Tuesday, June 30, 2009

The Substance and Evidence That is True Faith


What is faith? A direct answer has been provided for us in the 11th chapter of the book of Hebrews. This one book of the Bible provides in its forty relatively short verses an exact meaning, and some definitive examples of this often misunderstood and often undervalued spiritual principle.

Hebrews begins with the definition, that "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." But it does not leave us there with no direction as to where this quality originated, or with no practical examples that highlight the simple definition of faith.

It is the 'substance' of things hoped, their very essence or foundation. Without a solid foundation, a structure or a system, or a person, will crumble. Faith is the substance of every good thing that we wish for ourselves and those we love. With faith, the achievement of all our dreams and goals is made possible.

It is the 'evidence' of things not seen. We cannot 'see' the being of God. We cannot look into His eyes. His arms do not wrap around us in a hug that we can feel. But when we have faith, we are actually aware of His loving presence in our daily lives. During our best of good times, our most difficult periods of challenge, and during our most awful of tragedies we experience that we are never alone.

In the book of Hebrews we receive numerous examples of men and women who entrusted their faith in God and were rewarded. Noah in preparing the ark and its inhabitants while the sun shone. Abraham in his willingness to offer up his only son as a sacrifice in the belief that God would raise him or have a greater plan. Moses in choosing the truth of his Hebrew background over an adopted Roman one when confronted with a future filled with likely persecution.

Faith, it turns out, comes directly from God. "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." God created everything that is now, ever has been, and ever will be in existence. We can know this intellectually, without recourse to blind faith. Common sense in understanding visible and theoretical science points us to the signature of our Creator. Faith helps fill in the blanks and answer the questions.

God did not leave us photographs or video of his creation, but He did inspire our ancestors' words and visions to be left to us in the Bible. He did impart in us an intellect and critical thinking ability. And more importantly, He sent His Son to us to teach us directly. Jesus Christ let us know through His teaching that we "need only have faith as small as a grain of mustard seed, and we can say to a mountain "move from here to there", and it will move."

In Romans 10:17, Paul imparts to us that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." This gives us practical instruction that we can gain and strengthen our faith by listening to God and the teaching of Jesus Christ, who emphasized this act of listening many times during his public ministry.

Read up on God's word, on Jesus' teachings. Perhaps just as importantly, listen to them. Go to church and hear His words spoken, His lessons taught, and share the experience with others. Remember what Jesus said, that "wherever two or more are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them." Your faith will be affirmed in His truth, the truth which truly shall set you free.

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Up With Hope, Down With Dopes


No matter what our specific backgrounds, we all pretty much have at least one thing in common: we were all once young and dumb. As teenagers we began to become aware of the larger world outside of ourselves and to develop our own opinions on the matters involving that world. Then we develop further into young adults, and begin to make decisions that affect our lives in vitally important ways.

Unfortunately for many young people those opinions are developed, and those decisions made, with incomplete or downright bad information. Teachers who indoctrinate students in their own social values rather than actually teach subject matter, culturally biased news and entertainment media, and parents who are either unplugged or not there at all all contribute to this phenomenon.

The one person who has most importantly been removed from many youths lives these days is the single most important person that they actually need to be influenced by: Jesus Christ. Some young people are so turned off by Christian influence that they cringe at the very name of Christ. It becomes an immediate wall-builder and conversation-killer to even raise His name.

The reason is very easy to understand. When you are not properly raised in the Truth of Jesus Christ and His teachings, and are not strongly guided through those key developmental years by parents who are believers, when you are not surrounded by friends and teachers who are also raised with a Christian influence, this often leads to a me-first attitude.

I know best. I can figure it out for myself. I am my own rock. I don't have to answer to anyone but my own conscience. In the lives of people who do not operate from a Christ-centered base, there is a lot of "I", "me" and "my" in their thinking and their conversations. This ego-driven approach then dominates their opinions and decisions.

So many people wander through life from one personal tragedy to another, always finding themselves involved in yet another negative drama, some so bad that they find themselves immersed deeply and constantly in states of depression and despair. They always seem to make the wrong decisions when surrounding themselves with other people as well, a sort of magnet for bad influences.

This is all for one simple reason: they refuse to open themselves to the love and hope that can ultimately only be found in Jesus Christ. "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" as it was said by Christ Himself. There truly is someone out there who is available to everyone who wishes to embrace Him as brother and friend, and who will never, ever let you down.

Find that you just aren't getting ahead? That you keep getting hurt by the people around you? That you find a lack of overall purpose in your life? You're not alone, there are many of you out there. You can eliminate the negative people, music, and other influences. eliminate these dopes to raise your hope level. To paraphrase from one of my favorite songs, you can call His name every day, and rise above this now.

NOTE: This post is the continuation of the 'Sunday Sermon' series, all entries of which can be viewed by clicking on that below label.

Friday, June 26, 2009

R.I.P. Michael Jackson (and Farrah)


I'm going to start this post with a plain statement: I don't believe that Michael Jackson was a pedophile at all. I don't believe that he ever had any type of inappropriate sexual relations with any child whatsoever. And I hope that the man, who I do believe was a tortured soul thanks to a traumatic upbringing, is finally at peace now in God's glorious heaven.

Michael Jackson, the 'King of Pop' and a true American cultural icon, died yesterday at the age of 50 of what is believed to have been cardiac arrest. Those who saw him in recent months have reported that he looked skeletal, emaciated, and unhealthy. A fan who got to watch him on Monday in training for a hoped-for comeback tour said that she thought "he could die."

Michael lived a life mixed with blessings and curses. He was blessed with phenomenal gifts in his natural talents for singing and dancing. Unfortunately, these very gifts led to the curse of his father's abuse. The elder Jackson unmercifully whipped and beat him as a young boy in a misguided effort to push him to stardom. His father's abuse, emotional and verbal as well as physical, would reverberate through the entirety of his life.

I remember as a young boy watching television cartoons of Michael and his brothers, their singing and dancing, and hearing their songs performed as the 'Jackson Five'. Hits that he recorded both with the group and in his solo efforts in those 1970's days included "ABC", "I Want You Back", "Rockin' Robin", "Ben", "Dancin' Machine", and the gorgeous "Got to be There" as AM radio staples of my youth.

In the 1980's, Jackson's solo career truly took off into another stratosphere. His emergence as a young adult solo artist, combined with his talents for dancing, made him a natural leader in the emerging video music industry being pioneered by the folks at MTV. His albums "Off the Wall", "Thriller", and "Bad" made him the biggest act on earth. "Thriller" remains the biggest-selling record in history to this date.

Jackson was involved in charitable efforts far too numerous to completely mention, but one of the highlights was his leadership along with Lionel Richie in the "We Are the World" song and video to raise money for battling hunger in Africa.

He moved into the 90's still on top of the world with a Super Bowl performance, and recognition from President George H.W. Bush as the "Entertainer of the Decade" for the 80's. But he also began to come under increased scrutiny from tabloid newspapers who reported on the bizarre (buying the bones of the 'Elephant Man') to the sublime (he slept in a hyperbolic chamber) to the ridiculous (a marriage to Priscilla Presley) to the criminal (child molestation charges.)

The scandalous child sex charges were either settled out of or dismissed in court, with the father of one 13-year old boy being caught on tape saying "If I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever...Michael's career will be over." At every court proceeding he ever attended, Michael's friends and family members were there fully supporting him, and he was never convicted on any of these charges in any incident. But as with most anyone who ever faces these types of charges publicly, he was never able to overcome their stigma.

Michael's life began to deteriorate as he battled physical ailments with vitilio and lupus, the eating disorder anorexia, and body dismporphic disorder. Through all this, he was able to become the father of three children: Michael Joseph 'Prince' Jackson, Jr (son) and Paris Michael Katherine Jackson (daughter) with Debbie Rowe, and Prince Michael 'Blanket' Jackson II who he said was conceived through a surrogate via artificial insemination.

Michael Jackson was absolutely a lightening rod for controversy, some of it of his own doing, as when he hung 'Blanket' by one arm from a hotel balcony, and some of it imagined or exaggerated by the media. He was also a victim of child abuse, and of a lifetime of physical ailments that not only contributed to, but directly caused his personal deterioration.

Michael Jackson was also one of the greatest entertainment talents in human history. His dance movements such as the "Moonwalk" are legendary, the stuff that has been admired and copied by professionals and amateurs for decades now. His alternating strong and sensitive voice has recorded dozens and dozens of hit songs, including peak-of-career hits like "Billie Jean", "Black and White", "Man in the Mirror", "Smooth Criminal", "I Wanna Rock With You", "You Are Not Alone", "Beat It", "Rock With You", and many others.

Jackson will be remembered for generations to come as one of the greatest entertainers of all-time, but amazingly he was not the only big celebrity to pass away yesterday. Farrah Fawcett, the beautiful blond bombshell who burst onto the scene in the mid-1970's with the original television series "Charlie's Angels", passed away after a lengthy battle with cancer. She was just 62 years of age, joining the 50-year old Jackson as stars taken long before their time. May they both rest in peace.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Where Will You Be When the Missiles Drop?


