Government Handouts Create Chaos

More on this story here and here.

Brave Senator Wants to Ban Tobacco

Those of us who view smoking bans as draconian affronts to private property rights have often asked, "If tobacco is so destructive, why not ban it altogether?" Admittedly, we aren't all that sincere when we ask that question. We all know the reason tobacco hasn't been banned is because the unhappy souls who despise smokers are greedy unhappy souls, and they need the revenue generated by that evil plant to fund their misguided crusade to shape the rest of the country in their own image.

Well, wouldn't you know it? Some principled idealist is actually talking about banning tobacco -- and he happens to be a Republican. Newsmax.com reports:

Sen. Tom Coburn, who is also a medical doctor, is calling for an outright ban on the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products.

"What we should be doing is banning tobacco," the Oklahoma Republican declared on the Senate floor during a debate on a tobacco regulation bill.

"Nobody up here has the courage to do that. It is a big business. There are millions of Americans who are addicted to nicotine."

So, Senator Coburn fancies himself as someone with courage. Well, since he wants to use the most powerful government in the world to crack down on private businesses and consumers, he can afford to be brave.

Too bad he hasn't the cojones to take his oath of office seriously and actually abide by the Constitution he swore to support and defend. I guess there's a fine line between being brave and just plain insane.

Who's in Charge of Your Health?

Why, the government is, of course! Just ask Daniel Hauser, who has been forced to undergo chemotherapy against his beliefs. Oh, and ask Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. He just vetoed a bill that would allow terminally ill patients to use marijuana to alleviate pain.

Radley Balko disagrees, and he points out the glaring discrepancy:

The state of Minnesota is forcing Daniel Hauser into chemo because he isn't old enough to decide his own course of treatment, and because his parents' claimed moral opposition to chemotherapy is irrational. Yet at the same time, the state will forbid Hauser from smoking marijuana to offset the effects of said chemo because, despite research showing marijuana's clear benefits in that area, the state has a moral obligation to prevent people from smoking marijuana. Science should trump belief. Except when it doesn't.

We Don't Need a "Conversation on Race"

Walter Williams doesn't appreciate Attorney General Eric Holder saying that we're "a nation of cowards" when it comes to race relations. He writes:

The bottom line is that the civil rights struggle is over and it is won. At one time black Americans didn't share the constitutional guarantees shared by whites; today we do. That does not mean that there are not major problems that confront a large segment of the black community, but they are not civil rights problems nor can they be solved through a "conversation on race."

Read the full article here.

On Chimps and Bailouts

Whether or not you've known it by its official name, you're all familiar with the infinite monkey theorem. It states that given an infinite amount of time, it's possible for a monkey, or a roomful of monkeys, randomly hitting keys on a typewriter, to eventually produce a complex, coherent text -- Shakespeare's Hamlet, for example. It has to do with probabilities and statistics, which is why this particular illustration comes up quite a bit in discussions about evolution.

Variations on the infinite monkey theorem pop up all the time, most recently in the following New York Post cartoon by Sean Delonas:

An obvious link is being made to the recent story about cops shooting to death a rampaging 200-pound chimp. And what the cop in the cartoon is referring to is the slapped-together stimulus bill the Democrats forced through Congress without allowing anyone time to even read it -- a bill so devoid of logic and reason that (are you ready?) a chimp could have written it.

The link you may have missed (probably because it doesn't exist) is one that has more racial overtones. Leave it to our resident expert on racism, Al Sharpton, to point out what you and I may have overlooked. He issued this statement on his web site yesterday:

The cartoon in today's New York Post is troubling at best, given the racist attacks throughout history that have made African-Americans synonymous with monkeys. One has to question whether the cartoonist is making a less than casual inference to this form of racism when, in the cartoon, the police say after shooting a chimpanzee, "now they will have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill."

Being that the stimulus bill has been the first legislative victory of President Barack Obama (the first African American president) and has become synonymous with him it is not a reach to wonder whether the Post cartoonist was inferring that a monkey wrote it? Given that the New York Post cartoonist has come under heavy fire in the past for racially tinged cartoons including the infamous cartoons depicting 2001 mayoral candidate Freddy Ferrer and me in very unflattering ways (that ultimately was used as a campaign tactic to inflame racial prejudices), one cannot ignore that history when looking at this morning's cartoon.

