Today's posts - Quoteworthy - Obamanalysis - Michelle O - Mark Steyn - Women - Children - Parenting - Education - Culture - Culture of death - Music - Sinatra - Books - Best of P&P - Twitter

When a society loses its memory, it descends inevitably into dementia. Mark Steyn
.

February 28, 2012

Free love costs too much at Georgetown

At a Congressional hearing on a woman's unalienable right to free contraceptives, a representative of Generation-sex enlightens us on the high cost of copulation:

“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception),” Fluke reported.

It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.

“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,” Fluke told the hearing.
"As you know"? Well, maybe they do, seeing as they're probably all lawyers. But I had no idea. Ms. Sandra Fluke goes on:
“We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health and we resent that, in the 21st Century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make that choice simply because we are women,” Fluke said.
"Resent" being the key word. (And either the young ladies at the high-priced  Catholic law school are phenomenally busy or Ms. Fluke's numbers are off. Also, the Pill costs just $9.00 a month at Target.)

(I guess it's too much to expect men to contribute to the glorious cause of "women's health"?)

***
Afterthought: Via this classic Steyn post from 2010, a reminder that condoms are already free in DC. The Obama administration's pretense that women "lack access" to "reproductive health" accessories is a complete crock.

***

Many thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link.

Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.

Romney's interesting strategy: Don't get the base excited

Oh dear. Mitt on the conservative base:

It’s very easy to excite the base with incendiary comments. We’ve seen throughout the campaign if you’re willing to say really outrageous things that are accusative, attacking of President Obama, that you’re going to jump up in the polls. I’m not willing to light my hair on fire to try and get support. I am who I am. I’m a person with extensive experience in the private sector, in the economy.
And he'd better not; his hair seems to be his greatest asset.

Doesn't he sound exactly like John McCain, lecturing us all to play nice with Obama? That was a winning strategy, eh?

As for the base, they just aren't that smart, are they? James Antle:
Without trying to read too much into a single quote, this is a good example of why Romney is having trouble gaining (or at least keeping) traction: many Republican voters feel that Romney has a low opinion of their intelligence, that he thinks the base is dumb, that he believes conservative rhetoric is just boob bait for the bubbas. This perception is why a critical mass of conservatives don't trust Romney and are reluctant to support him.
Romney is just not a conservative. Therein lies the problem.

Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.

Liberal media pours it on: Santorum is a "mullah," a "theocrat," and a "clown"

Liberals are screaming and running around in circles at the prospect of a Rick Santorum candidacy.

Richard Cohen panics and jumps the shark: Rick Santorum, American Mullah

He wants religion returned to “the public square,” is opposed to contraception, premarital sex and abortion under any circumstances, wants children educated in what amounts to little red schoolhouses and called President Obama a “snob” for extolling college or some other kind of post-high school education. This is not a political platform. It’s a fatwa.
Et cetera.

Two great minds, one great thought from Chris Matthews and Eugene Robinson: Theocrat!
"Yes. I think he is a theocrat. I think that's what he believes deep down inside of him. And I think that's obviously dangerous for this country," Eugene Robinson said.

"I think he is too," Chris Matthews said.
And Robinson has a Pulitzer, so you know he's right.

Eliot Spitzer grabs the moral high ground: Absolutely terrified for his daughters!



And I was thinking my daughters should be afraid of Spitzer. Go figure.

Lastly, from Morning Joe, feel the shock, horror, and dripping contempt:



Creeping Christian sharia!

Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.

February 27, 2012

Who's up for another debt ceiling battle before the election?

As Instapundit said, OOPS. Debt ceiling limit looms months sooner than expected, during fall campaign

How could that happen?

A new study released on Friday now suggests that slimmer federal tax receipts than anticipated from the sluggish Obama economy along with continued abundant spending by the Obama administration will likely move the date of the next debt deadline considerably forward so that it comes during this fall's presidential election, with political debate beginning even earlier. 
Oh. Yeah. That "continued abundant spending" thing.

But don't get excited, conservatives. This may strike you as a liability for our spendaholic president. But think for a second about the GOP's unlimited capacity to let things blow up in their faces.

Another interesting bit from Andrew Malcolm's story:
Much of the timing depends on the federal government's tax harvest come April 15 and beyond, including business taxes. They could be severely affected if, as expected, this year's prematurely rising gasoline prices slow consumer and business spending, as well as confidence.
What's it up to in your area? I saw $3.79 in my neighborhood this morning.

Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.

Oscar dresses

Via Twitter, Oscars, 1956:


I didn't watch last night but after seeing that gorgeous vintage photo this morning I took a quick peek at the current crop and found one actress who compares well: Penelope Cruz.


Lovely. We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.

February 26, 2012

Video: Tribute to Sgt. TJ Conrad

These families need our prayers.