During his State of the Union address back in January of 2002, President George W. Bush famously called the nations of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea an "Axis of Evil", criticizing nations that sponsored terrorism and were seeking weapons of mass destruction. Liberals everywhere, and especially their cheer leading media, called Bush a war monger and a liar, among other choice names.

Sitting here over seven years later, we understand far better that President Bush was in actuality simply a truth teller.

At the time of Bush's speech, former Iraqi leader Sadaam Hussein was still in power. He had already shown his propensity for evil and terror by using weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He tortured political enemies, and his sons used 'rape rooms' to satisfy their own lusts and to further punish political enemies. Thankfully, the United States acted to rid the world of this evil power structure.

In Iran, a crazed President came to power under with the blessing of the Islamic religious leadership. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad began to assail the United States with threats of destruction and domination by Islam and accelerated Iranian efforts to develop or otherwise obtain nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapon in the hands of a fundamentalist Islamic regime will mean devastating war at some point in the near future. They are simply that crazy.

For years, as the U.S. took the first steps against that 'Axis of Evil' by destroying and dismantling the repressive Iraqi power structure and installing the beginnings of a nascent democracy, and while we kept up pressure on Iran to change course of its own volition, we pretty much turned a blind eye towards North Korea. Oh, there were statements made, and back channel discussions held, but nothing concrete.

So what have the North Koreans done during that time under the direction of their crazed, despotic ruler Kim Jong Il (pictured)? They have aggressively pursued a nuclear weapons and missile strategy, warning western nations not to interfere, and now have nuclear weapons and are developing the missile systems necessary to deliver them against their enemies.

For the past few days, the USS John McCain, a Navy destroyer, has been tailing a Korean ship named the Kang Nam, off the Chinese coast. The reason is that this ship has been found to transport illegal goods in the past. Korea stated on Wednesday that if the U.S. intercepted the ship, they would consider it an act of war: "If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and people of Korea will...wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all."

Very soon, the U.S. leadership under President Barack Obama is going to be faced with the choice of confronting North Korea militarily, or facing a world where a hostile dictatorial regime has nuclear weapons capable of wiping out American cities. Will Obama try to talk while the North Koreans build missiles and bombs? Will America become like Europe, issuing strongly worded statements, with nothing to back them up? Will he fiddle while Rome burns?

It turns out that President Bush was not lying about these aggressive regimes after all. Maybe we can just allow as many nations that wish to do so to build nuclear bombs and missiles, right? After all, who are we to tell other countries what they can and cannot do? How arrogant, right? As long as we are nice to them, they won't bother us, right? If only the world had been nicer to Adolf Hitler, right?

Peace comes through one thing, and one thing only: strength. If you have it, but show that you are unwilling to use it, then you may as well not have it at all. Now many have voted for Obama to get us out and keep us out of military conflict. So perhaps if you're a liberal who voted for him, the more important question that you should be asking yourself is, where will you be when the missiles drop?

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Express 'Em If You Got 'Em


There is an old saying that usually comes into play when some group, often a military platoon, is about to take advantage of a brief lull before some important, heated, restrictive battle: "Smoke 'em if you got 'em" is how it goes. It relates to cigarettes, and the idea that if you are going to want one, now is the time to light up, because you may not get another chance for awhile.

Today's online edition of the Washington Times (www.washingtontimes.com) features a poll asking whether the Obama administration should have contacted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (Iran's supreme religious leader) before the Iranian elections.

The poll is in response to a lead article at the paper's website which reports that the Obama administration sent a letter to Khamenei calling for an improvement in relations between the U.S and Iran. Khamenei referenced the letter last week during a sermon in which he accused the U.S. of fomenting dissent following the Iranian elections.

My problem or point here is not the article itself, the poll, or even the issues of Iran and the so-far feeble Obama administration response to Iran. Our new President is mad. Really, really mad, darn it. You can tell, because yesterday he "strongly" condemned the Iranian regimes unjust actions towards the street protesters of the rigged elections. Strongly.

No, my problem is with the supporters of America's first socialist President. When you answer the poll question, it takes you to the updated poll results and a commentary page. Here anyone who is registered with the site can make comments about the poll, and anyone at all can read these comments, even if not registered.

There is one answer that encapsulates the liberal, progressive, socialist mindset towards anyone who expresses Obama-dissent. Here a poster calling themselves 'TheProgressiveTruth' says that "conservative ideas are discredited and are not taken seriously by serious people."

Fair enough. That's showing political bias, but this is America, and they are free to express their political views. The problem comes with his next statement: "My advice, again: shut up!" Here they show their true stripes. Those with differing opinions need to be silenced.

There are many liberal politicians and partisans who subscribe to this line of thinking. They call for a radio 'Fairness Doctrine' (sic) that would silence conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Bill Bennett, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck and others, simply because they disagree with these conservative commentators but cannot come up with liberal commentators to draw a sustainable audience.

Bottom line is, liberals and progressives cannot win the battle of ideas in the public square, just as they cannot win at the polling booth on social ideas such as the farcical gay marriage issue. They lose every time one of these issues is balloted and put directly to the voters. Instead, they seek to "shut up" conservatives and force their views through controlled media and through the courts.

Barack Obama, his administration, and his colleagues in Congress have been seriously over-reaching in their valuation of their recent electoral victories. The American people voted for a change, but absolutely did not vote for the type of change that weakens or cheapens democracy and capitalism, or that calls for silence from its opponents.

Have some opinions on the issues that matter to you and your family, opinions that are different than the Obama administration and the former mainstream media try to force down the throat of the public. Then I have just one message for you: express 'em if you got 'em!

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Splitting Up for the Kids Sake is a Lie


'John and Kate Plus Eight' are now apparently going to be just 'Kate Plus Eight', with John seeing the kids once in awhile, or taking them every other weekend, or having joint custody, or some other arrangement such as the beginning one where the kids will stay in the house, and John and Kate will take turns living there.

What is not going to happen is having these eight innocent little kids growing up in their home together with two loving parents who also care about one another. That is not only a shame, but it is also to the little tykes detriment. Problems for the children of broken homes are many and well-documented.

But in their case it is not a detriment, not if you ask John and Kate themselves. In a public statement, they claimed that one of the reasons they are divorcing is actually FOR the kiddies benefit, because it "is not healthy for the kids to grow up around all the fighting and arguing."

This is a very lame argument indeed. Kids have grown up with parents arguing and fighting for millenia. I would bet that Adam and Eve themselves had some real donneybrooks after the whole 'snake and apple' fiasco, and it has been going on ever since.

People need to start returning to our grandparents day, when you married for life, and you toughed out the ups and downs. The bottom line in those relationships was simple: family first. Did they have problems 'back in the day"? Of course they did. Drinking, gambling, arguing, infidelity, illness, economic difficulties. These are not inventions of the 21st century, nor were they of the 20th. But families stayed together and gutted it out.

Fact is, splitting up for the kids sake is almost always a lie. John and Kate, just like most other couples who do so, are splitting up because they are selfish and immature. They were unable or unwilling to set aside their egos, give one another a break, and put their kids and their family first.

I know first-hand of what I speak. I went through a divorce myself, with two young daughters affected. I was selfish and immature. I was also the product of a broken home, as was my father before me. The reasons always seem different, but usually come back to the same thing in the end: easing some burden on one or both partners. I am not proud of my divorce in any way, but I will not allow it to silence me from expressing the knowledge that maturity and a mostly healthy second marriage has brought my way in the ensuing years.

Maybe in the end some number of marriages will always need to end due to out-of-control violence, or incest, or criminality, or some other situation that actually does endanger the welfare of the children. But far too often these days divorce is about ego gratification, and that is a fact.

Splitting up, or running away, when inevitable difficulties arise. These have become the norms in modern society. Somehow, we need to all begin to demand of ourselves things like perseverance, patience, and prioritization of our children over ourselves. Staying and making it work needs to be about us. It needs to be at our core. It needs to be our bottom line, the idea that no matter what, we will not leave.

John and Kate may have each had an affair. Maybe one of them did. Maybe they got a nice home and a bloated bank account and got soft. Maybe they came to believe that they could financially make it without one another. Perhaps they believe they can find newer, more exciting sexual partners, or more compatible lifemates. Whatever the case, it is all about them. Don't make it about somehow benefiting the kids.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Five Myths on Fathers and Family


Father’s Day almost upon us, expect a host of media stories on men and family life. Some will do a good job of capturing the changes and continuities associated with fatherhood in contemporary America. But other reporters and writers will generalize from their own unrepresentative networks of friends and family members, try to baptize the latest family trend, or assume that our society is heading ceaselessly in a progressive direction. So be on the lookout this week for stories, op-eds, and essays that include these five myths on contemporary fatherhood and family life.

