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
.

November 30, 2009

Air travel for elites only

Never, ever doubt what magnificent imposters these people are. From Mark Steyn:

In order to save the planet from global roasting, it seems entirely reasonable to ask Mr. and Mrs. Joe Peasant to subordinate their freedom of movement to an annual "carbon allowance" preventing them flying hither and yon and devastating the environment. As Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, explains:

Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world’s leading climate scientist has told the Observer.

Rajendra Pachauri? Hey, if you're manning the VIP lounge at Heathrow, that name may ring a bell:

Dr Rajendra Pachauri flew at least 443,243 miles on IPCC business in this 19 month period. This business included honorary degree ceremonies, a book launch and a Brookings Institute dinner, the latter involving a flight of 3500 miles.
Read the rest. The jet-setting Pachauri's leisure travel puts his "business" travel to shame as he ping-pongs from continent to continent through the rarefied air in pursuit of his passion for . . . cricket.

Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy)

Most recent posts here.

Politico: Damaging Obama "storylines"

File this one under the truth will out (no matter how hard the media tries to hide it by spinning its own "storylines"):

John F. Harris of Politico lists "seven stories Barack Obama doesn't want told":

The Obama White House argues that all of these storylines are inaccurate or unfair. In some cases these anti-Obama narratives are fanned by Republicans, in some cases by reporters and commentators.

And in some cases the truth is as plain as the nose on your face. Harris's list is in bold.

He thinks he’s playing with Monopoly money
Indisputable. Karl Rove:

Last year, Mr. Obama made fiscal restraint a constant theme of his presidential campaign. "Washington will have to tighten its belt and put off spending," he said back then, while pledging to "go through the federal budget, line by line, ending programs that we don't need." Voters found this fiscal conservatism reassuring.

However, since taking office Mr. Obama pushed through a $787 billion stimulus, a $33 billion expansion of the child health program known as S-chip, a $410 billion omnibus appropriations spending bill, and an $80 billion car company bailout. He also pushed a $821 billion cap-and-trade bill through the House and is now urging Congress to pass a nearly $1 trillion health-care bill.

Too much Leonard Nimoy
Harris:
Obama, a legislator and law professor, is fluent in describing the nuances of problems. But his intellectuality has contributed to a growing critique that decisions are detached from rock-bottom principles.
I agree in part. Obama has more of the qualities of a contemporary academic, or more accurately, of a college administrator, than of a leader. But genuinely "fluent" or "intellectual"? -- that's a crumbling MSM storyline. (And since when was he much of a legislator? Aside from waging war on the unborn and the "temporarily alive," what did he do in IL or in the US Senate?)

That’s the Chicago Way
Many of the geniuses who voted for him didn't vote for a bully, but that's what they got:

The problem is that many voters took Obama seriously in 2008 when he talked about wanting to create a more reasoned, non-partisan style of governance in Washington. When Republicans showed scant interest in cooperating with Obama at the start, the Obama West Wing gladly reverted to campaign hack mode. [. . .]

The lesson that many Washington insiders have drawn is that Obama wants to buy off the people he can and bowl over those he can’t. If that perception spreads beyond Washington this will scuff Obama’s brand as a new style of political leader.

He’s a pushover
What's more contemptible than a bully? A weak bully:
If you are going to be known as a fighter, you might as well reap the benefits. But some of the same insider circles that are starting to view Obama as a bully are also starting to whisper that he’s a patsy.
He sees America as another pleasant country on the U.N. roll call, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe
It's hard not to notice that he telegraphs weakness and runs down his country at every opportunity. Harris:

His peculiar bow to the emperor of Japan was symbolic. But his lots-of-velvet, not-much-iron approach to China had substantive implications.

On the left, the budding storyline is that Obama has retreated from human rights in the name of cynical realism. On the right, it is that he is more interested in being President of the World than President of the United States, a critique that will be heard more in December as he stops in Oslo to pick up his Nobel Prize and then in Copenhagen for an international summit on curbing greenhouse gases.

President Pelosi
Obama and Pelosi have a lot in common: both are power-drunk incompetents trying to make hay while the sun shines.

He’s in love with the man in the mirror
Or as Mark Steyn put it: "Tear down this wall . . . so they can get a better look at ME!!!" No matter the event, it's always about him.


According to Harris, there's a cure for all this:
That is why the next couple of months — with health care and Afghanistan jostling at center stage — will likely carry a long echo. Obama’s best hope of nipping bad storylines is to replace them with good ones rooted in public perceptions of his effectiveness.
I think that means he'd have to do something right.

Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy)

Most recent posts here.

That's a lot of plank-walking

Jennifer Rubin on would it would take to pass a healthcare bill this year:

One “point” would be that Harry Reid wants to slash hundreds of billions out of Medicare. Another is that Mary Landrieu wants to raise hundreds of billions in new taxes. Still another is that Blanche Lincoln is opposed to tort reform. Well, lots of Democrats will be taking these very toxic positions, but those three are up for re-election in less than a year, as are Michael Bennett of Colorado, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Evan Bayh of Indiana, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania — all of whom will face well-funded and serious opposition by candidates who will run on these votes. And if each of these controversial votes takes 60 to pass, then all will walk the plank to keep Reid’s bill intact. And then there are senators like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman whose terms aren’t up in 2012 but who have voiced principled opposition to the idea of a government takeover of health care.

We saw it wasn’t easy for Reid to get 60 votes, only to start the vote when lawmakers had the excuse that they simply wanted the “process to go forward.” Now we get to the merits, and we’ll see if there are 60 votes — again and again — to pass the components of an increasingly unpopular bill. And all by the end of the year? I’m thinking probably not.
Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy)

Most recent posts here.

