Prager's show, where I live, comes in the middle of the afternoon and exhausts the 2PM to 5PM time slot. I've been out looking for work and looking for lodging and it has kept me rather busy and unable to post. I've been just busy enough that the show that comes on at midnight my time (WIND in Chicago) is beyond my reach, as I keep falling asleep at 10 or 11.
I'll be back soon.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Male/female hour
I don't comment on this hour every week. I feel I'm handicapped. I'm a woman whose thinking is in the left brain, unlike the majority of women, who are right-brained.
Barbara De Angelis, in her book Secrets About Men Every Woman Should Know, said that couples should start by asking themselves, "Do you want to be respected for your thoughts or cherished for your feelings?" and that 90% of men answer "respected for my thoughts" and the same percentage of women answer, "cherished for my feelings."
I'm not sure what that has to do with thinking. Years ago I was astonished when a fiftyish man told me, "men think logically, women use their feelings." It seemed so alien to me, having been a university fmeinist, to hear a man admit to such a prejudicial over-generalization. Eventually, though, I actually took a second look at the women I knew. Some of them seemed to be analytical and logical. The rest seemed to be ... "emotional" is too simplistic. But many of them certainly were counter-logical.
There is a reason why women don't become car mechanics at the same rate men do. Our feminists thought the answer was more counseling for girls--in other words, put pressure on them to become chemists, mathematicians, and mechanics, whether they want to or not. One of my roommates, though, has never once bent down to see what that tube in the dishwasher is for, and so she keeps covering it up because it seems to be a nice bowl holder. In fact it's the pipe that delivers water to the upper fan blade and MUST be left free. She's not just an idiot, she's a female who won't deal with a machine on ITS terms.
I can't explain it. Sadly, I also can't relate to it. The upshot is that I have a very hard time relating to most women. Prager has criticized women who don't have at least a few female friends. I'm one of them.
Barbara De Angelis, in her book Secrets About Men Every Woman Should Know, said that couples should start by asking themselves, "Do you want to be respected for your thoughts or cherished for your feelings?" and that 90% of men answer "respected for my thoughts" and the same percentage of women answer, "cherished for my feelings."
I'm not sure what that has to do with thinking. Years ago I was astonished when a fiftyish man told me, "men think logically, women use their feelings." It seemed so alien to me, having been a university fmeinist, to hear a man admit to such a prejudicial over-generalization. Eventually, though, I actually took a second look at the women I knew. Some of them seemed to be analytical and logical. The rest seemed to be ... "emotional" is too simplistic. But many of them certainly were counter-logical.
There is a reason why women don't become car mechanics at the same rate men do. Our feminists thought the answer was more counseling for girls--in other words, put pressure on them to become chemists, mathematicians, and mechanics, whether they want to or not. One of my roommates, though, has never once bent down to see what that tube in the dishwasher is for, and so she keeps covering it up because it seems to be a nice bowl holder. In fact it's the pipe that delivers water to the upper fan blade and MUST be left free. She's not just an idiot, she's a female who won't deal with a machine on ITS terms.
I can't explain it. Sadly, I also can't relate to it. The upshot is that I have a very hard time relating to most women. Prager has criticized women who don't have at least a few female friends. I'm one of them.
ACLU and students' freedom of speech
Yes, well, students are allowed only some freedoms of speech.
If the speech offends the left, it's bad and it's okay to ban it.
If the speech offends the right or offends Christians, that's fine.
"Big Pecker" written on a teeshirt is nearly guaranteed to offend a conservative and would never offend a liberal, so it's protected. However, "Jesus loves you" or "Your Che shirt sucks" will offend liberals on principle, and if the ACLU themselves don't act to sue the school that allows those sayings, it will at least refuse to take a case to defend a kid's right to put up pictures of six-month-old fetuses on the "student issues" bulletin board.
If you don't believe me, please post three examples of the ACLU taking such cases and disprove my assertion that they don't.
Jay Sekulow is a lawyer who runs an organization called the ACLJ and has a radio program during which he takes calls from families about their problems with government violating their rights unequally. Very often they will tell him "We called the ACLU about our kid getting expelled for taking a Bible to school but they refused to help us. They told us, 'We don't take Christian cases.' Can you help us?"