1. THE ‘MR. MOM’ SURGE

Open a newspaper or turn on a TV in the week heading up to Father’s Day and you are bound to confront a story on stay-at-home dads. I have nothing against stay-at-home dads, but they make up a minuscule share of American fathers.

For instance, less than 1 percent (140,000) of America’s 22.5 million married families with children under 15 had a stay-at-home dad in 2008, according to the U.S. Census. By contrast, about 24 percent (5,327,000) of those families had a stay-at-home mom. This means that the vast majority — more than 97 percent — of all stay-at-home parents are moms, not dads.

The focus on Mr. Mom obscures another important reality. In most American families today, fathers still take the lead when it comes to breadwinning: In 2008, the Census estimated that fathers were the main provider in almost three-quarters of American married families with children under 18. Providership is important to protect children from poverty, raise their odds of educational success, and increase the likelihood that they will succeed later in life. Thus, the very real material contribution that the average American dad makes to his family is obscured by stories that focus on that exotic breed, the stay-at-home dad.

2. WOMEN WANT EVERYTHING 50-50

Another prevailing media myth is that contemporary women are looking for fathers who will split their time evenly between work and family life. It may be true for the average journalist or academic, but it is not true for the average American married mom.

Most married mothers nowadays do want their husbands to do their fair share of housework and childcare. But they do not define fairness in terms of a 50-50 balancing act where fathers and mothers do the same thing at home and work. Instead, contemporary mothers take into account their husbands’ work outside the home when they assess the fairness of the division of labor inside the home.

Moreover, most women who are married with children are happy to have their husbands take the lead when it comes to providing and do not wish to work full-time. For instance, a 2007 Pew Research Center study found that only 20 percent of mothers with children under 18 wanted to work full-time, compared with 72 percent of fathers with children under 18. My own research has shown that married mothers are happiest in their marriages when their husbands take the lead when it comes to breadwinning — largely because his success as a provider gives her more opportunities to focus on the children, or balance childcare with part-time work (the most popular work arrangement for married mothers). So, on this Father’s Day, dads who are fortunate enough to hold down a good job and make a major contribution to their families’ financial welfare should take some comfort from the fact that they are likely to be boosting not only their families’ bottom line but also their wives’ happiness.

3. MARRIAGE IS JUST A PIECE OF PAPER

With the rise of cohabitation over the last 40 years, a large minority of American children will spend some time in a household headed by a cohabiting couple. Experts now estimate that about 40 percent of American children will spend some time in a cohabiting household, either because they are born into such a household or because one of their parents cohabits after a breakup. Faced with this reality, many journalists, scholars, and advocates are tempted to minimize the differences between married and cohabiting fathers and families.

But the reality is that, on average, cohabiting fathers do not compare with married fathers. As Sandra Hofferth of the University of Maryland and Kermyt Anderson of the University of Oklahoma found in a recent study, married fathers are significantly more involved and affectionate with their children than are cohabiting fathers. In fact, from their research, they conclude “that marriage per se confers advantage in terms of father involvement above and beyond the characteristics of the fathers themselves.”

Married fathers are also much more likely than their cohabiting peers to stick around. One recent study by Wendy Manning at Bowling Green State and Pamela Smock at the University of Michigan found that 50 percent of children born to cohabiting parents saw their parents break up by age five; by comparison, only 15 percent of children born to married parents saw their parents divorce by age five. Dad is much more likely to stick around if he has a wedding ring on his finger.


This is because, for men, marriage and fatherhood are a “package deal,” as sociologists Frank Frustenberg and Andrew Cherlin observed a number of years ago. By force of law and custom, marriage binds men to their families and gives them a recognizable role to play in the lives of their children. Try as they might, unmarried men typically find it difficult to be a consistent and positive force in the lives of their children.

4. THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT

Every couple of years, some journalist seeks to revive the myth of the good divorce — often to excuse his or her own bad behavior. Sandra Tsing Loh is Exhibit A this week. In the most recent issue of The Atlantic, she spends several thousand words trying to justify her divorce from her husband of 20 years — a man she admits is a “good man” and “loving father” — under the cover of a sprawling, incoherent, and frankly disturbing review of five books on marriage and family life. (Among other things, the reader is regaled with all too much information about Loh’s private life; we learn, for instance, that one reason she ended up divorced is that she could not replace the “romantic memory of my fellow [adulterous] transgressor with the more suitable image of my husband.”)

Loh claims that her children appear to be doing just fine. Her two school-age girls — aged 7 and 9 — appear to be “unfazed” and “relatively content” in the midst of their parents’ divorce. Who knew divorce could be so easy on the kids?

In reality, Loh is probably deluding herself. The best social science presents a rather different picture than the rosy one Loh is trying to paint. According to research by Sara McLanahan of Princeton University and Paul Amato of Penn State, girls whose parents divorce are about twice as likely to drop out of high school, to become pregnant as teenagers, and to suffer from psychological problems such as depression and thoughts of suicide. Girls whose parents divorce are also much more likely to divorce later in life.

Moreover, studies indicate that children experience the most harm when their parents divorce after living together in a low-conflict marriage for many years (as Loh appears to have done). Why? These divorces come as the most surprising ones to children who thought that their parents had a good-enough marriage.

Though Loh manages to find for her Atlantic piece a bunch of well-educated friends who are also entertaining thoughts of divorce, she is (fortunately) in increasingly rare company. The work of sociologist Steven Martin indicates that since 1980, college-educated Americans have grown less tolerant of divorce, and the divorce rate among this cohort has fallen off sharply. Thus, well-educated readers of The Atlantic are unlikely to take Loh’s misleading and self-serving essay to heart.

5. DADS ARE DISPENSABLE

The final myth propagated by journalists in connection with fatherhood these days is the myth of the dispensable father. Often conjured up in glowing profiles of women who have become single mothers by choice, this myth holds that fathers do not play a central role in children’s lives.

This myth fails to take into account the now-vast social scientific literature (discussed above) showing that children typically do better in an intact, married families with their fathers than they do in families headed by single mothers.

It also overlooks the growing body of research indicating that fathers bring distinctive talents to the parenting enterprise. The work of psychologist Ross Parke, for instance, indicates that fathers are more likely than mothers to engage their children in vigorous physical play (e.g., roughhousing), to challenge their children — including their daughters — to embrace life’s challenges, and to be firm disciplinarians.

Not surprisingly, children benefit from being exposed to the distinctive paternal style. Sociologist David Eggebeen has shown, for instance, that teenagers are significantly less likely to suffer from depression and delinquency when they have involved and affectionate fathers, even after controlling for the quality of their relationship with their mother. In his words, “What these analyses clearly show is that mothers and fathers both make vital contributions to adolescent well-being.”

This is not to say that all journalists get it wrong when it comes to making sense of contemporary fatherhood and family life. This week, for instance, Sue Shellenberger at the Wall Street Journal had a great piece discussing the ways in which mothers serve as gatekeepers for fathers to their children; she also encourages mothers to allow fathers to engage children with their own distinctive style of parenting. Likewise, Linda Carroll at MSNBC has written an incisive story showing that involved and affectionate fathers play a crucial role in steering their daughters away from early sexual activity; in fact, it turns out that dads are more important than moms in protecting their teenage daughters from early sex.

In the coming years, we will need more tough-minded and honest journalism like the kind offered by Shellenberger and Carroll. This is particularly true because the cultural and economic storms of late — e.g., the individualistic turn of contemporary life and the recession — have been eroding the marital foundations of family life in America. Given the social scientific record on fatherhood, marriage, and family life, the United States could use more journalists who are willing to confront hard truths about the roles that fathers and marriage play in advancing the welfare of our nation’s most vulnerable citizens, our children, and the cultural, economic, and legal forces that are now undercutting marriage and fatherhood in America.

WRITTEN by W. Bradford Wilcox at The National Review on June 19th, 2009

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Very Special Father's Day for Falcons' Nicholas


Stephen Nicholas' arms were wrapped around his infant son, somewhat loosely because he didn't want to bump the tubes that had kept the child alive the past four months.

Wife Irene sat nearby and the doctor began talking. The doctor said the tubes were going to come out that afternoon. Stephen and Irene looked at each other and started crying as both minds registered the same two thoughts.

Stephen Nicholas Jr. had been in Children's Hospital Boston since last summer, waiting for a heart suitable to transplant into his little body.

"That was the doctor's way of saying there was a heart coming in,'' Stephen said.

Stephen Jr. was going to get a shot at life with a new heart. Tears of joy for a few seconds. Then, tears of sadness.

"The most bittersweet moment you can imagine,'' Irene said. "Our baby was going to get a new heart. But then you realize the heart had to come from someone his age and his size.''

Somewhere, someone else had lost a baby.

The date was Oct. 17, 2008. The surgery took hours upon hours and finally ended sometime around 4 the next morning. When the father saw the son at around noon, the baby had better color and was looking more alert than ever.

In another few weeks, Stephen Jr. would be given a clean bill of health and sent home to Atlanta. The doctors all have said Stephen Jr. should have a normal and healthy life.