The Post should at least clarify what point they were trying to make in this cartoon, and reprimand their cartoonist for making inferences that are offensive and divisive at a time the nation struggles to come together to stabilize the economy if, in fact, this was yet another racially charged cartoon.

This is quite a stretch, even for Reverend Al, but he doesn't joke around when it comes to making mountains out of mole hills. It's how he makes his living.

So, here's what we're supposed to think: The chimp represents President Barack Obama because, contrary to reality, he was the one wrote this so-called "stimulus" bill, not congressional Democrats. And everyone knows that some cartoonists 60 or 70 years ago depicted blacks with chimpanzee-like characteristics, not to mention that a few lowlifes today may occasionally employ such a slur when referring to those with darker skin. Therefore, we are supposed to be outraged and need to join Sharpton and his followers in some sort of protest or boycott or whatever.

But let's pause for a moment. Which president has been compared over and over again to a chimpanzee? Why, George W. Bush, of course. In fact, he was the inspiration for web sites like BushOrChimp.com and SmirkingChimp.com. Where was the outrage? Where was the call for protests?

What convinces me that Sharpton's accusation is bogus is that his only complaint about the cartoon is that it is "racially charged." He makes no issue out of the fact that the chimp in the cartoon has just been shot dead. If Sharpton really thought the artist intended the chimp to represent Obama, don't you think he would have pointed out that this could be interpreted as some sort of veiled assassination threat? Seems to me that is far more serious than any possible racial implication.

Unfortunately, we're easily distracted. This little scandal has now overshadowed the real crime perpetrated on American citizens of all colors: the passage of the largest pork spending bill in our nation's history that is sure to drive the economy further into the ground.

Scotland the Gay

Want to know what it's like to live in a country whose government is willing to break up families in order to make a sociopolitical statement? Just take a look at this story from Scotland:

Social services have removed two young children from the care of their grandparents and arranged for them to be adopted by a homosexual couple.

The five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister were being looked after by their grandparents because their mother, a recovering drug addict, was not considered capable.

But social workers stepped in after allegedly deciding that the couple, who are aged 59 and 46, were "too old" to look after the children.

They were allegedly stripped of their carer's rights and informed they would be barred from seeing the children altogether unless they agreed to the same-sex adoption. ...

... The case raises fears about state interference in family arrangements, and concerns about the practice of adoption by same-sex couples.

Social workers at the City of Edinburgh Council have been accused of waging a "two-year campaign" through the courts to strip the grandparents of their legal rights as carers of the children.

The reason we should pay close attention to what goes on in the U.K. is because it gives us a glimpse of what's in store for us here in the near future.

Poor Sportsmanship?

By now most of you have probably heard about the Dallas Academy girls' basketball team losing their last game to The Covenant School by a score of 100-0. Don't worry. They're taking the defeat in stride. Hardly aspiring WNBA stars, these charming young ladies were probably just happy to get together for a few hours after school each week to chat about boys and homework and lob a few airballs. They were just having fun.

Still, you can't help but feel sorry for these girls. I mean, 100 to zip! They couldn't make so much as a single free throw. To say that they were outmatched would be an understatement.

The reaction to this story has been virtually unanimous: "How could any team with even a shred of human decency run up the score like that? How dare they!"

OK, here's where I'm going to rub a few people the wrong way. I would have expected nothing less from the team that won. In fact, if I had been their coach, I probably would have wondered why they couldn't win by 200 points.

Now, before you think I'm being heartless, look at what the losing coach, Jeremy Civello, had to say:

"My girls never quit," he said. "They played as hard as they could to the very end. They played with all their hearts at 70-nothing, 80-nothing and 100-nothing. I was really proud of them. That's what I told them after the game." ...

... The Bulldogs play, Civello said, for more than the final score. They play in hope of improving skills, learning teamwork and picking up whatever life lessons athletics may bring. ...

... Against Covenant, Dallas Academy was surprised to see an obviously superior team keep the pressure on until it scored its 100th point in the fourth quarter. "I'm sure they could have won by 30 points and still had just as good a time," Civello said.