Sekulow had opposed the ACLU before the Supreme Court something like 55 times, or maybe it was 85 times--I haven't listened to his show in years and am telling you in advance that I don't remember the number--before he lost a decision.
On the other hand, I am aware of hundreds of "Protect this atheist student's/Muslim student's/foreign student's rights" that the ACLU has handled. Are they really interested in human rights, or are they only interested in certain rights?
If the speech offends the left, it's bad and it's okay to ban it.
If the speech offends the right or offends Christians, that's fine.
"Big Pecker" written on a teeshirt is nearly guaranteed to offend a conservative and would never offend a liberal, so it's protected. However, "Jesus loves you" or "Your Che shirt sucks" will offend liberals on principle, and if the ACLU themselves don't act to sue the school that allows those sayings, it will at least refuse to take a case to defend a kid's right to put up pictures of six-month-old fetuses on the "student issues" bulletin board.
If you don't believe me, please post three examples of the ACLU taking such cases and disprove my assertion that they don't.
Jay Sekulow is a lawyer who runs an organization called the ACLJ and has a radio program during which he takes calls from families about their problems with government violating their rights unequally. Very often they will tell him "We called the ACLU about our kid getting expelled for taking a Bible to school but they refused to help us. They told us, 'We don't take Christian cases.' Can you help us?"
Sekulow had opposed the ACLU before the Supreme Court something like 55 times, or maybe it was 85 times--I haven't listened to his show in years and am telling you in advance that I don't remember the number--before he lost a decision.
On the other hand, I am aware of hundreds of "Protect this atheist student's/Muslim student's/foreign student's rights" that the ACLU has handled. Are they really interested in human rights, or are they only interested in certain rights?
Prager: "Isn't it odd how the leftwing media are always referring to him as "The Prophet Mohammed" all the time?
And here's where the reality check comes in. Would they speak of "Brother Simon as a follower of the Savior Jesus Christ"? The very idea is laughable.
When the Dalai Lama came to the U.S. we heard him ALWAYS referred to as "His Holiness, the Dalai Lama" but just a couple of months later, when The Pope came here--and yes, he is properly referred to as "His Holiness The Pope", I heard NOT ONE "His Holiness" in reference to him.
Why do you suppose we didn't?
When the Dalai Lama came to the U.S. we heard him ALWAYS referred to as "His Holiness, the Dalai Lama" but just a couple of months later, when The Pope came here--and yes, he is properly referred to as "His Holiness The Pope", I heard NOT ONE "His Holiness" in reference to him.
Why do you suppose we didn't?
The Islamic bloc is going to push legislation to ban insulting religions.
One of the reality checks I give issues is to turn them around and see how it flies when it acts against the people who are supporting or banning or proposing or opposing something.
"When a kid wears a cross on a necklace to school, it might hurt a Muslim kid's feelings, so let's ban it."
"Flying flags on local buildings might hurt an immigrant's feelings, let's ban it."
"Speaking only English in American schools would make Mexican (or "Spanish-speaking") children feel like they don't belong, so we have to add their language too."
Okay, so we just ask ourselves what happens when a Muslim kid wears something to school and a Christian gets offended at it? We have polidies in place for that already. It's called, "Suck it up" or "Learn to stand it," and we make no special policies for the Christian kid, ever.
As for the flag--what do we say when an American kid moves to Belgium and sees a Belgian flag and gets offended? Actually, I think we spank the American kid for having the unmitigated balls to get offended over un Belgique flying his own flag in his own country. But that usually doesn't come up because Belgians and Nederlanders and les Francais aren't as proud of their countries as Americans are of theirs and you don't see 1/10 as many flags flying in Europe as you do in America.
What about the language thing? Well, what happens when an American kid goes to Ukraine and starts school there? They have English class, sure, but they sure don't try to turn their educational system upside down by teaching in English and Ukrainian both.
This latter issue is special and separate. I have discussed it here before. The bilingual ed program wasn't really bilingual and it did a terrible job of teaching a second language to anyone. As a reader of twelve different languages, I'm not at all opposed to teaching second and even sixth languages in school, but the program California had in place wasn't the way to do it.