If you looked over at the bleachers where the families sat during the Atlanta Falcons' minicamp practices last month, you never would have guessed life had been far from normal for the Nicholas family. When practice was over, the father went over to where the son sat with his mother. Within a few seconds, the two were running around and rolling in the grass.

Teammates walked by and smiled at the scene. Their wives and girlfriends watched the two Stephens and there might have been a few tears. This was the happiest ending to the best-kept secret of the 2008 season for the Falcons.

While rookie quarterback Matt Ryan was lighting up the NFL and the Falcons were making a run to the playoffs as the NFL's most surprising team, there was a little family secret that wasn't public because it was a very private matter.

Now Stephen, Irene and the Falcons are ready to tell the story that everyone else helped keep quiet last year.

Stephen and Irene were going through hell, but they had 52 other Falcons, a coaching staff, an owner and an entire building of employees quietly helping them along.

After all the craziness (the Michael Vick saga, Jim Mora melting down and Bobby Petrino walking out on his team) that had surrounded the Falcons in recent years, this story -- even more than the playoff run -- demonstrates a franchise with sanity, compassion and priorities that are very much in order.

It all started soon after Jan. 6, 2008, when Stephen Jr. was born. He was the first child for Stephen and Irene, but the new parents quickly could tell something wasn't right.

"He was sleeping all the time and he barely would eat,'' Irene said.

There was a flurry of visits to pediatricians in Jacksonville, Fla., where the Nicholas family makes its offseason home. Nothing was really clear and doctors eventually sent the baby to a hospital in nearby Gainesville for more evaluation. That's when it first became apparent that something was wrong with Stephen Jr.'s heart.

More tests only enhanced that idea and, with help from Stephanie Blank, wife of Falcons owner Arthur Blank, Stephen Jr. was airlifted to Atlanta. Stephanie Blank is a board member at Children's Hospital of Atlanta. There, doctors determined the baby had cardiomyopathy, a condition where the heart isn't able to properly pump blood throughout the body.

At first, Stephen Jr. was given medication and sent home. There was some mild improvement, but it didn't last long.

"I can't even begin to tell you how many trips we made back to the emergency room,'' Irene said.

A few weeks before Stephen, 26, and the Falcons were scheduled to begin training camp last July, doctors sat him and Irene down.

"They basically said it wasn't getting any better and that just treating it with medication wasn't going to work,'' Stephen said. "He had to have a heart transplant and it would have to come soon. There was no other choice at that point.''

Irene and the baby went to Boston. Stephen went to training camp, where he went through the motions, but his heart was in Boston. For the next four months, Stephen Jr., wired with tubes of medication to help keep his heart functioning, waited for a donor they weren't sure would come in time.

As all this was going on, there was a development that makes you realize the NFL isn't always the cold, hard business we always hear about. First-year coach Mike Smith, a gentle man with a family of his own, sat down Nicholas and told him not to worry about his job security.

"We were very cognizant of what was going on and wanted to make sure he was able to get to Boston as often as possible,'' Smith said. "We wanted him to be with his wife and baby because that was a very trying situation.''

Smith offered a deal. Each Sunday night during the season, Nicholas could fly to Boston from wherever the Falcons were playing. He could take Monday and Tuesday off and fly back to Atlanta in time for Wednesday's practice.

The show of support went even deeper than that. As a second-year backup, Nicholas wasn't making a lot of money. Two veteran teammates, who don't want to be named, helped take care of his travel expenses and the costs of Irene staying in Boston.

Then there was Kevin Winston. Officially, he's the Falcons' director of player programs. Unofficially, he's the team's social worker and a big brother to the players. Winston looks like he could play linebacker, but has a soft spot for anyone who's going through a tough time.

"Kevin was on the phone with me all the time,'' Irene said. "He was always checking to see if there was anything I needed or anything the Falcons could do.''

Back in Atlanta, Stephen was able to focus on football for a few hours each day. He was a fixture on special teams and a backup at outside linebacker.

"It says a lot about Stephen's character that he was able to still play football while he was going through all that,'' Smith said. "It also says a lot about our football team and how the guys rallied around him.''

The situation also revealed an awful lot about Irene. She might have been the strongest of all. She was on the front line, sitting with Stephen Jr. every day, not knowing how long his heart would last or if a new one was coming.

"She's a rock,'' Stephen said. "She held down the fort and told me to keep plugging with football because we had to keep going on. I thank God for giving her to me. Every day when I go home now, I kiss my wife and I kiss my baby. I've been blessed with both of them.''

As Father's Day approaches this weekend, things are back to normal around the Nicholas' house -- as normal as can be expected when you're the proud parents of a rambunctious 18-month-old.

"He's more than normal now and really has been since just a few days after the surgery,'' Irene said. "He's into everything and he never really stops, but that's fine with us.''

Without knowing what was going on behind the scenes last season, some Falcons fans were wondering why Stephen was having a quiet year, after a promising rookie season, and not getting on the field much even though starting linebackers Michael Boley and Keith Brooking weren't having great seasons.

Now, fans know. The Falcons learned plenty about Nicholas last season and that's part of the reason they let Boley and Brooking go.

Nicholas has been working as the starter on the strong side throughout the offseason. Part of that is because the Falcons believe his physical skills are ready to blossom. And part of it may be because Nicholas already has shown he's the strongest player on the roster as a person.

"Stephen and his wife are incredibly strong,'' Smith said. "And they've gotten even stronger because of what they've been through.''

This year, Nicholas is looking forward to training camp and a shot at a starting job. Irene and Stephen Jr. won't be so far away this time. In fact, Nicholas already is looking forward to taking some glances at the bleachers between plays to see his son, safe, sound and healthy.

"It's going to be nice to be out there with a clear mind,'' Nicholas said.

WRITTEN by Pat Yasinskas for ESPN.com on June 19th, 2009

Friday, June 19, 2009

Man is On a Mission to Create Great Fathers


Tom FitzPatrick is a man on a mission. He wants to transform men, one by one, to become great fathers. He knows men have it in them to be successful in their home lives. A teacher, attorney and psychologist all rolled into one, Tom possesses the skills to guide men to leadership.

Leadership is not the word I typically think of when I reflect on what it means to be a dad. But after speaking with Tom, who is clearly passionate about fatherhood, I have new insights about the dynamics in a family that often lead dads to check out and leave the child rearing to moms.

Now, don't get me wrong, I know dads play a crucial role in the family. I'm also quite vocal about that when it comes to finding strong male role models in families where, for whatever reason, the father may be missing in action. But Tom's vision takes the roles of fathers to a whole new level of engagement.

Fathers often become passive and inactive when they feel disconnected, marginalized or alienated from the family. They become unanchored from the family. But rather than asserting themselves in a more dynamic, active role at home, they slink off to work, the golf course or wherever they feel more in control and empowered.

"Men come to me and they're confused," Tom said. "They're often sad, broken and have hit bottom."

In addition, Tom believes many men often feel that when it comes to being a good dad and husband, they think "I'm the only guy who doesn't know how to do this." But if Tom's practice is any indication, there are plenty of men out there who are disengaged.

According to Tom, the solution is to re-energize dads so they are more engaged and competent in their relationships at home. Tom believes every dad should learn to be a leader. "I have come to believe that what a family needs in Dad is leadership," he said.

Tom maintains that to be a leader, you have to have a vision. When dads lack a vision for their families, they have no plan or mission; instead, they amble from one day to another with any sense of direction or guidance. "If a man has a purpose and a mission and is on point with his mission, then he is not distracted when he trying to be and deal with his wife and children," Tom said.

To Tom, leadership is not tyranny or control but passion and purpose. It's about strength, conviction and service. Tom sees too little of that from dads today. So he is on a mission to cultivate fathers who know how to lead.

"This is my mission in my life: to give men more power," Tom exclaimed with his own sense of passion and purpose. "My goal is to bring men together so that they can create good fathering."

So once a month, Tom holds a Fathers Forum where dads come together to talk about fathering. When dads gather to discuss, share and support one another, they normalize what being a dad is for each other. They also get more power and passion in the process. "I like to see men come together to craft solutions, talk and learn," Tom said. "They support each other and build awareness about what it takes to become an engaged and dynamic dad. My job is to help men get more power, purpose, passion and peace in their lives."

Tom acknowledges that sometimes trying to bring men together to talk is like herding cats: It can be difficult and frustrating. But the fruits of his efforts are vast. Just ask kids about their dads and the way that they touch their lives.

Good dads are not tough to spot. They are like the mighty oaks that stand tall and strong. I've seen these types of good, strong and competent fathers and I've witnessed my fair share of dads who are disengaged from their families. There is no doubt that fathers with a sense of engagement and purpose raise children who have many more advantages and promise than those kids whose fathers are lackluster, disconnected or absent and where no solid male role model has been set in his place.

