Archive for January, 2007
Who Pays?
Tuesday, January 30th, 2007Back to the subject of defrauded men–men who did not father children, played the roll of father or at least sperm-donor–and are on the hook for child support whether they get custody or not (or want it or not) or share DNA or not.
Jeff Goldstein is the latest to post on this topic. It’s a regular discussion over at Dr. Helen’s. I’ve posted on it before here and here.
I will synthesize my position:
- Divorce is evil and destroys children.
- Cheating is evil and destroys marriage.
- The new paradigms for family present all kinds of moral problems and ultimately harm children.
- Any type of fraud is evil.
- Divorce law is inherently unfriendly to children. Separating a child from one of his parents by force causes grave consequences.
- Abortions are evil.
- Sperm donation is evil.
How’s that for no shade of gray? My ossified stance has come from observing how the nuances end up creating big problems like the one Jeff mentions where a woman cheated on her husband, got pregnant with twins from another man, lied to her husband when confronted, he raised them for five years, the marriage deteriorated, he took a DNA test, it ends up he’s not the father, and he is being forced to pay child-support for someone else’s genetic kids, but the kids were raised by him and believe he is their dad, and the mom has moved out of state with them.
Our society treats eggs and sperm and embryos and fetuses and children like they are nothing. Our society violates marriage vows, cheats and deceives without fear of consequence. These issues are dealt with legally and no thought is given to the morals of the situation.
Family law reveals a hard-hearted nation. It’s sickening. It might be legal, but most of it ain’t right.
Gaza Had Problems?
Tuesday, January 30th, 2007Why would the perfectly peaceful parcel of land near Israel need a cease-fire? I had no idea there were any difficulties in that region. Hmmm……. Hamas and Fatah don’t get along?
I’m being sarcastic, of course. But it really is amusing to see the hundreds of articles on the cease-fire, when it was difficult to find anything at all on the fighting.
Duke Rape Questions….La Shawn Barber Asks: Unnatural Selection on Both Side?–UPDATE
Monday, January 29th, 2007UPDATE: A profile in courage at Duke. Note to disgruntled white men who rightly consider themselves a persecuted minority: White women who stand for truth and justice and who don’t hold the party line receive the scorn and abuse you receive, too. There are good women out there. You need to find them–you might have to brave muscles and a lacrosse stick, though.
****************
LaShawn Barber asks some very important questions about the Duke Rape trial:
Readers, instead of ranting and raving about Mike Nifong or the stripper-accuser, let’s do a cold, hard reality check:
1) What was it about the Duke case that fired you up the most?
2) Aside from the Duke case, have you been following other cases in which people have been accused of committing a crime where the allegations are obviously phony, particularly where the accused was black? If so, tell us about those cases.
I have given my reasons for being so riled about this case in the past. You can read here and here.
But why this case? Why not other cases? I have my reasons and here they are:
- This case was hugely public and was a vehicle for typical Leftist narratives that I felt needed to be addressed. At one time in our history, the exact reverse was the case: blacks were brought up on trumped up charges, were victims of a society who rushed to judgment simply because of their race and gender, and were then victims of the judicial system. In addition, if they were, by some miracle pronounced not guilty, their reputations were destroyed. It was wrong then. It’s wrong now. Changing colors doesn’t change the crime.
- As a general rule, I feel that the legal system in America has made it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to be law-abiding. A prosecutor can bring charges against almost any person for any reason. There are so many laws, rules, regulations and fine print paragraphs that we are all potential victims of DA’s gone wild. If Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby, Tom DeLay and now these Duke kids can get rail-roaded are any of us safe? My concern is personal, too. I have a friend in Federal Prison for literally not properly filing paperwork with the government. The Prosecutor took an instant dislike to him and threw the book at him even though this man had led a pristine life to this point (there was also some Mafia involvement, I’m convinced, by a rival company–but that sounds weird and conspiratorial, I know, but it’s true). The legal system has gotten very good at punishing marginal rule breakers and letting true criminals get off with insanely small consequences. (Hello? How is it possible for a woman to drown her five kids and she gets off the hook by reason of insanity?) This legal inequity, this unchecked power makes me nervous for ALL people, and those who are poor or otherwise a minority have the MOST to lose with maniacal prosecutors. This trend must stop.
- I am concerned with anyone spending time in prison who doesn’t belong there. Now that DNA evidence exists, it is simply not an excuse that there aren’t enough tax dollars around to go back and look at cases. If a man can be exonerated of a crime, it must be pursued.