Cpl. T.J. Conrad of Roanoke, Va., who was promoted posthumously to sergeant, was one of two U.S. military police officers killed Thursday by an Afghan soldier amid rising anti-American sentiment over the Koran burnings, which resulted in two more American deaths on Saturday.

The bodies of Conrad and Sgt. Joshua Born, 25, of Niceville, Fla., both assigned to the Army's Fort Stewart in Georgia, were returned to the military mortuary at Dover Air Force Base on Saturday.

Conrad's oldest sister, Amanda Meland, told The Associated Press he was in good spirits when she and other relatives chatted with him via Skype on Wednesday.

"He was doing good. He had his chin up," she said. "... He did say that things were starting to get crazy from the backlash."

Conrad, the father of a 7-month-old baby, deployed to Afghanistan in January. He would have celebrated his 23rd birthday on March 6.
Here's a video tribute put together by Sgt. Conrad's bereaved family:



Two more American officers were killed inside the Afghan Interior Ministry on Saturday. 

Charles Krauthammer contends that the Obama administration's multiple apologies for the Koran burnings merely "whet the appetites" of our enemies. It's hard to argue with that.

Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.

Dick Cavett's extended sneer at Rick Santorum and homeschoolers

Who's Dick Cavett, you ask? In the 60's and 70's he was a pseudo-intellectual talk show host. Beyond that, I can't say what he's done. But he's written a nasty New York Times opinion piece on Rick Santorum, his Catholic faith, and the dark, backward world of homeschooling. His inquiring mind wants to know:

Who knows what sorts of fears haunt the minds of home-schooling parents?
I can think of one: that our children might end up as breathtakingly ignorant as Dick Cavett. Or as bigoted:
We learn from him that contraception is a sin. Giving birth (sorry) to the possibly rude question of how the Santori as a couple and as obedient Catholics managed to have only eight children over all those years if they didn’t … well, never mind.

Remember the “rhythm” method, humorously called “Vatican Roulette”? A friend of mine says he knows full well that he and his sister “owe our existence to it.” An apt name, roulette being the worst-odds sucker game in the casino: Let’s do it, dear. The odds are only 37 to 1 against us.

Maybe they cheated now and then. The thought might not have arisen were I not typing this shortly after one of the most soundly defeated incumbent senators in recent history spent part of his time at the — one dearly hopes — final “debate” reeling off the number of times he was forced to vote contrary to his beliefs!
Follow the logic: Because Santorum owns up to having compromised on some votes in his senatorial career, he's a fraud, politically and personally. Cavett cleverly deduces that any "obedient" (his word) Catholic couple with fewer than, I dunno, a dozen kids, must be "cheating."

You'd think, with his superior, non-homeschooled education, and at his advanced age, Mr. Cavett would have learned all about the birds and bees by now. But along with a dominant contraceptive culture comes an ignorance of normal human biology. Fertility varies from couple to couple, and women who breastfeed ... well, never mind. He'd probably view that with contempt, too. As for ye olde "rhythm method," it, like Cavett, is a dusty relic of a bygone era. (My condolences to his tackily unplanned friend and sister. Perhaps they've found life worth living anyway?)

When Cavett is finished mocking Rick Santorum's religion he makes fun of his looks. Then he moves on to homeschooling. I'll give Cavett credit for thoroughness: he hits all the cliches.

But what's most impressive is his utter ignorance of the homeschool experience and his palpable snobbery:
My soul similarly rolls over and groans whenever Santorum uses the phrase “home-schooling.” I first heard about it in the dim days when the John Birch Society was a going thing. (Young folks, I don’t blame you for not believing that this organization held that President Dwight Eisenhower was a “conscious, dedicated agent” of the Soviet Union.) Some benighted McCarthy-admiring parents decided to pluck their children from the clutches of “commies” teaching our kiddies their godless doctrine.

I have lost track of distant relatives of mine, parents who also snatched their young kids from school and, for their remaining school years, stuffed them mainly with the Bible. (I’d love to know how they did on their SATs.)
Odds are they did pretty well. (You've got to wonder who lost track of whom.)
Besides, aren’t you arguably a better person for having gone to school rather than having it funneled into you by dreary old Ma or Pa in their faded bathrobes at home?
(Note to self: Gotta git me 'n' Paw some fancy new duds next time we ride into town.)

I feel sorry for the poor kids whose parents feel they’re qualified to teach them at home. Of course, some parents are smarter than some teachers, but in the main I see home-schooling as misguided foolishness.