The reason I'm having such a hard time sympathizing with Dallas Academy is that coach Civello contradicted himself when he complained that the Covenant girls could have had just as much fun winning by 30. If the whole point is to have the girls playing "with all their hearts," who cares what the final score was, be it 100-0 or 200-0?

The fact is that he was embarrassed. And who can blame him? This kind of a loss -- not to mention the fact that Dallas Academy hasn't won a game in four years -- is hard to live down.

Still, we are left with the impression that Covenant coach Micah Grimes and his players are mean-spirited brutes because the team was still playing hard until the final buzzer. But isn't that exactly what we would expect of any team? Look at it from their perspective. Coach Grimes spends the entire season trying to get his players to give 100%. Do we expect him to go against everything he's been teaching them and suddenly try to get them not to play their best simply because the opposing team stinks?

When asked about the game, Grimes responded:

"It's unfortunate we got to 100 points in the game against Dallas Academy. It just happened, and we are not happy about that.

"Please know Covenant intended no harm against them. I see this as a real learning opportunity, so we can prevent this from happening in the future."

This coach is now made to feel guilty for daring to inspire his team to play competitively, as if it's his fault the girls of Dallas Academy have no basketball skills.

Because we live in a politically correct society that abhors competition among kids, we must see to it that hard work doesn't pay off. We must condemn teams like Covenant because their display of superior skills might damage the self-esteem of those who aren't quite as talented. That's why Covenant has been shamed into issuing a formal apology and forfeiting the game.

What I find extremely interesting is that not one person has dared to criticize coach Civello for allowing his team to be humiliated for four quarters. He could have called an end to it at any point during the game, but he didn't, and yet no one expects him to apologize.

Again, if the whole point is to get the kids to play their best, then it shouldn't matter what the score is. Period. But if we're more worried about fragile egos and hurt feelings, then perhaps parents should be a little more discerning when it comes to their children's extracurricular activities.

Faith in Government Is the Root of the Problem

So writes Paul Ibrahim:

Most Americans are raised by the government. They are usually raised for more than 12 years in public schools that they are forced to pay for, and, for the financially restricted, forced to attend. Even if they are lucky enough to have a choice in education, they grow up bombarded by pervasive laws -- and not just the necessary types that regulate traffic and criminal activity, but the types that ban certain "unhealthy" cooking, prohibit smoking on private property and order the use of helmets and seatbelts.

It is therefore not surprising that many -- too many -- Americans reach adulthood with a built-in, assumed, inherent faith in a notional all-knowing and compassionate government. For these Americans, questioning the role of government in certain areas is very much like questioning the essence of life itself. ...

... Too many Americans have grown up believing that it is the government’s job to play a big activist role in society and in the economy. This ideology is more or less dependent on the (false) assumption that government is an inherently good institution filled with inherently good people who wake up everyday wondering how they can act to improve a constituent’s life.

Well, Fiddle-Dee-Dee! Another Complaint from the NAACP

Edward Vaughn, who heads the Alabama NAACP, is complaining that he doesn't want a certain group to be included as part of the upcoming inauguration celebration in Washington, D.C. He believes their appearance would convey a message of racism.

Just what is this racist group? An offshoot of the KKK? Skinhead motorcyclists with Confederate flag stickers on their bikes? No. Mr. Vaughn's undies are in a twist over a group of high school senior Southern belles in hoop dresses from Mobile County. They belong to the Azalea Trail Court, which has been in existence since 1949. In addition to presidential inaugurations, these young ladies have taken part in numerous other national pastimes, such as the Rose Bowl Parade and the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.

So, what's Mr. Vaughn's problem? "These are not just regular costumes. These are the costumes that remind someone of the plantation in Gone with the Wind," he said in an interview. "We needed something that could show Alabama's great progress rather than something that shows a shameful past."

I don't mean to sound harsh, but wouldn't the appearance of blacks at the inauguration be enough to remind people of slavery? Besides, isn't the fact that a black man is being sworn in as president a testimony to how far our nation has come? Why not celebrate that as a sign of overcoming over a shameful past?