November 29, 2009

Oopsy: Raw data gone

From the Times Online:

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
So they managed to destroy the paper and tape data as well as delete all the electronic files, including back-ups, of the raw data. Impressive.

From Mark Steyn: The Dog Ate My Tree Rings
Hysterical queens like Gordon Brown are demanding we introduce global taxation, micro-regulation of every aspect of your life, massive multi-trillion dollar transfers from the productive sector to eco-rackets and transnational bureaucracies, bovine flatulence levies and extraterrestrial surveillance of once sovereign states on the basis of fevered speculations for which there is no raw data . . .
And of course our Democratic Congress is trying to similarly screw us with cap & trade. Cuz it's about money and power, not The Planet.

Mark adds:

No raw data, huh? But why let that stand in your way?

Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.

But don't worry. It'll all be very scientific. Your carbon allowance numbers will be kept in a big database. Maybe in East Anglia?

Obama is planning to attend the Copenhagen Conference. John Steele Gordon totally gets that:

Roger Simon suggests calling off the meeting in Copenhagen scheduled for December 7, as the delegates really have nothing to discuss. That would be a blow to Copenhagen, to be sure, as the delegations from 192 countries will be spending a lot of money. But, as Roger points out, Copenhagen is a city with many charms, and Tivoli Gardens is well worth a visit on its own. Better they enjoy those charms at our expense than cost the world trillions in foregone economic growth for no good reason.

Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy)

Most recent posts here.

November 28, 2009

Unsettling "science"

Mark Steyn nails it, as usual, in his Saturday column:

The trouble with outsourcing your marbles to the peer-reviewed set is that, if you take away one single thing from the leaked documents, it’s that the global warm-mongers have wholly corrupted the “peer-review” process.
Yes. For the peer-review process to have integrity, the reviewing scientist must be independent, not closely associated with the researchers, or the research, he's analyzing. Like members of a jury, the reviewers are supposed to be as objective as possible.
When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the “consensus” reservation, Dr. Tom Wigley (“one of the world’s foremost experts on climate change”) suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to “get him ousted.” When another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Dr. Jones assured Dr. Mann, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Which in essence is what they did. The more frantically they talked up “peer review” as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into what James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics of international science. The headline in the Wall Street Journal Europe is unimproveable: “How To Forge A Consensus.” Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scientists: That’s “peer review,” climate-style. [. . .]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” wondered Juvenal: Who watches the watchmen? But the beauty of the climate-change tree-ring circus is that you never need to ask “Who peer-reviews the peer-reviewers?” Mann peer-reviewed Jones, and Jones peer-reviewed Mann, and anyone who questioned their theories got exiled to the unwarmed wastes of Siberia.
Here comes the fun part:
The “consensus” warm-mongers could have declared it only counts as “peer-reviewed” if it’s published in Peer-Reviewed Studies published by Mann & Jones Publishing Inc (Peermate of the Month: Al Gore, reclining naked, draped in dead polar-bear fur, on a melting ice floe), and Ed Begley Jr. and “Andy” Revkin would still have wandered out glassy-eyed into the streets droning “Peer-reviewed studies. Cannot question. Peer-reviewed studies. The science is settled . . . ”
Read the whole thing.

From the WSJ column mentioned above:

The furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or whether climatologists are nice people. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at, and how a single view of warming and its causes is being enforced. The impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.

According to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the "peer-review" process, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges from critics outside this clique are dismissed and disparaged. [. . .]

The response from the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same peer-reviewed literature. The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science is as indisputable as they claim.


Most recent posts here.

Both bad bills are in trouble

Byron York on a healthcare bill:

Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin recently was asked if a national health care bill would pass the Senate by the end of the year. "It must," Durbin responded. "We have to finish it."

Many other top Democrats share Durbin's determination to meet this deadline. But it's almost certainly not going to happen, for three reasons: the calendar, the Senate's other business, and, most importantly, growing public opposition to the health bill itself.

RTR. H/t: Jennifer Rubin

RS McCain on cap & trade: 'Cap and Trade is Dead':

Well, duh! This is kind of obvious, isn't it? Once the fraudulent "science" behind the global warming scare was exposed, Al Gore became the Piltdown Man of American politics and that whole Kyoto-style agenda was as obsolete as the mullet and parachute pants.

Heh.


Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy)

Most recent posts here.

November 27, 2009

Crashers get up close and personal with Obama and Biden

Unbelievable. Be thankful these two were only intent on grabbing publicity.



Yes, the pictures are absurd/funny/embarrassing. But Jack&Jill Politics points out a chilling truth:

Who was at the State Dinner, and why was this breach a threat to national security?

Here is the Presidential Line of Succession
1 Vice President — Joe Biden
2 Speaker of the House of Representatives– Nancy Pelosi
3 President pro tempore of the Senate – Robert Byrd
4 Secretary of State – Hillary Clinton
5 Secretary of the Treasury– Timothy Geithner
6 Secretary of Defense – Robert Gates
7 Attorney General – Eric Holder

Outside of Senator Byrd, everyone else was at the State Dinner.

There were two of them, and if they had more sinister motives, they could have divvied up the list, and set about causing instability in the United States Executive Branch.

Just incredible. This is way too much like an episode of 24, but with no scuba suits required.

More commentary:

Gawker: Did the Indian ambassador get them in?
William Jacobson: Your medical records are absolutely safe.
Jules Crittenden: O Presidency Shark Jumped
Hot Air: Video of crashers' announced entrance

Most recent posts here.

Nothing says Christmas like . . .