It's good to know there are men like Tom FitzPatrick in the world who care about the state of fatherhood and are using every ounce of their energy to reach out to dads to help them become strong, effective partners in child-rearing. So here's to you, Tom, for setting a path for dads to become a vital and vibrant part of their families.

And hats off and Father's Day salutations to all dads who understand what their involvement and nurturing does for their kids and families and who learn what it takes to be the best dads they can be. It's no small task to be a dad, but it has a huge impact that reverberates for generations because children with good parents learn how to be good parents themselves.

WRITTEN by Alyssa Martina at The Detroit News on June 19th, 2009

Thursday, June 18, 2009

New Daditude: Hands On, Pressure Off


Today's fathers may well take parenting as seriously as their mates, but unlike many moms, dads don't view it as a competitive sport. Instead, the new attitude of 21st-century fatherhood is hands-on and involved, but with a hint of playfulness.
"All of these social expectations have developed over decades about what moms are supposed to do. We don't have a new picture of what involved dads are supposed to look like," says Will Courtenay, a psychotherapist in Berkeley, Calif., who is on the advisory board of The Center for Men and Young Men at McLean Hospital, Harvard Medical School.

Those who study fatherhood say today's dads are forging a new identity, as working women press for a more egalitarian home life, and telecommuting and workplace flexibility make it possible for dads to have more time with the kids. Also, dads today are no longer the stuffy or clueless fathers portrayed on TV.

"It's cool now to be an active, involved father," says Aaron Rochlen, associate professor of psychology at the University of Texas-Austin. "Overall, men being more active fathers is starting to become more of the norm and less of the anomaly."

As a result, there has been a real shift in the way men talk about fatherhood, experts say: Young dads (generally those in their early 40s and younger) say they know they're not perfect, but they don't worry about being judged.

Compared with pressure that many moms say they feel, "the bar is set pretty low for father involvement and father engagement," says Jeff Cookston, an assistant professor of psychology who studies fatherhood at San Francisco State University. He calls the current group of younger dads a "pilot generation" because they're trying to figure out the transition from dad as a breadwinner to the hands-on pop who doesn't shirk from diaper changes or carpool runs.

Psychiatrist Kyle Pruett of the Yale University Child Study Center in New Haven, Conn., has seen changes in more than 25 years teaching child development. When he started, his students were all girls.

"Now, we've had a couple of years where there were male majorities, including one year where the entire starting line of the hockey team came to the class," he says.

When he has asked guys why they took the course, Pruett says he has heard some version of "because I plan to be an involved parent and an involved husband."

And dads are getting plenty of online support, as fathers make inroads into the parenting blogosphere that for years was for moms only. There are now lots of websites devoted to dads, such as DadLabs.com, which posts four weekly short videos of advice and product reviews, and Daddytude.com, which calls itself "a journey with a not-so-perfect Dad." New books about fatherhood include Michael Lewis' Home Game: An Accidental Guide to Fatherhoodand Jeremy Adam Smith's The Daddy Shift.

Many of these dads write about their experiences with humor, which Smith calls "the male response to being uncomfortable."

"They're doing the dishes and taking care of the kids, but it doesn't match with that traditional male image, so they laugh about it. They giggle. They make jokes," says Smith, 39, of San Francisco. He is senior editor of Greater Good magazine and founded the blog Daddy Dialectic.

DadLabs (with the motto "We screwed up, so you don't have to") was created by three former teachers. As new fathers, they found existing advice boring and clinical or just for laughs. They also have two DVDs and a new book, DadLabs Guide to Fatherhood: Pregnancy and Year One. They're now in discussions with production companies about a cable TV show.

The three daddies

Known on the Web as Daddy Clay, Daddy Brad and Daddy Troy, the site's founders are Clay Nichols, 42, a father of three ages 10, 7 and 5; Troy Lanier, 42, a father of two, ages 6 and 4; and Brad Powell, 41, soon to be a father of three. (The first two are ages 6 and 3, and a son is due any day.) Nichols has expertise in playwriting and drama. Lanier has film experience. And Powell, who has an MBA, has been a business manager and fundraiser. Another father, Owen Egerton, also appears in video segments.

Nichols was a stay-at-home dad during his oldest child's first year a decade ago, when such fathers were a curiosity. He says he has "vivid memories of taking Wilson to a local coffee shop and getting a lot of well-intentioned but nonetheless patronizing comments from women. … 'You tell Daddy you want some socks.' 'You tell Daddy you need a hat.' They would offer their very helpful parenting suggestions to the baby."

Wives of the original trio all work full-time. One is a hospital chaplain and the other two work at the private school where their husbands were employed before starting DadLabs.

The dads say their entrepreneurial effort is starting to pay off — it broke even for the first time in January after they signed a sponsorship deal, which has been renewed through 2009.

All three DadLabs creators have advanced degrees and could earn more money at jobs with greater prestige, but Nichols says they've decided being present for their kids is more important.

"There's a loud voice in my head that says 'You need to be making more money. You need to be getting ahead. You need to be succeeding.' That is a voice that I argue with on a daily basis."

Tradition dies hard

But this new, hands-on vision of fatherhood is not universal, says Courtenay.

"You certainly see traditional masculinity of the 1950s still alive and very well in many men," including younger ones, he says. "It's not as if that's completely going away."

Researchers say there are distinct socio-economic, racial and ethnic attitudes about masculinity that translate into fatherhood perceptions. For example, men from the South, as well as blacks and Hispanics, have more traditional ideas about fatherhood and masculinity.

This is rooted in a male identity that teaches "boys to be in charge and make decisions and not admit weakness," says Andrew Smiler, visiting assistant professor of psychology at Wake Forest University, in Winston-Salem, N.C., who studies masculinity.

"Then we get this generation of guys who say they want to be more involved with their children's upbringing than their parents were, but they don't know how to do it," he says.

The result, Smiler says, is this more laid-back attitude about parenting: "It's harder than it looks and I don't know what to do or how to do it, but I'm giving it my best shot."

Actor Shaun O'Hagan, 39, of Santa Monica, Calif., has five to eight auditions a week and he has taken his son, Ryan, 2, with him on most of them since his wife went back to work as an accountant following her maternity leave. Sometimes his brother-in-law has gone along to help, but O'Hagan says he has often relied on those at the auditions to tend to his son during the tryouts.

Despite earning residual checks, O'Hagan says, the economic downturn in Hollywood took a toll on his career last year.

"I had a little bit of an identity crisis when jobs weren't coming and I was full-time with Ryan," he says. "I just wanted to roll up my sleeves and work, especially since I had a son. I wanted to be the dad who went out and earned a living for my family."

Things have improved, he says, but "I really did appreciate my time with Ryan. I was really able to — as my mother uses the phrase — 'soak it all in,' " he says.

A close father/child connection is beneficial for kids, according to a body of research that suggests children with actively involved fathers do better academically, socially and behaviorally.

Gary Berger, 34, of Madison, Wis., found himself overseeing the household and his three children (now 8, 6 and 5) when his wife of almost 10 years served in Iraq for about five months. The couple met in the Air Force.

"She got out of active duty while I stayed in. I deployed for Iraq in 2003 (he flew B-52s) and she was a stay-at-home mom then, but stayed in the reserves. Then last Sept. 2, she deployed to Iraq," says Berger, who works in marketing.

"I'm not worried about people saying staying home with kids is a woman's job. That's old attitudes," he says. "A real priority in fatherhood is raising good kids. Every other concern becomes secondary to that."

WRITTEN by Sharon Jayson at USA Today on June 10th, 2009

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

A Critical Role for Fathers


The celebration of Father's Day allows our nation a moment to pause and reflect on the memories and experiences of childhood and fatherhood alike.

Aside from the typical gift selection of a new tie, putter or power tools, no serious consideration is given to this holiday. This Father's Day, take a break from the barbecue grill, playing catch or listening to another one of dad's widely exaggerated stories (that you've already heard at least a thousand times), and ponder a more broad subject, the rights of a father.

A father's rights have remained a largely hidden issue, tucked away beneath America's fiery and passionate opinions on abortion. In many ways, the parental rights of expectant fathers are blatantly ignored, and fathers are, in a court of law, unable to voice their opinion in regard to childbirth.

A fundamental assumption leading to the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade was that because women are biologically tied to the birth process, they should therefore bear all responsibility in deciding the life or death of their children. The reason for this perspective is straightforward: Roe v. Wade rejected the idea that another person controlled a woman's body.

On the one hand, this shattered patriarchal stereotypes that regarded women as little more than vessels. Plainly, that is a good thing. But in the continued fight for equality, various feminist groups have refused to acknowledge the basic human rights of the co-equal contributors to pregnancy: the unborn child and the father. Plainly, that is a bad thing.

Just ask John Stachokus.

Not long ago, Mr. Stachokus planned to have a child with his 23-year-old girlfriend. Together, they picked out the child's name and godparents. He proudly imagined what it would be like to start a family; this made him happy. Then one day, his girlfriend abruptly decided to terminate her pregnancy. She was reacting to pressure from her parents, Mr. Stachokus says. He responded by obtaining an injunction, temporarily prohibiting her from having an abortion, which a court rejected. And just that quickly, Mr. Stachokus' hopes and dreams for his child dissolved.

