Why I Love Clint Eastwood
Over the weekend I saw Gran Turino on DVD, Clint Eastwood's film. Fantastic. Brilliant. Loved it.Eastwood plays a crotchety older man -- in his 70s, but remarkably youthful looking and in great shape, save for the fact that gets a cancer-like ailment half-way through the film. He lives in a modest house in a not-so-great area of Detriot, and his neighbors are Asian.
Walt (that's Eastwood's name) had fought in the Korean War, and thus refers to his neighbors as gooks. He calls people a lot of names, actually; and because of this the movie is not PC. Naturally, it didn't win any awards.
It should have. The messages are excellent. As is often the case, you have to be able to look beyond political incorrectness to understand the depth of meaning behind a person's words and actions. It's people like Walt, people who have great wisdom and speak the truth -- whether or not the truth is popular or is conveyed in an appropriate manner -- who we should be listening to the most. Unfortunately, there are so few politically incorrect people out there.
Rent this film.
The Demise of Authority
The first time I realized something was amiss in our culture was after I graduated from college in 1990. Like everyone else, I emerged from my cocoon an idealistic and naive twenty-two year old. But it didn't take long for the seeds of wisdom to be planted.My early public school teaching experiences provided a quick lesson in how modern culture operates. Somewhere over the previous twenty years, while I was busy becoming a young woman, society had changed. I grew up watching Leave It to Beaver, The Brady Bunch, Family Affair, Bewitched, and all the other benign programs that hailed from the 1950s and 60s. But the world these characters inhabited was quite different from the one I had entered.
There are many societal changes -- both good and bad -- that have occurred in our culture these past forty years. But there is one that is so monumental, so far-reaching, it colors all the rest: the complete breakdown of authority. This isn't a problem that only abounds in public schools and on the streets of America; it is a chronic and pervasive problem in our homes. Leave It to Beaver, The Brady Bunch, and all the rest get a lot of flack for representing the idealized nuclear family; but regardless of how you feel about traditional families, they have one undeniable characteristic: They represent a family dynamic where the adults are clearly in charge.
When I entered the teaching profession, I had no idea the degree to which discipline had broken down in our public schools. It took changing jobs, several times, before it registered that the problem was pervasive -- and I subsequently left the profession. It’s just impossible to teach in schools with weak administrations. The only positive teaching experience I had came several years later -- at a private school.
Soon afterward – in 2000 -- I became a mother; and these past nine years have been eye-opening. Simply put, the same lack of authority I witnessed in the schools I have witnessed as a parent. Indeed, I have been absorbed in discipline-related matters for some twenty years now; and I can tell you, unequivocally, that the problem is greater than many Americans realize. Good discipline is the catalyst by which children learn and grow: If it isn’t in place, everything else falls by the wayside.
Something has seriously gone wrong in America. The breakdown of authority – which began in the 1960s, when people began to question authority en masse and we saw the rise of individualism – has created a nation of adults ill-equipped to handle the rudimentary concepts of discipline. Disciplining children is no small task, and certainly some adults will have a more difficult time than others. It isn’t necessarily something that comes naturally -- which is why it’s critical that the culture supports our endeavors. When it comes to parenting, there are two prerequisites for instilling proper discipline: an authoritative (not autocratic) personality in at least one parent, and a team effort on the part of both parents. If one of these is lacking, discipline will be a challenge. For some parents, it becomes the bane of their existence.
Previous generations had two advantages when it comes to discipline – and thus has fewer problems maintaining authority. One, most families had two parents. This cannot be overstated, for when one parent is absent, discipline generally breaks down. Two, Americans at that time believed parents were the boss. The idea of understanding children, of being your children’s friend and working through problems with them the way we would do with our own friends, had yet to seep into our social fabric. Finally, the self-esteem movement – which suggests humans are so fragile they can’t handle the truth – had yet to do its damage.