- When a crime occurs that is beyond the pale–boys near here just got put in prison for life for sodomizing a Hispanic boy with a umbrella pole–I’m outraged. The crime made me sick. Color has nothing to do with it. A few years back, a black man was dragged to death behind a pick-up by white men (I wasn’t blogging then). It was disgusting and vile. In both cases, though, the evidence was clear, the DAs were righteous, justice was swift and fair. There were no special interest groups defending nefarious behavior. These cases are rare, though. The majority of crimes are not white on black or white on Hispanic. The Caucasians don’t have a white O.J. Simpson. The majority of crimes are black on black. To a lesser extent, crimes are black on white. Where is the outrage? I have black friends who have been locked in fear their whole adult lives living in Detroit. That’s insanity! What are their political leaders doing for them? Nothing. The crime still exists and is excused because to criticize a “brother” is to bring a “brother” down. That is nonsense and harmful to ALL people and to the cause of justice.
- The Press made this case front and center. My worry is that there are more cases like this, black and white, that get no press whatsoever. This kind of injustice might be happening right now somewhere and no one knows about it. Had this case not made the national media, or had not made it into blogs like LaShawn’s, I might not have known about it. Another example is Harry Reid’s land dealings. Without the LA Times and bloggers, I’d know nothing of this case. I blog it because it’s notable.
Were this case reversed racially or gender-wise, and were it covered in the press or by bloggers, I’d write about it. I want constrained DAs. I want fair trials. I want convicted criminals. I want just sentencing. I want safe prisons. I want the presumption of innocence for all people white or black. And I want the press to be more curious in murky cases like this.
This case was too fraught, too convoluted and too political from the beginning. Every assumption that could be made was made in the Duke Rape case. Mike Nifong, the Duke University professors and leadership and Leftist elites including the press bought the shaky grounds of this story without question. This is a problem for all Americans. That is why I won’t let go of this case.
And just to add this, I’m 100% against no-knock raids.
I.Q. And Success
Monday, January 29th, 2007Intelligence and it’s affect on culture is one of the scientific “unspeakables”. It’s just not politically correct to acknowledge the scale of smart to less-than-smart even though most people know that the I.Q. scale mean is 100–meaning that half the population is above this mark and half below.
I.Q. understanding is vital to me personally because my high-functioning autistic son is on the receiving end of different I.Q. analysis. The results mean everything for his classroom placement, curriculum choices and life-course. He has been pegged as everything from mentally retarded to above average depending on the testing situation and the assessment tool used. Guess where my husband and I view may son? Guess where the school puts him?
My mom sent me a series in the Wall Street Journal about I.Q. and future individual and societal impact of giftedness. Several great points were made including:
- Why must all kids go to college when only about 10-25% max of college students will benefit from this education?
- Why aren’t the skilled trades more emphasized when a skilled worker can own his or her own business, make over one hundred thousand a year and have the satisfaction of creation?
- Why do employers look for a degree in jobs that don’t need it? I wondered this myself when a friend told me that his construction company won’t hire a foreman unless he has a college degree. My question was why?
- Why is so little invested in the gifted?
- Why aren’t the gifted challenged more to show their areas of weakness introducing humility into their education? (This humility came for me in spades in chiropractic college. Biochemistry–the subject and the barely intelligible Egyptian teacher who taught it–nearly undid my future. I got a gentle-woman’s “C” and was happy to receive it, thank you very much.)
- Why isn’t the notion of obligation to those less intelligence-endowed introduced to gifted students? I’m not sure about this needing to be sanctioned. The Honor’s Society in High School, the School Senate, and college elite social groups tend to emphasize community service. Well, at least mine did.
I think the over-emphasis on college education is silly. Some kids simply aren’t cut out for that road and shouldn’t be penalized because of it. Parents should recalibrate their expectations. For example, should my son (whose I.Q. is the subject of dispute) end up “average”, I may encourage him into a business where he can succeed, be financially independent and not need college.
Family friends did just this with their daughter who had struggled through High School. She went to college, cried many tears of frustration and finally shared her dream of owning a hair salon. Guess what? They put her in beauty school and the rest is success history. They were wise enough to allow her to follow a path to success not to frustration.
When ten percent have I.Q.s above 125, which is generally considered the cut-off for success as a doctor, lawyer, CEO, engineer, etc., and 90% don’t, two things must happen:
One, the 90% shouldn’t be shamed for finding alternative educational opportunities. These alternatives (two year trade schools, trade certifications, etc.) should be encouraged. Employers should look for certifications instead of degrees. One of the benefits of the industrial revolution is that an average person got to participate in the creation of something great. Maybe a guy couldn’t make a whole car, but he could turn a wrench and have the satisfaction of participating in creating something important and exciting. To me, home building (framing, foundation, dry-wallers, etc.) falls into this category. These people always whistle while they work. It’s fun creating something and using a skill to do it.