1) . . . Trim A Home Airblown inflatable animals, 50% off, exclusively ours [K-Mart].Choose from hippo, zebra, gorilla or pig (not shown).

I've been known to condemn Santa Claus as the crass personification of greed and materialism but these inflatables make him look pretty good. At least he has something to do with Christmas.

2) . . . a seven-foot fairy:

Instead of the traditional Christmas Lights switch-on, The Times newspaper reported that residents will be attending the 'Dundee Winter Light Night'. Council officials have also decided that rather than a retelling of the Nativity story there will be a disco, a contemporary circus, a continental market and a seven foot fairy on stilts.

That's another reason to resist this stuff - not merely because it's an act of cultural vandalism but because what replaces the demolished tradition is so feeble and insipid. ("Contemporary circus" is, of course, PC-speak for "monumental yawneroo with interpretative dance acts but no dangerous animals" - so don't go along expecting to see Dundee Council officials sticking their heads in the lion's mouth.)

Interestingly, the two objectors in this story are Jewish and Muslim. They see this trend not as benignly multicultural but, ultimately, as an assault on all faith. What it advances is a kind of bland statist conformity. You see it especially in those grade schools where not only "Silent Night" but even "Rudolph" and "Frosty" get junked and the kids stand like zombies singing dirge-like sub-Disney power-ballads of a vaguely Gaia-worshipping bent about coming together to hold hands and behold the power of the dream of the circle. Creepy.
Nailed it.

Most recent posts here.

November 26, 2009

Climategate spreads

James Delingpole:

Wow! The scandal just gets juicier and juicier. Now it seems that the Kiwis may have been at it too – tinkering with raw data to make “Global Warming” look scarier than it really is. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That; Ian Wishart)

The alleged villains this time are the climate scientists at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NiWA) – New Zealand’s answer to Britain’s Climate Research Unit. And to judge by this news alert by the Climate Science Coalition of NZ, both institutions share a similarly laissez-faire attitude to scientific accuracy.

Read the rest. He's got graphs.

Mark Steyn comments on the pandemic scandal. Excerpts:

The CRU scandal has already ensnared Britain's leading climate "scientist" Phil Jones (whom one principled leftie says has only "a few days left in which to make an honourable exit") and his American counterpart Michael Mann (as in "Mann-made global warming").

Given that these two men and their respective institutions are the leading warm-mongers on the planet, and the guys who dominate the IPCC, Copenhagen et al, it would be most unlikely if the widespread data-raping were confined only to the United Kingdom and the United States. . . .

Upon examination of said "raw data", it seems that the country's temperature increased 0.06° over a century - ie, nada. But by the time Dr James Salinger (a big cheese at NIWA, the CRU and the IPCC), had "adjusted" the data New Zealand was showing an increase of 0.92° - ie, some 15 times greater than the raw data showed. Why?

It might be that "climate change" is an organized criminal conspiracy to defraud the entire developed world. Or there might be a "good explanation". I'd be interested to hear it. Fortunately for NIWA et al, among the massed ranks of "environmental correspondents", plus ça climate change, plus c'est la même chose.

(I love it when he speaks French.)

In another Corner post Mark announces the official convergence of healthcare and environment, the Billy & Benny of government micromanagement:

On this Thanksgiving Day, let us give thanks that the two greatest all-purpose pretexts for government regulation of every single aspect of your life - "health care" and "the environment" - have now converged. Forget the global warming, global cooling, all the phoney-baloney tree-ring stuff - who can keep track of all that "settled science"? And fortunately we no longer need it, because we have a new rationale for the massive multitrillion-dollar Copenhagen shakendownen. Drumroll, please!

But slashing carbon dioxide emissions also could save millions of lives, mostly by reducing preventable deaths from heart and lung diseases, according to studies published this week in the British medical journal The Lancet.

Government regulation of health care justifies government regulation of the environment: Ingenious!

Healthcare by itself is nearly all-encompassing if one includes mental health and preventive measures, which are conveniently subjective and open-ended. But its super-sized twin, global warming, takes home the prize. Here's an excerpt from a little list posted by Jonah Goldberg:
spectacular orchids, spiders getting bigger, spiders invade Scotland, squid aggressive giants, squid larger, squid population explosion, squid tamed, squirrels reproduce earlier, stick insects, stingray invasion, storms wetter, stormwater drains stressed, street crime to increase, subsidence, suicide, swordfish in the Baltic, Tabasco tragedy, taxes, tectonic plate movement, teenage drinking, terrorism, terrorists (India), threat to peace, ticks move northward (Sweden), tides rise, tigers eat people, tomatoes rot, tornado outbreak, tourism increase, toxic seaweed, trade barriers, trade winds weakened, traffic jams, transportation threatened, tree foliage increase (UK), tree growth slowed, trees in trouble, trees less colourful, trees more colourful, trees lush, tropics expansion, tropopause raised, truffle shortage, truffles down, tundra plant life boost, turtles crash, turtle feminised, turtles lay earlier, UFO sightings, UK coastal impact, UK Katrina, uprooted - 6 million, Vampire moths, Venice flooded, violin decline, volcanic eruptions, walrus pups orphaned, walrus stampede . . .
Back to Mark. Here are links to his recent climate-change fraud posts, most recent first:
Eine decliner nachtmusik
Tree-ring circus
The CRU scandal
Cooling on Phil

Must excerpt from this one: How the science gets settled
From the Guardian:

The alleged emails illustrate the persistent pressure some climatologists have been under from sceptics in recent years.