Like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Edward Vaughn's livelihood is based on voicing grievances where no legitimate grievance exists. My guess is that as head of the Alabama NAACP he had already decided to complain about something -- and since none of the groups to be included in the inauguration ceremonies were going to be flying Confederate flags or other symbols of "hate," this was the best he could come up with.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

This AFP story appeared, ironically, in the Straits Times:

Sixteen years after Bill Clinton tried to end restrictions on gays in the military, the U.S. armed forces under Barack Obama may be forced to give homosexuals the same welcome as non-gays.

Under President Clinton, the policy that once saw homosexuals discharged from US military service evolved to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," allowing gays to remain in the military so long as they did not reveal their sexual orientation.

Mr. Obama has pledged to overhaul current law.

"The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited," reads an entry on the president-elect's transition website.

In Defense of Christmas...Sort Of

(The following EV essay was originally published on December 23, 2005.)

'Tis the season to be melancholy. Haven't you heard? Christmas is under attack! Christians all across America are being persecuted! You thought Nero was bad? Our most sacred of days is being secularized and no one seems to be doing anything to stop it!

Is this a foreshadowing of the coming Great Tribulation? Are we about to see the fulfillment of Revelation 13:17? Will we wake up one morning and discover that we cannot buy Christmas presents for our loved ones unless our hands or foreheads bear the mark of the Beast? Surely we must be living in the End Times!

Okay, back to reality...

Yes, I believe there are assaults on the tradition of Christmas, just as surely as the world rails against anything associated with Christ and his church. But given the state of our secular, hedonistic culture, it really isn't all that surprising when some people are offended when you wish them a "Merry Christmas."

It goes both ways, however. Many Christians are just as offended when they are greeted with the words "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings." "How dare you take Christ out of Christmas!" they shout, as they claw, punch and bite their way through a gaggle of shoppers for the last Xbox 360 on the shelf so that they and their spoiled children can properly celebrate the Savior's birth.

Don't get me wrong. Despite the fact that, after all this time, I still have not received a Red Ryder carbine-action, 200-shot, range model air rifle, I love Christmas. It is a time set aside for fellowship with friends and family. It is also the time of year during which we focus on the birth of Jesus Christ. While that does make Christmas a significant holiday, there isn't anything especially holy about it.

Debate continues even within Christian circles about the origins of Christmas. "Its roots go back to the pagan rituals of ancient Rome," some will argue. "No," others reply. "Christmas is a distinctly Christian celebration and should be embraced." Whatever your particular view may be, the fact remains that Christmas is a man-made holiday.

Romans 14:5 says, "One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." That is not to say that traditions aren't important or that churches shouldn't have special days on their calendars. But considering that the only celebration in remembrance of Christ that is called for in scripture is the Lord's Supper, can we really justify getting worked up simply because we don't see the word "Christmas" in a store display?

My point is that many of us have a tendency to overreact when we see things we don't like. That is especially true at Christmastime. We're geared up for a fight, and when we hear the jingle bells ring we come out swinging.

Alistair Begg, pastor of Parkside Church in Cleveland, Ohio, once noted in a sermon that the weapons of the believer are "prayer and the proclamation of the Word." Those are the weapons we should be using. "As soon as we lay down the two weapons given by our Commander," Begg continued, "we will be forced to take up the weapons that are present in our culture. And so we become just another marching special interest group..."

The result is a boycott here and a lawsuit there in the hope that an unbelieving world will relent and allow us to express our Christian beliefs. Of course, what usually happens is that we end up looking every bit as shallow and selfish as the very ones we believe are out to get us. We forget to exhibit Christ's love in a fallen world.

Is that how we want to be seen? Is that what we are called to do? Is our dedication to the defense of the gospel of Christ defined by how ferociously we defend a particular holiday? Will our petty complaints about society's disregard for the "true meaning" of Christmas help us reach lost souls?

This Christmas, may we be less offended by the "secularization" of a man-made holiday and be more focused on living as examples of the One whose birth we're celebrating. The world doesn't need Christmas; what it does need is Christ.

The U.S. Constitution: Smorgasbord of Freedom?

(The following EV essay was originally published on July 16, 2001.)

Americans love all-you-can-eat buffets. We love to walk into a restaurant, belly up to the steaming food trough, and sink our teeth into dozens of different foods, satisfying every culinary craving we could possibly have.