It did not matter to the court that Mr. Stachokus was willing to take full responsibility for nurturing and providing for the child. His basic human rights did not factor into the court's decision. All that mattered was that his girlfriend suddenly changed her mind and decided to murder their unborn baby. As far as the court was concerned, Mr. Stachokus had no say in the life of his own child. The court regarded him as little more than a soulless contributor of DNA.

Of course, the response of abortion rights advocates is predictable. They greeted news of the demise of Mr. Stachokus' child with cheers and the standard rhetoric about a woman's right to choose. "An adult woman has a fundamental constitutional right to privacy," said Linda Rosenthal, an attorney representing the girlfriend.

Indeed, it is her body, but her body does not exist in a vacuum. She shared that body with Mr. Stachokus - as he did with her - and together they made a decision that led to the creation of a baby (a feat neither of them could have accomplished individually).

Doesn't this symbiotic act give the father some say in the matter of whether his girlfriend may have an abortion? After all, if the baby had been carried to term, Mr. Stachokus, irrespective of his own preferences, would have been legally obligated to pay child support. Society would have demanded that he take responsibility. And yet when it comes to the decision of whether to abort that same child, he is denied any say whatsoever. That is an appalling contradiction.

We live in an age of eroding family values, in which fathers routinely abandon their children and disregard their familial responsibilities. Mr. Stachokus' desire to raise and care responsibly for his child should be commended and encouraged. Instead, the law brutally and arbitrarily denies that he has any right to his child whatsoever.

Countless men are faced with the same nightmare of having no voice in the execution of their children.

"Men's rights are trampled on all the time when it comes to reproductive rights," said Dianna Thompson, executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. It is time to fight back, to force our government to re-evaluate the logic of treating men as little more than fertilizers.

This case raises serious questions about a father's say in the life of his own child, as well as the extent of the government's duty to help project human rights and encourage the family unit. Sadly, these profound questions fall by the wayside in a society that worships at the golden calf of individual choice, and relegates the voice of fathers and unborn babies to the margin.

The outcome of the Stachokus case and other, similar cases points to a need to widen the consideration of abortion beyond just the rights of the mother to the rights of fathers and - of central importance - the unborn child. Only by placing abortion within its proper context will we get a better understanding of its full implications.

Fatherhood is a lifetime commitment, deserving of much more than a single day's celebration. We should not allow the failed father figures of these modern times, or the negative examples of parenting portrayed on television to define or represent every father in the country. This Father's Day, don't limit your thoughts to only fatherhood. Instead, reflect upon the larger concept at hand, the celebration of two individuals uniting together, prayerfully in marriage, to perform one of the most challenging tasks ever known, parenthood.

WRITTEN by Armstrong Williams at The Washington Times on June 17th, 2009

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Why Women Are Unhappy


The National Bureau of Economic Research released a study to be published soon in the American Economic Journal that shows women's happiness has measurably declined since 1970. It's no surprise that this has stimulated much comment.

This study covers the same time period as the rise of the so-called women's liberation or feminist movement. The correlation demands an explanation. You can read the entire study here.

One theory advanced by the authors, University of Pennsylvania economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, is that the women's liberation movement "raised women's expectations" (sold them a bill of goods), making them feel inadequate when they fail to have it all. A second theory is that the demands on women who are both mothers and jobholders in the labor force are overwhelming.

I'm neither an economist nor a psychologist, but I'll join the conversation with my own armchair analysis. Another theory could be that the feminist movement taught women to see themselves as victims of an oppressive patriarchy in which their true worth will never be recognized and any success is beyond their reach.

Feminist organizations such as the National Organization for Women held consciousness-raising sessions where they exchanged tales of how badly some man had treated them. Grievances are like flowers -- if you water them, they will grow, and self-imposed victimhood is not a recipe for happiness.

Another theory could be the increase in easy divorce and illegitimacy (now 40 percent of American births are to single moms), which means that millions of women are raising kids without a husband and therefore expect Big Brother government to substitute as provider. The 2008 election returns showed that 70 percent of unmarried women voted for Barack Obama, perhaps hoping to be beneficiaries of his "spread the wealth" policies.

In the pre-1970 era, when surveys showed women with higher levels of happiness, most men held jobs that enabled their wives to be fulltime homemakers. The private enterprise system constantly produces goods that make household work and kiddie care easier (such as dryers, dishwashers and paper diapers).

Betty Friedan started the feminist movement in the late 1960s with her book "The Feminine Mystique," which created the myth that suburban housewives were suffering from "a sense of dissatisfaction" with their alleged-to-be-boring lives. To liberate women from the home that Friedan labeled "a comfortable concentration camp," the feminist movement worked tirelessly to make the role of fulltime homemaker socially disdained.

Economic need played no role in the feminist argument that marriage is archaic and oppressive to women. A job in the labor force was upheld as so much more fulfilling than tending babies and preparing dinner for a hard-working husband.

Women's studies courses require students to accept as an article of faith the silly notion that gender differences are not natural or biological but are social constructs created by the patriarchy and ancient stereotypes. This leads feminists to seek legislative corrections for problems that don't exist.

A former editor of the Ladies' Home Journal wrote in her book "Spin Sisters" that the anorexic blondes on television are every day selling the falsehood that women's lives are full of misery and threats from men. Bernard Goldberg calls the mainstream media "one of America's most pro-feminist institutions."

According to feminist ideology, the only gender-specific characteristic is that men are naturally batterers who make all women victims. On that theory, the feminists conned Congress into passing the Violence Against Women Act (note the sex discriminatory title), which includes a handout of a billion dollars a year to finance their political, legislative and judicial goals.

The feminists whine endlessly using their favorite word "choice" in matters of abortion, but they reject choice in gender roles. The Big Mama of feminist studies, Simone de Beauvoir, said: "We don't believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children ... precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."

The feminists have carried on a long-running campaign to make husbands and fathers unnecessary and irrelevant. Most divorces are initiated by women, and more women than men request same-sex marriage licenses in Massachusetts so that, with two affirmative-action jobs plus in vitro fertilization, they can create a "family" without husbands or fathers.

Despite the false messages of the colleges and the media, most American women are smart enough to reject the label feminist, and only 20 percent of mothers say they want full-time work in the labor force. I suggest that women suffering from unhappiness should look into how women are treated in the rest of the world, and then maybe American women would realize they are the most fortunate people on earth.

WRITTEN by Phyllis Schlafley at Human Events on June 16th, 2009

Monday, June 15, 2009

Something Rotten in America


One thing we can conclude from David Letterman's bad jokes about Sarah Palin: He hasn't flown commercial in a while.

Letterman's "slutty flight attendant" remark about Palin was in poor taste, we can all agree. But it was a joke and Letterman is a comedian. The joke probably would have been shrugged off and forgotten -- Palin proved her humorous good sportsmanship on "Saturday Night Live" during the campaign -- if not for Letterman's sexually suggestive "joke" about her daughter.

Everyone knows by now that Letterman made fun of the Palin family's trip to New York last week. He quipped that Palin's daughter got "knocked up" by Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez during the 7th inning. Unable to stop his slide into the gutter, he said the hardest part of the visit was keeping Eliot Spitzer away from her daughter.

Ba-da-bad. Alas, the only daughter with Palin was 14-year-old Willow.

Sorry, Dave, not funny. It was a joke according to stand-up formula -- take two disparate news items and combine them in an unexpected way. No one does this better than humor columnist Andy Borowitz, who has the blogosphere in a snit with his column suggesting that Newt Gingrich accused Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor of faking her broken ankle to get sympathy. It was a JOKE!

The flight attendant line is a grown-up joke that one may or may not think is funny -- though my guess is that many of the offended big brothers out there were happy to participate in the Palin-as-sexy-librarian fantasy. Fess up.

In any case, the joke was about an adult voluntarily in the public arena and, therefore, clearly of a different order than suggesting sexual relations between a child and a man. We call that rape. Letterman's sort-of apology fell short of fixing things. He didn't mean the 14-year-old daughter, he said. He meant the 18-year-old.

Sir, may I offer you a shovel? Or, perchance, a backhoe? Letterman was way off base and should apologize sincerely. But, please, may we stop there?

Calls for censorship or worse are far more dangerous to the land of the free than any inappropriate one-liner. John McCain -- ever the chivalrous warrior -- sallied forth with his own disapproving statement Thursday, saying: "They (the Palins) deserve some kind of protection from being the butt of late-night hosts."

They DO? Are we talking vigilantes -- or just good ol' government censorship?

No, the Palins don't deserve protection from late-night hosts. No one does. But children deserve protection from adults who have lost sight of their responsibility to be wardens of the innocent. And parents are the best guardians of their children. Keeping them out of the limelight seems a good starting point. And, no, I'm not suggesting that anyone "asked for it."