Today both these things are at play: single-parent families and a culture obsessed with self-esteem. Modern parents have concluded, or have been taught to conclude, that the best way to raise children is to offer lots of wiggle room -- which is why we see parents giving their children four and five chances to change their behavior. It’s why we see them apologizing to their kids for something that requires no apology. It’s why we see them making excuses for Johnny’s bad behavior. It’s why we see them talking to their children as if they had mental deficiencies and can’t handle swift punishment. In today’s culture, punishment is akin to abuse.
This is a concept that has taken hold in America, and it’s been a mistake of monumental proportions. Disciplining children is hard enough on its own; living in a culture that undermines this work is a catastrophe. Modern parents need support for how to instill proper discipline in a way they never have before. We've transitioned away from a nation when children were meant to be “seen and not heard" (a perfectly good idea) to a nation of spoiled, disrespectful, ill-mannered, and undisciplined kids. This didn’t just happen. Children come into this world the same way they did one hundred years ago; they haven't changed one iota.
It’s we who have changed – and not for the better.
The Courage of Governor Mark Sanford
Do not throw stones. If you're a Republican, think hard before judging Mark Sanford. If you're a Democrat, do not use Sanford's story to your advantage. Being liberal or conservative has nothing to do with having an affair. But how Sanford handled the situation is very much related to his politics.If there's one thing that would keep me out of politics (running for office, I mean) -- aside from the fact that I don't have a politically correct bone in my body, so I'd fail miserably -- is the idea of having my personal life under a microscope. We are all human; we all make mistakes; and we all have checkered pasts. Love and marriage, in my opinion, should be off limits. I understand the press eats it up, but I can't understand why we indulge them.
Clinton's case was different. His transgressions were in the Oval Office -- which demonstrated a shocking lack of character. His lack of character isn't because he cheated on his wife but because of the unmitigated gall and disrespect doing it in the Oval Office showed. It's like he had sex in church. It's like he was a child seeing what he could get away with -- and when he didn't, he cowered. Who wants that kind of person running the country? I think Clinton's case matters NOT because he cheated on his wife but because of the way in which he did. And because you can tell a lot about a person by the way he handles his mistakes.
The fact is, we don't know squat about Mark Sanford's marriage -- where or how it went south -- and it's none of our business. His relationship with another woman is none of our business. The fact that he had an affair does not negate whatever he stands for politically. A person can absolutely espouse conservative values and fail in his personal life. Raising the moral bar is a good thing -- even if some of us fail to reach that high. If your child failed a test in school, would you tell her to lower her standards?
What makes Mark Sanford's case so unusual, the reason the press was so shocked by Sanford's words yesterday is because of the enormity of his courage and honesty. Mark Sanford provided FAR more information than he needed to on Wednesday. He gave more details than any one of us would possibly need, in an attempt to explain how a good person can still fail. It isn't whether or not people fail that makes them courageous -- I would challenge anyone to name someone who hasn't failed -- it's what they do with their failings that makes them courageous.
Mark Sanford is in tremendous pain. He knows what he did was wrong. And he tried to explain to millions of strangers why -- when he didn't have to. His moral lapse does not change his character. If I had to place my bets, I'd say he's in love with this other woman -- though he would never admit it because of the pain it would cause his family. Simply put, he's an emotional wreck over a no-win situation. It is no place to be.
If I'm right -- and I'm not saying I am -- leave the man alone. His life is a bona fide mess right now. Falling in love with another person when you're married is not the same as playing with cigars with an intern.
Many conservatives, particularly members of the religious right, will disagree with me. They will argue there's no difference between a casual affair and a serious one. An affair's an affair. It's sort of like the abortion debate. A true conservative believes there's no difference between aborting a 4-week old fetus and an 8-month old baby, and I respectfully disagree. It's not that one situation is "okay" and the other isn't; it's that one situation shows a different level of moral judgment. One shows the gray of life much more clearly than the other.
Bottom line: Affairs are not restricted to any one political group. But how we handle the mess that ensues will show our true colors.