In the mood for seafood? Try the butterflied shrimp or the crab legs. Better yet, try both! Want some turf with your surf? Throw in a 12-ounce sirloin and some barbecued pork. Can't wait for dessert? Top off your plate with a slice (or two, or three) of cheesecake. And don't bother with the salad bar. Why waste your $13.95 on lawn clippings? As long as you remember to use a clean plate on your next trip through the buffet line, you can eat as much as you want for as long as you want.

Sadly, many Americans view the U.S. Constitution in very much the same way they drool over an elaborate smorgasbord. They believe the founding fathers of this country prepared a sumptuous feast of various freedoms and laid it out on a tablecloth of parchment. All they need to do is pick and choose the freedoms they like best and they'll be as satisfied as a Calvin Klein model after three stalks of celery.

The trouble is that eventually the buffet will begin run out of food, and I for one do not want to be caught between a 400-pound truck driver, with a belt buckle the size of a hubcap, and the last piece of fried chicken. In other words, we need to reread our history and learn to interpret the Constitution as the founders intended if we want to maintain the freedoms we have enjoyed for over two centuries.

Truth be told, freedom itself is an abstract concept. It can mean a variety of things to different people. Rice farmers in China, for instance, are free to grow and sell their crops, but are not free to speak out publicly against the government's policy toward the Falun Gong. Cubans in Havana are free to roll and smoke their own cigars but are never free to blow as much smoke as Fidel Castro.

Americans, thankfully, have a slightly bigger slice of freedom pie than our communist counterparts; and ours is a la mode. However, if we begin to take advantage of the generous buffet servings, the manager of the restaurant may walk up to our table and say, "Excuse me, but I think you've made enough trips through the buffet line. If you don't leave now, I'll be forced to call mall security." That is what happens when there isn't enough freedom to go around.

We have already begun to see the rationing of liberty. Today, every freedom gained by one group means taking away a freedom from another. In 1973, the Supreme Court granted pregnant women the "right" to kill their unborn children by taking away the unborn children's right to life. In the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Congress gave certain groups of people the "freedom" to be employed by virtually any business without regard to race, religion, sex, or disability by taking away the freedom of association previously held by business owners. In 1994, Congress gave the federal government more "freedom" to regulate the sale and ownership of guns by further eroding the constitutionally protected right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Countless groups of people are tripping over one another to get to the buffet line in hopes of scooping up their favorite freedoms before they disappear. In their blind selfishness they have forgotten the most important thing: freedom is for everyone and should not be a limited resource that needs to be distributed on a first-come, first-served basis. To remain metaphorically consistent, freedom is supposed to be the strong, ever-flowing, bottomless cup of coffee, not the thimble-sized, single serving cup of espresso with a lemon twist.

In that respect, the Constitution is not, and never has been, a menu of freedoms available to the people of the United States. It was designed to be more of an insurance policy guaranteeing that the freedoms already granted to the people by their Creator would remain fresh and unspoiled by an overzealous federal government. The Constitution is more like the warning signs in restaurants that read, "EMPLOYEES MUST WASH HANDS AFTER USING RESTROOM."

The United States of America should be a bountiful cornucopia of liberty, but that can only be accomplished when freedoms are no longer treated as side dishes on a buffet table. Before we know it, we will have gorged ourselves on what satisfies our immediate cravings, leaving the rest on our plates to be scraped into the garbage disposal of big government. And, unlike the taut little stomach of the Calvin Klein model, I don't think we can count on the garbage disposal ever feeling satisfied.

Death Certificates for Christmas

This is a new low, even for the pro-death racists at Planned Parenthood:

Indiana residents in need of a quick stocking stuffer this holiday season have an unusual option: Planned Parenthood gift certificates.

The group's Hoosier State chapter on Wednesday began selling gift certificates redeemable at any of its 35 facilities for any service provided -- from basic health screenings to birth control to abortions.

Betty Cockrum, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood of Indiana, said the program was initiated in response to the state's ailing economy.

It seems some people just aren't satisfied with the current abortion rate among poor minorities in Indiana.