Yes, it's awfully stressful having to develop models to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, "balance the needs of the science and the IPCC", pressure scientific journals to exclude dissenting views, and delete (illegally) material requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

"Climate change" and "health care" are different ends of the same stick: They're both all-purpose pretexts for regulating every aspect of your life. Don't take my word for it — listen to the Belgian nonentity upgraded on Friday to the Holy Roman Emperor de nos jours:

2009 is also the first year of global governance.

Did you get that memo? And, if you disagree, who do you call? Who do you vote out of office if you want a change in "global governance"?
Most recent posts here.

Gift ideas: DVDs

Movies we like.* Check back for additions. (Take categories with a grain of salt -- what would you do with The Quiet Man, or Buckaroo Banzai?)

Comedy/romance:

Celebrating Thanksgiving by getting in their faces

I was going to compile a round-up of Thanksgiving posts from the conservative blogosphere but there are way too many of them, and I've got to get going on my baking anyway. So here are just a few items. See right sidebar for many more.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, revealing how worried they are about 2010, promotes disinformation and indigestion. From Ruby Slippers we learn that, in keeping with Obama's no-red-no-blue-states post-partisanship, the DCCC has made up a handy cheat sheet for Obamatrons to bring home for the holiday. The Thanksgiving dinner talking points will help them more effectively get in the faces of their loved ones, whether they be conservatives, mugged-by-Obama independents, or wavering liberals.


These talking points are to be used only on the profoundly uninformed. The list of "accomplishments" is topped by this:

The Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act to save and create millions of jobs and provide the largest middle class tax cut in history.
As my #3 son would say, lolz! You can fool people about a lot of things but they tend to notice when they have no jobs. Mary Sue counters the "myth-busting."

Moving on, here's Rush Limbaugh's annual take on the Pilgrims:
"Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. It was a commune, folks. It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the '60s and '70s out in California – and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way. Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work!"

"It never has worked! "What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future. 'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote.

"'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense ... that was thought injustice.' Why should you work for other people when you can't work for yourself? What's the point? Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property.

"Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result? 'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.'
Excerpts from Mark Steyn's Thanksgiving piece from '07 which he still stands by:
But on this Thanksgiving the rest of the world ought to give thanks to American national sovereignty, too. When something terrible and destructive happens — a tsunami hits Indonesia, an earthquake devastates Pakistan — the U.S. can project itself anywhere on the planet within hours and start saving lives, setting up hospitals and restoring the water supply. . . .

If America were to follow the Europeans and maintain only shriveled attenuated residual military capacity, the world would very quickly be nastier and bloodier, and far more unstable. It’s not just Americans and Iraqis and Afghans who owe a debt of thanks to the U.S. soldier but all the Europeans grown plump and prosperous in a globalized economy guaranteed by the most benign hegemon in history.

That said, Thanksgiving isn’t about the big geopolitical picture, but about the blessings closer to home. Last week, the state of Oklahoma celebrated its centennial, accompanied by rousing performances of Rodgers and Hammerstein’s eponymous anthem:

We know we belong to the land
And the land we belong to is grand!

Which isn’t a bad theme song for the first Thanksgiving, either.

Can't resist. Here it is. (Gordon MacRae had some serious pipes.) Read the rest.

A few short takes (because I'm supposed to be cooking):

Michelle Malkin's rounds up the turkeys.

MotorCityTimes quotes Lincoln on what this holiday is for.

Secondhand Smoke quotes Cicero.

Marathon Pundit posts a Thanksgiving song.


Most recent posts here.

November 25, 2009

The end of men, part 3

First, a wretched tale of contemporary motherhood from Elle, by way of Kausfiles:

Pink Is the New Blue: Maybe I'm out of it, but I was unaware that parents now want girls, not boys. That's the buried lede in Ruth Shalit Barrett's mildly horrifying Elle piece on "Gender Disappointment":

Seventyone percent of American families who use MicroSort—which is still in clinical trials—want a daughter. ...[snip] ... “The era of wanting a first-born male is gone, not to return,” founder Ronald Ericsson, MD, has said.

What’s behind the modern-day girl fetish? One explanation: Women envision a brighter future for their daughters than they do for their sons. Boys are practically the underdogs these days, having fallen behind girls on nearly every measure of academic achievement, from college attendance to high school graduation rates. ...[snip]

“The way society is now—I feel there’s a preference for girls,” says Linda Heithaus, a marine biologist from Hollywood, Florida, who has two sons and is contemplating doing IVF/PGD in the hope of getting a girl. “They can do everything a boy can do, plus you can dress them up. It’s almost like, to fit in, you need to have one.” Girls, in other words, are boys plus. They can play sports and have careers, and you can dress them in pink and take them to tea at the American Girl café. What’s not to like? [E.A.]

Others link the yearning to women’s belief that they’ll have a richer lifelong relationship with a daughter than a son. ...

Girls are boys plus? That's one way to look at it. I don't quite believe this trend (though some of my Westside yuppie friends confirm it). It seems to me men still have a lot of advantages, the lack of a mommy track being only the most obvious.

I read the article and found it more than mildly horrifying. All manner of awful things are going on here. At one point author Barrett asks, "Whatever happened to unconditional love? Aren’t kids supposed to represent more than the easy fulfillment of their parents’ dreams?“

A couple of dispiriting anecdotes from the piece:

It took Lewis four tries, each costing $1,500, to become pregnant. Upon hearing the good news—about the girl-boy twins—she went shopping. “I didn’t buy the boy anything,” she says. Instead she stocked up on pink paraphernalia for her daughter, already named Cassandra. “I bought her jewelry and a little bracelet with her name on it. I was planning her first Halloween. She was going to be a little ballerina.”