The Palin jokes, for lack of a better term, were merely the latest in a string of recent hostile treatments of women -- conservative women in particular. The Playboy magazine Web site listing conservative women whom men would like to have "hate" sex with was beyond the pale. The harsh treatment of poor Miss Runner-Up California when she expressed her opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman was simply unfair.

Opinions don't get punished in this country. Period.

But we do have a problem, don't we? Simply put, the Zeitgeist has become mean and nasty, and we're at a loss as to how to fix it. Here's one thought: The Internet -- which, ironically, contributes to the problem -- may be the best solution possible.

Both gift and curse, the Internet has been so revolutionary and its gifts so immense that we've been like inmates in sudden possession of the keys. Instant access to a bullhorn and the world as one's stage has unleashed a monstrous id, that undisciplined, infant part of the human psyche that wants what it wants when it wants. Multiply that by billions and civilization is one harried nanny.

Thus, we have hate-sex Web pages and millions of others that degrade women, sexualize children and leave man- and womankind to their basest instincts. Such is the profoundly messy, sometimes frightening, part of free expression.

On the other hand, we also have the passionate voices of sensible Americans, who won't let a comedian get away with trivializing rape. Which suggests that the best defense against rude comics is not "some kind of protection," but the rallying cry of people who demand more from their society and themselves.

WRITTEN by Kathleen Parker at TownHall.com on June 14th, 2009

Sunday, June 14, 2009

The Canonization of George Tiller


Late-term abortionist George Tiller has been buried. His clinic has been permanently closed. It is being reported that candlelight vigils were held across America for him and that another late-term abortionist has compared him to the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. “Pro-choice” Christian ministers called him a “martyr in the classical sense.” One even called him a “saint.” That he was killed in a church certainly contributed to the hagiography.

Anyone who claims to value all human life should condemn his murder, but that does not mean we should refrain from telling the truth about this alleged saint.

Let’s assume he was not in it for the reported $6,000-$20,000 he charged per late-term abortion, or the fees he charged for the other abortions, 60,000 total, which left him a well-heeled man by all accounts.

Let’s stipulate that he believed in abortion on the level of religious commitment, that abortion was for him what one of his minister-supporters called it: a sacrament.

Let’s say he was a believer in abortion on the order of the Christian martyrs of the second century who were torn apart by wild beasts for their refusal to reject the Christian God. Let us stipulate to all of that. But for what cause, exactly, was he a martyr?

We are told he was a martyr for women. But not one of the late-term abortions he did was to save a woman’s life, according to Kansas health department records. Tiller was not in the life-saving business.

Was he a martyr for some postmodern notion of freedom? Those celebrating his life’s work are most comfortable with abstract terms like “choice,” but we understand that there is real flesh and blood behind the sloganeering – that they are celebrating the work of this man’s hands. Tiller’s late-term abortions were described to the Kansas state legislature:

Tiller or his staff would inject a drug called digoxin through the mother’s abdomen and into the heart of the living baby, killing the child. The mother then has a dead baby in her womb for up to four days as she waits to deliver. The mothers would wait in a local hotel. When the time came to expel her dead baby one Tiller patient, Michele Armesto-Berge, told Kansas lawmakers that Tiller’s staff made her sit over and give “birth” to her dead baby into a toilet.

This is what Tiller did to countless vulnerable women and to countless viable children, children who felt pain, children who could have lived outside the womb if given the chance. If George Tiller was a martyr, he was a martyr to this.

Indeed, Martin Luther King’s niece, Alveda King, said of the comparisons of Tiller to her uncle: “to mention the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr., who worked through peaceful and nonviolent means, in the same breath with that of George Tiller, whose work ended peace and brought violence to babies in the womb, is offensive beyond belief.”

Until Sunday morning, public opinion about abortion was moving towards pro-life positions. Three recent polls confirmed that Americans’ views on abortion had shifted dramatically. One poll showed that 51 percent of Americans – an absolute majority – call themselves pro-life, and that the pro-choice designation trails by nine percentage points. Another poll showed that, even in the highly important 18-to-29-year-old demographic, pro-lifers outnumber supporters of choice. And when you drill down into the polling data, you discover that most Americans are against most of the abortions that occur each year and believe they should be made illegal.

This change has come about through advances in science and medicine that allow new mothers actually to see their developing infants. It also happened because pro-lifers have been wise and patient, and have done their work in large part quietly, head to head and heart to heart. The pro-life movement has been successful against all odds in not only keeping the issue alive despite massive opposition in the media and popular culture, but also in changing hearts and minds.

Will the murder of George Tiller halt this steady and solid progress? It’s too soon to tell. But we should brace for the possibility that a violent act committed by a mentally disturbed man (as his family describes him) will change the playing field profoundly on the most important human rights issue of our day. Abortion activists are already trying to use this crime to discredit and to thwart our efforts. Will the Obama Administration exploit this – another crisis – to try to silence our voices and further its pro-abortion agenda cloaked in “common ground” rhetoric?

Those of us in the pro-life movement know this: We are not going anywhere. We will continue to be peaceful and persistent. Even now, young people on college campuses are coming up with creative ways to advance our cause. Even now, elderly men and women are standing outside of abortion clinics praying for young women to turn around. Even now, young women are turning around, and their lives and the lives of their babies are being saved. Our work will go on.

WRITTEN by Cathy & Austin Ruse at The Catholic Thing webiste on June 12th, 2009

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Islamism Series: Farewell, War on Terror

R.I.P. Pvt. William Long (left)...
Did you notice in his Cairo speech to the Muslim world last week that President Obama did not use the word "terrorism"? Interesting in light of reports that some in the Obama administration no longer refer to actions against al-Qaida and the Taliban as the "war on terror," instead calling them an "overseas contingency operation." But why? What is the reasoning behind this?

Apparently, the president believes that in order to forge a "new start" with the Muslim world, America must spotlight the common ground between the two cultures. Emphasizing atrocities committed by terrorists under the banner of Islam obviously does not aid that strategy. So out with the war on terror, in with the spirit of cooperation.

Some conservatives find this appalling. They say it shows weakness on the part of Obama. I disagree. As long as the United States stays strong on the battlefields and in the security area, diplomatic euphemisms don't mean very much. Obama wants more friends in the Arab world, and he's willing to give Muslims a rhetorical break to get them.

That, of course, pleases the American left, and herein lies a problem. The liberal media are now actively downplaying Muslim terrorism, and that was vividly demonstrated last week when an American Muslim in Arkansas shot two soldiers. One of them, 24-year-old Pvt. William Long, was killed.

The cold-blooded murder of Long by Carlos Bledsoe, aka Abdulhakim Muhammad, was a shocking story. But if you were watching Katie Couric on the "CBS Evening News," you missed it, as Couric did not mention the murder. On ABC, Charles Gibson ignored the story, as well. On NBC, Brian Williams spent less than two minutes on the situation.

But the network news operations and most other national media enthusiastically covered the murder of late-term abortion doctor George Tiller by a pro-life zealot. According to a new study by the Pew Research group, Tiller's murder received 90 percent more news coverage than the crime against Long. Unbelievable.

It is flat-out wrong for the news media to under-report a story where an American Muslim guns down two American soldiers in a small Arkansas town. Just a few years ago, that kind of journalistic irresponsibility would have been severely criticized. But not now. Today, news reporting is a different story.

As has been well documented, the American media are now in the ideology business, and Obama has been a big beneficiary of that. Not only did most journalists vote for him, as the president recently pointed out, but the media actively aided his candidacy by providing him with favorable coverage. And that continues to this day.

The news media may believe they are helping Obama by avoiding the constant violence of Muslim terrorism, but the practice is putting all of us in danger. How many more Bledsoes are roaming around?

Good question. Unfortunately, you won't get an answer on the nightly news.

NOTE: This article is presented as a continuation of the "Islamism Series", all of the entries for which may be viewed by clicking in to that below label.

WRITTEN by Bill O'Reilly and published at Human Events on June 13th, 2009

Friday, June 12, 2009

When the Right to Die Becomes a Duty


Linda Fleming, a 66-year-old, legally bankrupt cancer patient living alone in Sequim, Wash., recently became the first person to kill herself under her state's new assisted-suicide law. As in neighboring Oregon, where a similar law has facilitated more than 400 suicides since 1997, the measure that paved the way for Fleming's death allows suicidal adults to obtain lethal prescriptions as long as they are competent and have been diagnosed with a terminal condition by two physicians.

Assisted-suicide advocates hail such laws as progressive and liberating. Yet even in Washington, where 58 percent of voters approved the assisted-suicide measure last fall, many critics remain unconvinced.

They worry that such laws will change a doctor's role from healer to executioner. They fret that the assisted-suicide push will siphon resources from palliative care and confirm severely ill patients' suspicions that their lives are burdensome and worthless. And they fear that, as our society struggles to care for an aging population in a worsening economy, the right to die could morph into a duty to die.