No Such Thing as Free Enterprise in America

Yet another privately owned and operated business has fallen victim to our grand socialist experiment:

Online dating service eHarmony has agreed to create a new website for gays and lesbians as part of a settlement with a gay man in New Jersey, the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General said on Wednesday.

The website will provide a dating service with "male seeking a male" or "female seeking a female" options, the Attorney General's office said in a statement.

eHarmony said it will launch the new same-sex dating site, named "Compatible Partners," by March 31.

The settlement was the result of a discrimination complaint filed by Eric McKinley against eHarmony in 2005, which will be dismissed under the settlement agreement.

eHarmony was founded in 2000 by evangelical Christian Dr. Neil Clark Warren and had ties with the influential religious conservative group Focus on the Family.

If you sincerely believe that free enterprise exists in America, you're more than a little out of touch with reality.

Not-So-Gay Old Time

What happens when a group of gay rights activists feel threatened by a lone, heterosexual elderly woman? Well, exactly what you'd expect:

"Tolerance" in action.

The Course of Empire

The Course of Empire (1834-1836) by Thomas Cole

The Savage State


The Arcadian or Pastoral State


The Consummation of Empire


The Destruction of Empire


Desolation

Obama Talks Reparations

Addressing a gathering of minority journalists this past Sunday, the Democratic presidential candidate said, "I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."

Hold onto your wallets, America. The candidates are already plotting how to spend your money.

Abortion: Weeding out the Undesirables

Eugenics is the study of the possibility that the quality of the human race can be improved by encouraging people with "desirable" traits to reproduce while at the same time discouraging reproduction among those with "undesirable" traits. It was practiced by the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s and continues to this day.

The link between eugenics and the modern abortion movement is no conincidence. Margaret Sanger, founder of the American Birth Control League (which eventually became Planned Parenthood), was a huge fan of eugenics. In 1932, she wrote an essay entitled "A Plan for Peace," in which she called on Congress to create a Parliament of Population. The objective would be to "direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and to direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals." One of the methods for accomplishing this goal was "to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."

Today, eugenics carries with it such a negative connotation. We're more enlightened, so we call it "reproductive freedom."

Abortion is already being used to "filter out" undesirable kids. Last year, the LA Times ran an opinion piece entitled "The Abortion Debate Brought Home." The author, Dan Neil, boasts about the decision he and his wife made to selectively murder two of their four children. They did so because the in-vitro fertilization process resulted in four babies: two girls and two boys. And since no one in the history of civilization has ever given birth to more than two children at once, they concluded that two of them had to go.

So, they did what any concerned parent would do: they had genetic testing done to see which of their kids would be less of a hassle to raise. In the end, they decided to off the boys. As Neil explains, "Some studies show offspring of older fathers (I'm 47) run a higher risk of autism, and males are four times as likely to be autistic." What a brave and loving father!

Oh, but the decision wasn't all that easy. Neil "had reservations about bringing girls into the world now, when forces seemed to be aligning to disenfranchise them (nine of 10 GOP presidential candidates favor reversing Roe vs. Wade)." He wasn't too keen on the idea that his daughters would "have to fight the battles their mothers and grandmothers fought." (Come on. I'm sure Mom would be more than happy to teach them how to burn their training bras.)

Neil wishes there were more doctors out there willing to murder children and that those of us who have a problem with infanticide should just lighten up. He goes on to express his gratitude to the Hippocratic Oath-breaker who butchered his two sons -- withholding her name, of course, "for fear that she might be terrorized by some gun-toting antiabortion extremist." He concludes, "For our part, we are grateful that she was out there. Without her, we wouldn't have been able to have a family. When Roz and Viv grow up, I hope one day I can introduce them to her. I think she'd be proud."

You're quite a guy, Mr. Neil. I suppose the rest of us should be on our knees, thanking you for not bringing two potential freaks into the world. Who knows? Those boys could have turned out to be just as sick and twisted as their father. I don't know about your anonymous "doctor" friend, but I am certain that Margaret Sanger would be proud.

Mother's Day Insult

Oh, the irony.

Accommodation at Any Cost?

Just how far should a school go to accommodate its students? Do the needs or wants of the minority outweigh the needs or wants of the majority? And must such accommodations always come at taxpayer expense?:

Yet another reason why I won't be sending my kids to a government school.