As it turned out, the sonographer had made an error. Lewis got a delivery room surprise: twin boys. “I was in hysterics. I felt like somebody had died. The nurse had to send over a psychiatric social worker,” she says.

At home with her baby boys and her two-year-old son, Lewis’ anguish deepened. She was put on Prozac, but it didn’t help. “I stayed in my room. I drew the drapes. I felt like a funeral should be held.” The low point was when the twins had to be circumcised. “I thought, Here we are with two penises when there should not have been two. I got a lot of preaching,” she adds. “People would say, ‘You have two healthy infants. How ungrateful can you be?'" [. . .]

The mom of three-year-old Isaac and two-year-old Isaiah, who’s expecting another boy on December 15, has put a frowny-face icon next to her due date. “I hate my life,” she writes. “My family is complete in reality but not in my heart.” She is considering giving all three of her boys up for adoption: “I want to give them to someone who can actually love them.”

Many of these women are aborting on the basis of the baby's sex, and more often than not the aborted babies are boys. Missing from the piece is the fathers' perspective. I'm not sure whether his status as nonentity is a symptom or a cause of this pathology.

Second, from NPR, another gender-related story, from Japan. I can't help but think that these stories are related:

Away from the strutting are the retiring wallflowers, a quiet army of sweet young men with floppy hair and skinny jeans. These young men are becoming known as Japan's "herbivores" — from the Japanese phrase for "grass-eating boys" — guys who are heterosexual but who say they aren't really interested in matters of the flesh.

They are drawn to a quieter, less competitive life, focusing on family and friends — and eschewing the macho ways of the traditional Japanese male.

They include men such as Yukihiro Yoshida, a 20-something economics student, who is a self-confessed herbivore. "I don't take initiative with women, I don't talk to them," he says, blushing. "I'd welcome it if a girl talked to me, but I never take the first step myself."

Multiple recent surveys suggest that about 60 percent of young Japanese men — in their 20s and early 30s — identify themselves as herbivores. Their Sex and the City is a television show called Otomen, or Girly Guys. The lead character is a martial arts expert, the manliest guy in the whole school. But his secret passions include sewing, baking and crocheting clothes for his stuffed animals. [. . .]

"In a sense, their fathers neglected their families. They were involved in Japanese-style salaryman lifestyles, going out with their bosses every night, while herbivores are closer to their families and friends," Fukasawa says.

But there are fears about the financial and social impact of herbivores. Their low levels of spending and lack of interest in sex invoke two of Japan's biggest problems: its lackluster economy and declining birthrate. Herbivores like to be friends with women — but for many, that's as far as it goes.

In the streets of Harajuku, Alex Fujita explains why he is not interested in taking it any further.

"Nowadays, women have more education and enjoy working. Women are scary now," he says.

O brave new world. Read the rest.

Related: The end of men, The end of men, part 2

h/t: Pundit, AS

Most recent posts here.

Turkey talk

I'm thinking of making this an annual event: a reprise of Mark Steyn's Corner post from Thanksgiving 2008:

If it bleeds, it leads

I didn't think I could like Sarah Palin more than I do, but the nancy boys at MSNBC bleating all over the screen about the Great Turkey Carnage is hilarious. This is a great caption:

TURKEYS DIE AS GOVERNOR PALIN TAKES QUESTIONS FROM MEDIA

Or was it: MEDIA DIE AS GOVERNOR PALIN TAKES QUESTIONS FROM TURKEYS.

After she's sworn in in 2013, I hope President Palin arranges for a ritual turkey slaughter to be going on behind her at every press conference, if only during David Shuster's questions.

Bonus: Some vintage Thanksgiving humor from Stan Freberg: Take an Indian to Lunch This Week

Most recent posts here.

How much did that "tent" cost?

Just asking.


From Obama Foodorama via Mommy Life,

The "tent" is more of a bullet-proof pavilion, though the White House is referring to it as a "tent." It has glassed-in windows, lights, a sound system, heaters, and hard floor...as well as two satellite structures on each side.

The Post reports:
There were so many ways for the fantasy to transform into a soggy and muddy nightmare. And yet it didn't.
Not much chance of mud. The thing had a solid floor that was several feet above the ground.


The Post gives credit to the first lady for the over-the-top extravagance of the first state dinner:
For her debut as the first hostess, Michelle Obama had eschewed the standard and more manageable gathering of about 130 in the State Dining Room. Instead, she and the president welcomed some 400 guests, who made their way through a receiving line and then on to cocktails and dinner under the tent.
I understand that state dinners are de rigueur and pomp and circumstance have their place. But if the Obamas had stuck with the usual 130 guests they wouldn't have had to build a new house in the back yard. The White House is already well-equipped to host state dinners. But the Obamas don't think small. Their talk about sacrificing and belt-tightening is for thee.

Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy)

Most recent posts here.

Hiding the decline: Deniers made them do it

Some Climategate commentary.

Victor Davis Hanson on the fraud of it all:

While the president is sermonizing on global warming in connection with his Asian tour and the visit of India's head of state, we get the release of hacked emails from the British climate research center that seem to make a mockery of the entire climate-change debate — reducing it to the nasty level of academic infighting, fraud, and con games that we have become accustomed to in the postmodern Western university. At a time when the president is asserting the need for radical changes in our lives, the "science" that he once insisted would be the cornerstone of his new administration, appears shaky at best, and at worst a sort of 19th-century phrenology.
Jonah Goldberg on the corruption of science and journalism:

But what seems incontrovertible at this point is that the global-warming industry (and it is an industry) is suffused to its core with groupthink and bad faith. For many of us, this is not shocking news. But it is shocking evidence. Proving bad faith and groupthink is very hard to do. But now we have the internal dialog of those afflicted made public (I hope some intrepid reporters are asking other climate institutions whether they are no erasing their files for fear of being similarly exposed). It is clear that the scientists at the CRU were more interested in punishing dissenters and constructing a p.r. campaign than they were in actual science.