Two, the 10% should be challenged far more and invested in heavily. I know a guy with an IQ easily over 160 who runs a metal-works plant. His boss is lucky to have such genius working for him for so little. Society, however, is missing out. He had a full-ride to a college out of high school, screwed up and got lost for a few years. Guys like him need to be found, educated and put to work applying their gifts. I’m not sure how this could be done, but I do wonder why a college willing to educate this man at one point, wouldn’t give him another shot when he gets his act together.
I.Q. needs to come out of the cultural closet. America risks too much wasted talent, if it stays in there.
Haifa Street in Baghdad
Monday, January 29th, 2007Via Laura at Ace, this nice footage of the “surge”, or is it pre-surge? Whatever, it’s a typical battle and it ends nice, too.
Yoga and Christianity
Monday, January 29th, 2007I have joked with patients that if everyone exercised with Yoga, no one would need Chiropractors. Of course, that is not entirely true, since we have worked with out-of-whack yoga practitioners, too. Just goes to show, you can even overdo a good thing.
Yoga is a physical practice tied into Hindu teachings. In it’s pure form, adherents use Yoga as a religious practice seeking enlightenment. In it’s Americanized forms, most people are just trying to calm down and stretch out and get fit.
A controversy around Yoga in the public schools has developed. Christian Fundamentalists say Yoga introduces Eastern mysticism and the associated religious practices. Even secularists say Yoga practice in schools violates the separation of church and state. Gym teachers and principals say it calms hyper kids down and helps all children focus for tests.
First, to address the church and state arguments. This argument makes me crazy because it’s so intellectually ignorant. Until and unless, the United States government makes Hinduism the U.S. religion, there is no violation of church and state. No child is being told she must bow down to Krishna, or else. Likewise, during a moment of silence or prayer during school, no child has to pray to God or anyone else. In fact, the notion of “separation of church and state” does not exist in our constitution as such. God and His tenets in the Bible were the clear foundation for the constitution, but no state religion was defined. However, should an individual state want to declare a state religion, the constitution did allow for that. So, practicing yoga in an elementary school is in no way a violation of church and state.
The problem of course, is that since yoga is part of a religious practice, and since the schools are so biased against Christian thought and practice, it is offensive that it is taught without question while all things Christian are not allowed. This is another issue altogether. Part of the ignorance in public schools is the lack of knowledge about America’s Judeo-Christian heritage–which should also be taught. You can’t rightly understand the Puritans and Thanksgiving without a fundamental understanding of religious freedom from what. But schools attempt to do that every year. Teaching about this history does not force a child to become Puritan. There is no violation of church and state. These kinds of educational omissions must be corrected for children to fully understand our history.
Second, would a child be lead to Hinduism through doing yoga poses in gym class? It’s possible, I suppose. The teacher would have to be telling the students the spiritual goal of each pose, though. That would require some education and I feel fairly confident that most, if not all, teachers wouldn’t take the extra step to actually do that. I’m guessing that it would be taught as physical exercise like basketball.
Finally, as irritated as I am about the anti-Christian bias so pervasive in America public education today, eliminating yoga for this reason seems silly. Yoga has so many health benefits both physical and mental, that I think it’s a great set of tools for kids to learn.
- Breath control–This one element of yoga could help so many Americans dealing with high blood pressure (or they can spend a chunk of money to learn this way). Herbert Benson, MD’s book is a classic in this regard. Worried kids learning to control their breathing would be on their way to learning a very fundamental way to help their health in stressful situations.
- Flexibility–As people age, the problem isn’t loss of strength so much as loss of flexibility. Yoga is an exercise regimen that can be continued into old age to reduce this problem.
- Focus–When twisting your body into a pretzel, it is difficult for your mind to wonder to your next worry. In a sense, the brain gets time to rest during yoga. This is an excellent tool for children and adults in this frenzied world. I note that I can think, think, think, in rhythm when running (or walking, now), but during yoga poses, forget it! Constantly worrying that I might crumple in an unbalanced heap, keeps my mind focused. This is a good thing.
- Burning calories–Yoga burns calories in a joint-friendly way. So many sports kids and adults indulge in will ultimately cause severe wear and tear eventually making all physical activity difficult. Not yoga. Certain kinds are almost aerobic while sparing the joints.
- Strengthening–Yoga does more for core strength than just about any other workout besides Pilates. In fact, all athletes serious about body balance would do well to add yoga to their regimen. Most sports develop certain sets of muscles to the exclusion of others, causing imbalances that lead to injury. Yoga can mediate that.