Teaching is an art and a profession requiring years of training. Where did the idea come from that anybody can do it? How many parents can intuit how to do it? (Pardon unconscious rhyme there.) My parents were teachers and the thought of home-schooling sent them rolling before they were in their graves. Especially when parents, complaining of their kids’ schooling, wrote in report card responses things like “I am loathe to critacize…”; “my childs consantration”; “normalicy”; “my daughter’s abillaties”; “her examatian grades”; “she should of done better”; “greater supervizion,” etc., into the night.
I guess all those ignorant parents were homeschooled? If you'd like to see some sad, real-life examples of poor spelling and usage, check out this post from November of last year: Getting know where: Public school kids explain why it's better than homeschooling

Back to the tolerant Mr. Cavett:
And what is the argument for it? For some, is it to protect their innocent ones from hearing words like, oh, “sex” and “contraception”? From forced association with those less desirable ethnically? Maybe it’s to keep them safe from radical notions like the idea that fossils and carbon-dating aren’t put there by the Devil to fool the scientists, but prove the world has billions, not thousands, of years on it. [. . .]

Who knows what sorts of fears haunt the minds of home-schooling parents? I guess it’s always possible, when Sally or Billy is walking to school, that a dark figure might leap out of the shrubbery, maniacally shrieking, “There’s climate change!”

Again, teaching takes skill and education and dedication. Home schooling as an idea is on a par with home dentistry.
It's all good, but I think I liked the accusation of racism best.

Read the whole thing if you can stand it. In Cavett's world, homeschooling for religious reasons is simply not valid. And enlightened as he is, he somehow missed the memos on the academic failures of the public school system, the down side of "socialization," the academic achievement of homeschooled students, the movement away from mass instruction, and the spread of homeschooling to every demographic, not just knuckle-dragging Bible thumpers.

Mr. Cavett needs to get out and mix more.

***

Updated to add a link to an excellent, substantive response: Schooling Dick Cavett

***

Thanks to Pew Sitter for the link.

***
Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.

February 25, 2012

Music break: Bob Wills and his Texas Playboys

Awkward religious content alert:



One thing I've learned from Mark Steyn is to give credit to the song writers. So I looked this up and found that it was written by Fred Rose. And I also found out that he wrote two other favorites of mine:

'Deed I Do


Deep Water


(That's from this.)

Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.

No social-issues truce for Rush

From yesterday's show:

RUSH: It is amazing to me. It is, even though it shouldn't be, but it's amazing to me -- how Jeb Bush and Rudy and Chris Christie, all these people... Jeb Bush, we quoted him earlier today. He's nervous. He says (paraphrased), "Ah, don't start talking about fear and emotion. This is not what I want to hear our nominees talking about." Christie and a lot of these people say: You gotta stop talking about social issues.

Republicans are say, "We've got to stop talking about this abortion stuff. We gotta stop talking about contraception." It is the Democrats who are obsessed with this stuff! Why can't our people go on offense? Why can't our people say, "It's the Democrats who are obsessed with all of these social issues"? Look: "Maryland Gay Marriage Bill to Governor's Desk." That's not a social issue, gay marriage? We have a federal judge this week in San Francisco who ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Bill Clinton, is unconstitutional. He just took it upon himself to say that a piece of legislation is unconstitutional. Defending traditional values is not modern? It's off topic? Attacking them is modern and good politics?

That's what we're to believe here? All we're doing is defending traditional values. All we're doing is defending the institutions and the traditions that have made this country great, and apparently that's what you're not supposed to do? "No, no, don't do that! Mr. Limbaugh, you're just gonna make people nervous. Women aren't going to understand." You wouldn't believe the e-mails. "Rush, women's brains can't compute this way. You're making a big mistake here just by bringing this up." Oh, so we can't defend all these great traditions, but the left can attack them? The left can attack them and rip them apart and tear them down, and that's good politics? Is that what we're to believe?

We're supposed to sit by while great traditions and institutions like marriage are ripped to shreds. Obama just, as a dictator would, demands that contraception be free and paid for. He can't do that! We're supposed to not say a word because "Obama's on the right side, here. That's good politics" We conservatives are on defense on these matters. We're not trying to change the world. We're trying to preserve it! I'm just gonna tell you: For all of you friends and not who are telling me to leave this stuff alone, please take it somewhere else. If you don't have the desire to defend this stuff, then don't get mad at me, because I do. Because I am not gonna join the side of this that says, "The good politics, the smart politics, the side of this you want to be on politically is to tear down these traditions and institutions."

I am not going there. I'm not gonna go there to attract a larger audience. I'm not gonna go there to avoid criticism. We're not the ones that issued the rule violating the First Amendment. They did! We didn't go to federal court to impose our will and to claim that the will of the people is unconstitutional. They did! We are not the ones doing social experiments with the US military. They are! And yet we're divisive? We're anti-modern? We're unfocused? We're old-fashioned? We're racist, sexist, bigot homophobes? I'm sorry, I am not gutless. And, by the way, I discussed economic issues and every other aspect of Obama long before anybody else got to the table. While everybody else was afraid to be critical of Obama, I was not.

Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.

February 24, 2012

Video: Megyn Kelly interviews Rick Santorum

Worth watching:



Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.