This should be considered not merely a scientific scandal but an enormous journalistic scandal. The elite press treats skepticism about global warming as a mental defect. It uses a form of the No True Scotsman fallacy to delegitimize people who dissent from the (manufactured) "consensus." Dissent is scientifically unserious, therefore dissenting scientist A is unserious. There's no way to break in. The moment someone disagrees with the "consensus" they disqualify themselves from criticizing the consensus. That's not how science is supposed to work. Skeptics who've received a tote bag from some oil company are branded as shills, but scientists who live off of climate-change-obsessed foundations or congressional fiefdoms are objective, call-it-like-they-see-it truth seekers. Question these folks and you get a Bill Murrayesque, "Back off, man. We're scientists."

Mark Steyn on the impossibility of hiding the decline:

Jonah, further to earlier discussions about the degree of scandalousness re Warmergate and the CRU, I think "Hide the decline" is a pretty hard phrase to "interpret" in any benign way, and a pretty easy way for anyone to get up to speed with what what's going on. It's already a song [watch the video], and a T-shirt.

On the other hand, the dullards at the dying US monodailies seem to be working overtime to hide the decline. In Fleet Street and on Australian TV, the statist warm-mongers are at least acknowledging that they have a problem. Over here the brain-dead twits doing their best to turn the Boston Globe circulation figures into Michael Mann's phony hockey stick upside down are going with "Boston Faces Deep Risk From Sea-Level Rise". Why not build protective dikes with unsold bundles of the Globe - or the delivery trucks?

In the comments section of both the Globe and The Houston Chronicle, readers seem to have a better nose for news than the J-school bores. Some declines can't be hidden.

Case in point: A Washington Post poll can't hide the decline in America's faith in global warmism but the reporter can omit any mention of the email scandal, and does.

What's worse is this editorial which minimizes the fraud and blacklisting and blames it on those provoking deniers:
By our reckoning -- and that of most scientists, policymakers and almost every government in the world -- the probability that the planet will warm in the long term because of human activity is extremely high, and the probability that allowing it to do so unabated will have disastrous effects is unacceptably large. The case that governments should hedge against that outcome is formidable enough. Climate scientists should not let themselves be goaded by the irresponsibility of the deniers into overstating the certainties of complex science or, worse, censoring discussion of them.
Back to the Boston Globe, the comments via Doug Ross on the paper's rising sea-level scare-article are indeed hilarious. Even northeastern liberals are having trouble swallowing this.

Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy)

Most recent posts here.

November 24, 2009

9/11 families fight back

It's sad that the fight is with our own government over something that doesn't have to happen. 9/11 families and many other Americans are outraged by Obama/Holder's decision to try the 9/11 terrorists in a civilian trial. A protest is planned in NYC on Saturday, December 5. Check out 9/11 Never Forget, Keep America Safe, 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America, and Atlas Shrugs for information.

This will break your heart:
Daniel Pearl's dad is sickened by Obama's 9/11 trial decision

The father of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl slammed the Obama administration's decision to hold a public trial for admitted 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed -- who boasted of killing his son in Pakistan.

Judea Pearl said he was "sick to the stomach" when he heard that the Justice Department decided to prosecute Mohammed in Manhattan federal court.

"I don't want to hear every morning in the papers what KSM did," Pearl told The Post last night. "Danny was killed once. Now he will be killed 10 times a day. Leave him alone."

John Bolton doesn't want his family in NYC during the trial and sees this decision as more proof of the Obama administration's ineptitude and lack of commitment to fighting terrorism:

Host Melanie Morgan: Given the nature and danger of bringing these terrorists to American soil, where do you think is the most safe place to be when they get here and this trial begins? Where would you put your family?

John Bolton: Well, not New York City, I'm afraid to say. This is part of the callousness and the really, lack of professionalism and judgment to put them on trial anywhere in the United States in civilian courts. It's a major strategic blunder. It will give Khalid Sheik Mohammad and his co-defendants an opportunity, a la Joseph Stalin, to put on their own show trial in New York. This time it won't be the prosecution conducting the show trial, it will be the defense. Again, it shows the administration is not serious about the war on terrorism. It's a pre-9/11 law enforcement paradigm rather than the paradigm of a global war on terrorism which I think the Bush administration correctly adopted with near-unanimous support in this country after 9/11.
Most recent posts here.

Chris Matthews lectures Bishop Tobin

Matthews does about 80% of the talking here. I'm not sure what makes him believe he has the authority to lecture Bishop Tobin, but that's obviously why he asked him to appear on Hardball.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy


Matthews tries to entrap the bishop into saying something he can pounce on; this ploy might have worked better had Matthews given the bishop a chance to finish a sentence. Matthews repeatedly steers the "conversation" toward legalities in order to "prove" that the bishop isn't qualified to comment on anything having to do with law, lawmaking, or Catholic lawmakers. I don't think he succeeds but he gets to blow off a lot of steam, which is apparently what he gets paid for.

In the last couple of minutes he finally gives Bishop Tobin a chance to speak and the bishop gets this in at the very end:
I will reflect on that if you will reflect on the teachings of the Church.
A reflective Chris Matthews? Yes, the bishop believes in miracles.