Their fears are well-founded. Consider the case of Barbara Wagner, an Oregon woman who was diagnosed with a recurrence of lung cancer last year at age 64. Her survival prospects were grim, but her oncologist offered her one final hope: a $4,000-a-month drug that could slow the cancer's growth and give her another four to six months to live. Wagner, a great-grandmother and retired bus driver living in a low-income apartment, could not afford the drug herself. So she asked her state-run health insurance plan for help.

The response she received shocked her. Oregon state officials sent a letter saying that they would not pay for medication to extend her life, but they would foot the drug bill for an assisted suicide -- an expenditure of roughly $50.

Assisted-suicide laws like the one in Wagner's state are a potential boon to tight-fisted insurers and bureaucrats looking to cut health care costs. And the growing acceptance of assisted suicide and euthanasia, even in states that do not explicitly permit them, makes it easier for frustrated physicians and caregivers to convince themselves and others that severely ill and disabled patients would be better off dead.

Just this month in Wisconsin, a disability-rights group filed a lawsuit against the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics after doctors there withheld treatment for pneumonia from two developmentally disabled patients, apparently because the patients had low "quality of life." Neither was in a persistent vegetative state and, in the case of one patient, family members who initially agreed with the doctor's recommendation to withhold food and medication reconsidered when their relative awoke and asked to eat. According to the lawsuit, the doctor balked at the family's request to restart treatment, and they felt pressured to hasten their loved one's death.

Another unnerving Wisconsin case made headlines last year when a state appeals court ruled that the wife and the adult daughter of a terminally ill man who shot himself could inherit his estate even if they helped him end his life. According to the Associated Press, the man's other children had contested his will, alleging that the wife and daughter, knowing he was suicidal, had taken him to a cabin, given him a loaded shotgun and left him alone. The court said that even if the allegations were true, the women could keep his money.

Such rulings defy common sense. Sadly, they are only the beginning of the abuses and ill-considered decisions we will see as the push for assisted suicide spreads from state to state. The ghastly rationale behind that push -- that suicide is the answer to human suffering -- demands a forceful response from the millions of Americans who still believe that every life counts.

WRITTEN by Colleen Carroll Campbell in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and published by the Ethics & Public Policy Center on May 29th, 2009

Thursday, June 11, 2009

No Price is Too High For This Guy


Davey Johnson loves talking about Stephen Strasburg. He gets excited talking about Stephen Strasburg.

Johnson is a baseball manager who has seen great pitching and knows great pitching.

That's why he loves talking about Strasburg - because he gets to use the word "great" so many times.

"He has a great arm, great poise, great command, great stuff. ... He is special, no doubt about it," said Johnson, who managed Strasburg, selected Tuesday by the Washington Nationals as the first pick in baseball's amateur draft, during the 2008 Olympics.

You've already read so many accolades about Strasburg that it can make you skeptical about whether he can live up to the hype. Strasburg has been so deified that if and when the Nationals do sign Strasburg, it will never rain again at Nationals Park, as it did Tuesday night. The ballpark clock will suddenly work. The sausages will shoot out of the sausage gun intact and be the best-tasting sausages you have ever had.

Nothing will ever go wrong for the Nationals again.

He may not have supernatural powers to change curses, but the natural powers he has certainly could help change the fortunes of this woeful franchise.

Stephen Strasburg may indeed live up to the hype.

"He is the real deal, baby," Johnson said.

Johnson, skipper of the 1986 World Series champion New York Mets and a winner everywhere he has been, was one of the top managers of his time and particularly good at managing pitching. As a player, he was part of those Orioles teams with Jim Palmer and Dave McNally. As a manager, he nurtured Dwight Gooden with the Mets.

Johnson knows pitching, and he is not a man who is easily impressed. He is effusive in his praise of the 20-year-old Strasburg, who went 13-1 with a 1.32 ERA in 15 starts as a junior for San Diego State, also striking out 195 in 109 innings. He did not issue more than two walks in any game this season and walked one or fewer batter in 10 of 15 starts.

"Great makeup and a great competitor," Johnson said. "He was the only college kid on what was basically a professional team for me in the Olympics, and a lot of the guys used to get on him about it. But it didn't faze him a bit.

"The first game he pitched for me was against the Netherlands in China, and it made me nervous because he had a no-hitter going for about five innings," Johnson said. "He ended up with a one-hitter through seven. He threw about 90 pitches. He was overpowering. Great command. He is a power pitcher with control. ... He doesn't overthrow. He has a nice, easy delivery, and he locates real good.

"You couldn't ask for anything better," Johnson said. "He goes about his business and knows what he has to do to get prepared. He's outstanding."

Sounds like a $50 million pitcher to me.

That reportedly is the price that Strasburg's uber-agent, Scott Boras, is seeking for his client, only nearly $40 million more than the highest number any No. 1 pick has gotten in the past. I can't fathom the Nationals paying that amount, and consensus has been that while Strasburg will sign for a record-setting figure, it will be closer to $15 million to $20 million. Then again, I also can't fathom under any circumstances how the Nationals could not sign Strasburg, no matter what his price - particularly after not signing their No. 1 pick, Aaron Crow, last year and how damaged the organization's credibility is in and out of baseball after a series of mistakes and mishaps.

The Strasburg hype is so great that if you announced that Stephen Strasburg was simply going to make an appearance at Nationals Park - sing with Cliff, race with Teddy, whatever - it would outdraw the paying crowd of about 20,000 that the Nationals have supposedly averaged so far this year. So if indeed Strasburg is the real deal, he will be worth whatever the Lerner family has to pay at least to stop the bleeding of this wounded franchise.

The hoopla is already driving Nationals management crazy, and the negotiations are just about to begin. On Tuesday night, when acting general manager Mike Rizzo was asked in a press conference about Strasburg being a "once-in-a-generation" pitcher, Rizzo responded, "I don't know why he is called that."

Because he is, until proved otherwise, and the Nationals better hope is turns out to be just that.

WRITTEN by Thom Loverro at The Washington Times on June 10th, 2009

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

The Character of Nations


In an age that values cleverness over wisdom, it is not surprising that many superficial but clever books get more attention than a wise book like 'The Character of Nations' by Angelo Codevilla, even though the latter has far more serious implications for the changing character of our own nation.

The recently published second edition of Professor Codevilla’s book is remarkable just for its subject, quite aside from the impressive breadth of its scope and the depth of its insights. But clever people among today’s intelligentsia disdain the very idea that there is such a thing as “national character.”

Everything from punctuality to alcohol consumption may vary greatly from one country to another, but the “one world” ideology and the “multicultural” dogma make it obligatory for many among the intelligentsia to act as if none of this has anything to do with the poverty, corruption, and violence of much of the Third World or with the low standard of living in the Soviet Union, one of the most richly endowed nations on earth when it came to natural resources.

The Character of Nations is about far more than the fact that there are different behavior patterns in different countries — that, for example, “it is unimaginable to do business in China without paying bribes” but “to offer one in Japan is the greatest of faux pas.”

The real point is to show what kinds of behaviors produce what kinds of consequences — in the economy, in the family, in the government, and in other aspects of human life. Nor do the repercussions stop there. Government policies are not only affected by the culture of the country, but can in turn have a major impact on that culture, for good or ill.

Written in plain and sometimes blunt words, The Character of Nations is nevertheless the product of a man whose knowledge and experience span the globe, extending into economics, philosophy, and other fields, as well as encompassing the wisdom of the ancients and the follies of the moderns.

The book is an education in itself, more of an education than many students are likely to get at an Ivy League college. However, its purpose is not academic but to clarify the issues facing us all today when “the character of the American way of life is up for grabs perhaps more than ever before,” as the author puts it.

While nations differ, particular kinds of behavior produce particular kinds of results in country after country. Moreover, American society in recent years has been imitating behavior patterns that have produced negative — and sometimes catastrophic — consequences in many other countries around the world.

Among these patterns have been a concentration of decision-making power in government officials, an undermining of the role of the family, a “non-judgmental” attitude toward behavior, and a dissolution of the common bonds that hold a society together, leading to atomistic self-indulgences and group-identity politics that increasingly pits different segments of society against each other.

Those among the intelligentsia who say that we should “learn from other countries” almost invariably mean that we should imitate what other countries have done. Angelo Codevilla argues that we should learn from other countries’ mistakes, especially when those same mistakes have repeatedly produced bad results in many countries and among many very different peoples, living under very different political systems.

Putting ever more economic decisions in the hands of those with political power is just one of those mistakes with a track record of producing painful repercussions in many countries around the world. These repercussions have included not only serious economic losses but, even more important, a loss of personal freedom and self-respect, as ever-wider segments of the population become supplicants and sycophants of those with the power to dispense largess or to make one’s life miserable with legalistic or bureaucratic harassment.

We in America have taken large steps in that direction in recent years, and are accelerating our moves in that direction this year. Getting some clearer sense of what this risks is just one of many reasons to read The Character of Nations.

WRITTEN by Thomas Sowell at National Review on June 10th, 2009