But the principle applies.
"When a kid wears a cross on a necklace to school, it might hurt a Muslim kid's feelings, so let's ban it."
"Flying flags on local buildings might hurt an immigrant's feelings, let's ban it."
"Speaking only English in American schools would make Mexican (or "Spanish-speaking") children feel like they don't belong, so we have to add their language too."
Okay, so we just ask ourselves what happens when a Muslim kid wears something to school and a Christian gets offended at it? We have polidies in place for that already. It's called, "Suck it up" or "Learn to stand it," and we make no special policies for the Christian kid, ever.
As for the flag--what do we say when an American kid moves to Belgium and sees a Belgian flag and gets offended? Actually, I think we spank the American kid for having the unmitigated balls to get offended over un Belgique flying his own flag in his own country. But that usually doesn't come up because Belgians and Nederlanders and les Francais aren't as proud of their countries as Americans are of theirs and you don't see 1/10 as many flags flying in Europe as you do in America.
What about the language thing? Well, what happens when an American kid goes to Ukraine and starts school there? They have English class, sure, but they sure don't try to turn their educational system upside down by teaching in English and Ukrainian both.
This latter issue is special and separate. I have discussed it here before. The bilingual ed program wasn't really bilingual and it did a terrible job of teaching a second language to anyone. As a reader of twelve different languages, I'm not at all opposed to teaching second and even sixth languages in school, but the program California had in place wasn't the way to do it.
But the principle applies.
Prager: "If a Republican President did this he'd be called a dictator."
It was the issue of Obama's refusing to enforce a federal law because he didn't agree with it. We're talking about DOMA.
My response to Prager's above comment is, "One did, and yes, he was called a dictator." I can't tell you how many times I heard Bush called a dictator, though I would have to say the number and degree of his usurpations of power were fewer and lesser than Obama's. Nah, I'm not going to dig up a list of either man's purported offenses; I haven't been keeping a list so I can't count the crimes. But let me just say, I don't recall Bush ever telling the press, "I won. Get over it."
My response to Prager's above comment is, "One did, and yes, he was called a dictator." I can't tell you how many times I heard Bush called a dictator, though I would have to say the number and degree of his usurpations of power were fewer and lesser than Obama's. Nah, I'm not going to dig up a list of either man's purported offenses; I haven't been keeping a list so I can't count the crimes. But let me just say, I don't recall Bush ever telling the press, "I won. Get over it."
Prager: "When Christians are slaughtered, no one gives a damn."
He's referring to genocides in places like Ethiopia and Eritrea.
It's true that American reporters and usually European reporters don't report on this issue. They didn't report when Muslims moved into the Balkans and started killing Christians there, either, but they sure got busy when the Christians were able to reverse the slaughter after several decades and start killing the Muslims by camping in the hills and taking pot shots at the people they had legally disarmed and who, as Time magazine reported, couldn't defend themselves by shooting back.*
But there is one group that does indeed care, and they care very much. It's American Christians. Groups like Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America often discuss these events on their radio programs, without which the rest of us would have no idea that these genocides are going on. I don't think these people are "nobody" but if by "nobody cares" you mean "the mainstream public shrugs and blows it off" you're quite right.
*This was one of two very serious issues that stripped me of my pacifist pretentions and helped me to understand the point in owning a rifle or pistol that wasn't for sport hunting.
It's true that American reporters and usually European reporters don't report on this issue. They didn't report when Muslims moved into the Balkans and started killing Christians there, either, but they sure got busy when the Christians were able to reverse the slaughter after several decades and start killing the Muslims by camping in the hills and taking pot shots at the people they had legally disarmed and who, as Time magazine reported, couldn't defend themselves by shooting back.*
But there is one group that does indeed care, and they care very much. It's American Christians. Groups like Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America often discuss these events on their radio programs, without which the rest of us would have no idea that these genocides are going on. I don't think these people are "nobody" but if by "nobody cares" you mean "the mainstream public shrugs and blows it off" you're quite right.
*This was one of two very serious issues that stripped me of my pacifist pretentions and helped me to understand the point in owning a rifle or pistol that wasn't for sport hunting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)