From Jill Stanek, Chris Matthews badgers Bishop Tobin:

Matthews appeared quite agitated from the get-go, unfairly using his bully pulpit to hog the interview and badger Bishop Tobin much like a hostile prosecutor attempting to break someone down a witness on the stand. Matthews even had the gall to try to teach the preacher. I was shocked by Matthews' lack of respect, particularly bearing in mind he's Catholic. [. . .]

I applaud the bishop's willingness to enter into enemy territory but was surprised how easily Matthews cornered him.

Perhaps not many people stand a chance when Matthews goes on the warpath (although I'd love to see Scott Klusendorf, Fr. Pavone, Mark Crutcher, or Robert George give that louse a whirl).

Me, too, though I think the bishop made excellent points when he was allowed to speak, and did well in maintaining his composure and letting Matthews run on and on and on. The only way to get equal time from Chris is to out-shout him, not an option for the bishop. As for reasoning with Matthews, forget it. Jill Stanek says that the bishop is going back for more tonight. I think the bishop will hold his own.

Most recent posts here.

Various and sundry

Today's rumor is that Obama will choose the "middle-ground option" on Afghanistan, which is as close as he can get to voting present:

Military officials and others expect Obama to settle on a middle-ground option that would deploy an eventual 32,000 to 35,000 U.S. forces to the 8-year-old conflict. That rough figure has stood as the most likely option since before Obama's last large war council meeting earlier this month, when he tasked military planners with rearranging the timing and makeup of some of the deployments.

"After completing a rigorous final meeting, President Obama has the information he wants and needs to make his decision and he will announce that decision within days," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday morning.

Yesterday's rumor was quite different.


President Obama continues to sink in the polls. Rasmussen has him at a low of 45% approval with 42% of likely voters strongly disapproving of his performance as president.
Maybe a gala White House event will give him a boost.


Someone needs to be prosecuted for allowing Hasan to "practice medicine" on American soldiers. Mark Steyn: Fort Hood confidential

Imagine you're back from a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan. The Army assigns you a shrink who tries to convert you to Islam, and looks on his "counseling" sessions as war-crimes interrogations.

The U.S. military appears awfully close to having colluded in Major Hasan's abuse of his patients. But that's okay, it's not like they're Gitmo detainees or anything . . .

ABC News report here.


On healthcare reform, Joe says no to the public option:

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, speaking in that trademark sonorous baritone, utters a simple statement that translates into real trouble for Democratic leaders: "I'm going to be stubborn on this."

Stubborn, he means, in opposing any health-care overhaul that includes a "public option," or government-run health-insurance plan, as the current bill does. His opposition is strong enough that Mr. Lieberman says he won't vote to let a bill come to a final vote if a public option is included.

Probe for a catch or caveat in that opposition, and none is visible. Can he support a public option if states could opt out of the plan, as the current bill provides? "The answer is no," he says in an interview from his Senate office. "I feel very strongly about this." How about a trigger, a mechanism for including a public option along with a provision saying it won't be used unless private insurance plans aren't spreading coverage far and fast enough? No again.

Sen. Tom Coburn and Tevi Troy have suggestions on how to mend health care reform:
With unemployment numbers at 10.2%, it's not surprising that, by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans want Congress to focus on deficit reduction and economic recovery before tackling health reform. Yet, if the health bills currently in Congress were to pass, most Americans could see their economic situation decline further, and the unemployment situation would worsen. [. . .]

Congressional leaders aren't even attempting to solve this problem. Instead, they propose taxing businesses for not providing health insurance in a manner specified by Congress, even though the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said that "requiring employers to offer health insurance--or pay a fee if they do not--is likely to reduce employment." Independent experts agree.
For a graphic representation of the unsustainability of the Senate healthcare bill click here.


RS McCain reports on the ever-deepening IG-Gate scandal:

Sexual abuse accusations by St. HOPE Academy students against Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson were apparently covered up, possibly with "hush money," according to a 61-page report issued by congressional investigators.

Failure of school officials to report sexual abuse of minors violates California state law, investigative staff of Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) noted in their report on the June firing of AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin.

The allegations investigated by Walpin's office were "very serious," Grassley said in a statement, saying that evidence indicates a political motive for the IG's firing. "It seems a lot of people might have been interested in protecting the AmeriCorps program and the Mayor of Sacramento from an IG who was discovering some unpleasant facts."

Byron York of the Washington Examiner reported today that Obama administration officials tried to mislead the public about the reasons for the firing of Walpin. The Grassley-Issa report details how Walpin's IG staffers investigated charges that Johnson's lawyer and officials of the federally-funded St. HOPE program suppressed sexual-misconduct charges against the former NBA star who was elected mayor of California's capital city last year.

Mr. McCain adds:
Teenage girls? Sex abuse? Powerful politicians? “Hush money”? Dude, if that story’s not front-page news, I don’t know what is.
Maybe journalism schools now offer a special class in how to ignore huge but politically inconvenient stories.

Signs of the times:

Young adults return to nest
"The journey home for Thanksgiving won't be quite so far this year for many adults," said researchers Wendy Wang and Rich Morin, who wrote the report. "Instead of traveling across country or across town, many grown sons or daughters will be coming to dinner from their old bedroom down the hall."
Japanese man marries virtual 2D "girlfriend"
Last month, I wrote about a Japanese husband who confessed to his wife that he had a virtual girlfriend, a character from an addictive Nintendo DS game called Love Plus. Now, another man is planning to hold a wedding ceremony with his Love Plus girlfriend this coming Sunday. The man, who calls himself SAL9000, was so in love with Nene Anegasaki that he decided to marry her and take her on a honeymoon to Guam. Of course, this means that he literally just took his Nintendo DS to Guam...
h/t: Hot Air

Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy)

Most recent posts here.