There are a long list of reasons that yoga stripped of it’s mysticism can be a benefit to children. My kids watch my husband and I get in poses. They call it “exercise”. And that’s what it is for us and them.
And when we get out our Bibles, and put on our dress-up clothes and listen to a sermon, they call it church. That is where they find religion.
And as my kids get older, they’ll learn about Hinduism, along with Islam, Buddhism, and all the other myriad religions out there. There are as many reasons we don’t practice these religions as there are religions and we’ll teach our kids as many as we can. We want them to believe God and His Son Jesus Christ. We have lots of very good reasons for teaching them to be Christians.
We also have good reasons to exercise using yoga.
Hillary Clinton
Monday, January 29th, 2007You know, I really thought the Left would be more subtle about their aspirations for Iraq–namely, that America is out win or lose, by the election, so they don’t have to make any grown-up decisions. They reveal their infantilism if they say this straight out, so I thought, so I figured they would be subtle and deceptive thus the non-binding resolutions.
I was wrong.
Today, Hillary Clinton just plain said what the Democrats want–to run the Presidency, but more importantly to run their candidacy without having to deal with Iraq. (Of course, no matter the outcome in Iraq, future Presidents will have to deal with Iraq and all of the Middle East. A Democrat in the White House won’t magic it away, no matter how much they wish it.) She says:
“I am going to level with you, the president has said this is going to be left to his successor,” Clinton said. “I think it is the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it.”
Bush describes Iraq as the central front in the global fight against terrorism that began after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “The war on terror will be a problem for the next president. Presidents after me will be confronting … an enemy that would like to strike the United States again,” he recently told USA Today.
I don’t know why these people still shock me, but they do. And some think Hillary will be the New Iron Lady? And some think the only way Democrats will take Terrorism seriously will be to control the Presidency and Congress?
Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. If the Democrats have proven anything, it’s that they simply won’t be serious about any real threat America and the world faces. They aren’t based in reality and can’t be bothered with the truth.
Drug Legalization
Sunday, January 28th, 2007One reason why I have libertarian leanings but don’t consider myself libertarian is that libertarianism would make all sorts of things legal that wouldn’t be helpful to society. Legalized drugs is one of those things.
John Hawkins writes a superb essay about this:
That’s what happened when alcohol was made illegal. However, on the other hand, if we make drugs legal, safer, easier to obtain, more societally accepted, and some people say even cheaper as well, there would almost have to be an enormous spike in usage.
Certainly that’s what happened in the Netherlands where “consumption of marijuana…nearly tripled from 15 to 44% among 18-20 year olds” after the drug was legalized.
But, some people may say, “so what if drug usage does explode? They’re not hurting anyone but themselves.” That might be true in a purely capitalistic society, but in the sort of welfare state that we have in this country, the rest of us would end up paying a significant share of the bills of people who don’t hold jobs or end up strung out in the hospital without jobs — and that’s even if you forget about the thugs who’d end up robbing our houses to get things to pawn to buy more drugs. Even setting that aside, we make laws that prevent people from harming themselves all the time in our society. In many states there are helmet laws, laws that require us to wear seatbelts, laws against prostitution, and it’s even illegal to commit suicide. So banning harmful drugs is just par for the course.
And make no mistake about it, drugs do wreck a lot of lives. Of course drugs aren’t the only things that wreck lives and not every person who does drugs ends up as a crackhead burglar or a dirty bum living in an alley. Heck, Barack Obama, a man some people would like to see as our next President has used cocaine — and doesn’t it seem like every few weeks we read about another celebrity who comes out of rehab and goes on to have a successful career?
One of my patients, a meth addict mother of three, said, “But I’m not hurting anyone.” I’ve also heard this from countless marijuana users.
My response has always been the same, “But who are the drugs helping?”
Drug use is essentially a selfish pursuit. The high is an end around on real, concrete accomplishment. Abraham Maslow writes about this extensively. When people create artificial peak experiences, they cease to have the motivation to create real peak experiences. The real peak experiences require work, time, and focus. They may be harder to obtain but there are no side affects and society benefits.
I have not seen one person who benefited society because of their drug use. I’m interested in people reaching their potential. Too much emphasis has been placed on the “I’m not hurting anyone” meme. The loss of accomplishment and productivity is a valid reason to keep illicit drugs illegal. When people use, even marijuana, they dull their capabilities. Most users while in the haze and high believe they are smarter, funnier, more creative, but come out the other side stunned by their better production when sober.
