternal repentance rather than pouring it upon a self-glorifying buffoon who’s trying to entertain us.

Bernard Chapin is a writer living in Chicago. He is the author of Escape from Gangsta Island, and is currently at work on a book concerning women. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

*Actually, given how silly things have gotten in society. I would probably fake “getting verklempt” over their words: “When I began losing my hair in 1994 my whole world caved in—no more combs, no more brushes, no more shampoo, no more gel, no more expensive trips to the barber—hey, wait a minute…”

That’s exactly what America is on the path of doing…digesting the cold, hard truth. That foul language is grotesque and does not belong on the airwaves. 

As a country, we’ve been in the gutter so long that many of us think it’s a right for anyone to publicly bash a person with foul language on the basis of free speech.  Civility a bygone trait it seems like. But there was a ray of hope when Don Imus paid for his remarks about the Rutgers ladies basketball team. 

The media is abuzz about the “fallout” after Don Imus was booted from CBS and MSNBC.  There is no need for a “falling out” over this incident. It is being blown out of proportion, as the media wonders, “what’s next for him?” I could care less. Imus made his bed, now he has to lie in it.

Others are making this incident out to be a racial one. It is not racial to call someone to account for what comes out of his/her mouth that is clearly offensive. We must start somewhere, and now, America can clearly look at part of what is dragging down our society.  Don Imus was only parroting what our society has produced…those in the entertainment business who think it’s fine to put down others with foul language. 

The Don Imus incident has caused many to want to put a stop to degrading comments in the media and to confront it.  That is what is occurring, and thank goodness!

Black conservative blogger Akindele Akinyemi is one of many people who lament the troubles of the black community. The following are his thoughts, meant to acknowledge the problems of the black community and to hopefully urge others to step up and correct what is sadly wrong in our communities:

“…I feel it’s a d-mn shame that Black liberals are always protesting and demanding White people be fired for saying something stupid yet we give Blacks who consistently call or sisters bit-h-s and h-es on a regular basis a free pass. We degrade our race by trying to live like Good Times or live out our lives in poverty. We enjoy sagging our pants in public, even in church where it is supposed to be a House of God.

What about Black radio promoting sex, soft porn and violence on the air? I did not see anyone protesting Black radio but you are protesting someone who gave a stupid comment. The images that are shown on Black TV can be compared to a minstrel show. We show brothers and sisters straight screw-ng on TV (not making love), calling each other bit-hes on popular Black situation comedies, and showing the most un-Christian images on TV. Will you ever see Al Sharpton demanding positive images on TV? H-ll no unless it has a liberal twist….”

View the entire blog segment here:

http://onedetroitnetwork.blogspot.com/2007/04/black-liberals-need-to-stop-double.html

As Mr. Akinyemi mentions the liberalization of the black community, he is accenting and is showing his concern of the way the “anything goes” mentality has been pervasive among blacks. Because conservative blacks would not allow or condone such vile behavior.

As one can see, this sort of behavior is manifested everywhere. And not only in the black community either, we have a problem with our overall culture as Americans.  Don Imus was but a blip on the radar screen in all of this.  But truly, the only way that the black community and America as a whole can recover is to take on the filth on the airwaves and hopefully, in the music videos and in the rap and hip-hop music.

Will the black community hold itself to account? We can’t point the finger and say one person should be fired for demeaning comments about blacks and females when our own behavior is just as vile. 

Looking at the music in today’s society…how can those who see vile behavior and negative music lyrics appropriate, elevate themselves in society when they are too busy “rump-shaking” it such offensive music?  If you look around, you will notice just how music has an affect on the morals and behavior of our society.  Why are there so many deadbeat-dads and such a surge in irresponsibility when it comes to sex and a lack of accountability for one’s actions?  Music seems to glorify the negative these days.  Tell me how that is helping our young people achieve their dreams?!

Allow me to time travel for a little bit. I remember in the 1980’s when the music was over-the-top silly, it was about having fun and mixing good beats and experimenting with sounds.  There were successful love ballads that were not degrading that made it big on the charts as well. The music surely had an affect over the overall mood of the country, and it was a fairly good decade.  How have we gone from such a good era in music to now pushing filth on the airwaves?

Yes it’s time to digest the fact that we have allowed the filth to go on for too long.  And something needs to change.  And it is not political correctness to want action taken against someone in the public eye who consistently uses degrading comments to express themselves.

It’s time to digest that yes, Imus was fired and should have been.

America needs to pull herself from the gutter, shake Herself off, be the society that exemplifies respect towards all, and be a society that inspires.

*Felicia (Fee) Benamon is a political columnist who writes for various conservative sites including RenewAmerica.us, Mic