November 23, 2009

The rebirth of Rom Houben

A tale for our time from the Daily Mail:

A car crash victim has spoken of the horror he endured for 23 years after he was misdiagnosed as being in a coma when he was conscious the whole time.

Rom Houben, trapped in his paralysed body after a car crash, described his real-life nightmare as he screamed to doctors that he could hear them - but could make no sound.

'I screamed, but there was nothing to hear,' said Mr Houben, now 46, who doctors thought was in a persistent vegatative state.

'I dreamed myself away,' he added, tapping his tale out with the aid of a computer. [. . .]

Doctors in Zolder, Belgium, used the internationally accepted Glasgow Coma Scale to assess his eye, verbal and motor responses. But each time he was graded incorrectly.

Only a re-evaluation of his case at the University of Liege discovered that he had lost control of his body but was still fully aware of what was happening. [. . .]

Mr Houben said: 'I shall never forget the day when they discovered what was truly wrong with me - it was my second birth.

'I want to read, talk with my friends via the computer and enjoy my life now that people know I am not dead.'

Dr Laureys's new study claims that patients classed as in a vegetative state are often misdiagnosed.

'Anyone who bears the stamp of "unconscious" just one time hardly ever gets rid of it again,' he said. [. . .]

'I want to read, talk with my friends via the computer and enjoy my life now that people know I am not dead.'

Please read the whole thing at the Daily Mail.

Then read Wesley Smith: Reason Not to Dehydrate: Man Speaking After 23 Years in Locked-In State

Excerpting, but read all of this, too:
We hear constantly that people diagnosed as being persistently unconscious should be dehydrated to death because they are not “persons,” or are actually “dead”–and so should be available for organ harvesting. We hear that even if the family resists, futile care theory should permit bioethics committees to impose unilateral withdrawal. And we hear this even as repeated studies demonstrate that 40 or more percent of patients diagnosed as PVS really aren’t.
Bottom line:
But there are abundant reasons to treat people with profound cognitive disabilities as fully human beings. First and foremost, because they are us. Second, because we don’t know enough about how the brain works to know that there won’t be some regeneration to permit eventual restoration of some function. But also, because there is always hope.

Houben is here today only because he wasn’t dehydrated to death. There is no doubt he went through a horrendous experience, but thanks to treating him as a fully equal human being by caring for him all those years and giving him tests late into his disability–explicitly refused to Terri Schiavo–he is here today to tell tale and live the rest of his life.

He's happy to be alive. Deo gratias.

Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy)

Most recent posts here.

Americans say NO to healthcare reform

But Congress isn't listening. Rasmussen:

Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.

Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.

Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.

Obama's numbers are stuck in negative territory:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13.

For the first time in the Obama Administration, the Approval Index has been in negative double digits for nine straight days.
Most recent posts here.

Clarity on Patrick Kennedy and Bishop Tobin

It appears that, contrary to what Patrick Kennedy has said, priests have not been instructed to withhold Holy Communion from him. Bishop Tobin privately requested that Kennedy refrain from receiving Communion way back in February 2007. Kennedy has chosen to make that public, and perhaps enhance the story, for purposes of his own.

CNN's senior Vatican analyst John Allen is as clueless as Kennedy on the meaning of this dispute:

Kennedy's decision to come forward "in effect puts the Catholic bishops in a negative light, because it ends up making them look intolerant," Allen said.

I sure hope so. The Church must not tolerate the willful destruction of innocent life, a.k.a. abortion. Catholic public officials who promote legalized abortion and distort Church teachings do real harm. CNN reports:

Tobin said Sunday only that he asked Kennedy not to take Communion.

"I have no desire to continue the discussion of Congressman Kennedy's spiritual life in public," he said. "At the same time, I will absolutely respond publicly and strongly whenever he attacks the Catholic Church, misrepresents the teachings of the church or issues inaccurate statements about my pastoral ministry."

In an October interview, Kennedy criticized the bishops for threatening to oppose the overall bill if it did not include those restrictions. That prompted Tobin to call Kennedy's position "unacceptable to the church and scandalous to many of our members."

But this is not really about politics. It's about what it means to be a Catholic. Bishop Tobin laid it out very clearly in his open letter of Nov. 12. Here's an excerpt, with Father Z's emphases retained and his comments in red:
For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” [If this were a matter of trying to find a solution to, say, illiteracy or third-world debt, or even about many other social issues, sure. But this is about abortion.] That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?

“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.

For example, the “Code of Canon Law” says, “Lay persons are bound by an obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with that doctrine.” (Canon 229, #1) [The key is "adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live…live...". The Congressman is clearly smart enough to understand the teaching. He has a very public condition with an eye to the common good. He has been instructed more than once. There is no way he doesn’t know what the Church teaches.]

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says this: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles, ‘He who hears you, hears me,’ the faithful receive with docility the teaching and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” (#87)

Or consider this statement of the Church: “It would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy exercised by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2002) [Very clear. You can’t separate your faith as a strictly "private" matter.]

There’s lots of canonical and theological verbiage there, Congressman, but what it means is that if you don’t accept the teachings of the Church your communion with the Church is flawed, or in your own words, makes you “less of a Catholic.

But let’s get down to a more practical question; let’s approach it this way: What does it mean, really, to be a Catholic? After all, being a Catholic has to mean something, right?

Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.
Read the rest if you're interested in this discussion. Find Father Z's most recent remarks here, more background from CMR here.

Most recent posts here.