Misunderstood Conservatives
Conservatives, I'm convinced, are the most misunderstood people on the planet. At least today they are. This wasn't the case the past, when conservatism was the more popular worldview. But in a liberal world -- and by that I don't mean most Americans today are liberal (they are not), I mean the culture, via the media, exudes liberalism -- it's inevitable.The thinking goes something like this: If you're liberal-minded, you're open-minded, tolerant, and basically just a nice person. If you're conservative-minded, you're inflexible, intolerant, righteous, and judgmental. Let's pick apart these ridiculous notions and set the record straight -- b/c I would argue that in fact the opposite is true.
Being open-minded. This is one of my favorites. Generally speaking, liberals don't understand what it means to be open-minded. Being open-minded does not mean accepting anything and everything as is, or welcoming all people and ideas into your world free of judgment. Being open-minded means being open to looking at a particular idea -- studying it, analyzing it, talking about it -- and then deciding what you think about it. The only people who are close-minded are those who refuse to look.
Refusing to look at an idea means you don't want to think about it because it may upset the nature of things. It may upset one's order, the way they want it to be. Certainly there are conservatives who fall into this camp -- but they are rare. The vast majority of Americans are open-minded people. What separates conservatives from liberals is that conservatives are not afraid to take a stand and say, "Hey, wait a minute. This is wrong." You will rarely hear a modern liberal call anyone's behavior wrong -- because in their world the concept of right and wrong is personal. It's not dictated by God, or society, or any universal moral order. It's personal. If they deem something to be wrong, it is wrong. If they deem it to be right, it is right. That conservatives don't believe in moral relativity does not make them close-minded. They're perfectly open; they just disagree. It's only when a liberal doesn't like the conclusion the conservative has come to that he calls him "close-minded."
As far as being righteous goes, here's the deal: Conservatives may sound righteous when they talk -- I can see that -- but nine out of ten times when you actually get to know a conservative, they're incredibly humble. Hard to imagine, I know. But you can't use the Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulters of the world as a gauge. Forget about the media personalities. Everyday conservatives are very self-deprecating (as a whole) and can laugh at themselves. These are not characteristics of a righteous people. The reason they appear this way sometimes is because they care so much about humanity, so much about the underdog, so much about liberty and fairness for all, they get carried away. Their passion overtakes them, and they don't come across like liberals do: soft and mushy. Add to this the fact that modern culture is so morally corrupt that it makes conservatives appear that much more righteous b/c they have to scream to be heard.
Then there's that "nice" label. Ugh. Makes me nuts. It's so easy to be nice: just smile a lot and nod along in conversation. Anyone can be nice. Being nice isn't what gives a person character. Being nice doesn't single a person out in any way. You don't have to do anything to be nice. It takes speaking out, getting involved, and sharing ideas and opinions to have character. JUST B/C SOMEONE'S NICE doesn't mean he's good.
Finally, the arrogance factor. Being confident about right and wrong doesn't make a person arrogant. Fifty years ago Americans agreed on right and wrong, and no one considered that arrogant. It's only because of the rise of moral relativity that those who don't subscribe to it -- conservatives -- are labeled arrogant.
God has plenty of opinions about right and wrong. Is He arrogant? Obama, our other God, has plenty of opinions about what we should and shouldn't do as a nation. Is he arrogant? The National Organization of Women has a lot of opinions about the right and wrong way to handle things. Are these women arrogant? Just about everyone -- whether they admit it in public or not -- has opinions about right and wrong. It's just that to a liberal, conservatives are the arrogant folks because they won't change their worldview to step in line with the liberal worldview.
That's not arrogance. That's just smart.
Stand Tall and Proud, but Only If You're Informed
If I had to choose one issue I'm most passionate about, it would be the inability of so many Americans to think for themselves.If you're reading this blog, chances are you're not a blind follower (or maybe you are, and you read this site for some other reason). A blind follower is someone who is either so blinded by ideology that he can't think outside the box he's created for himself, or he gets his news from mainstream news sources only and assumes he's getting accurate, non-biased information. This means he does one or all of the following: watches CBS, NBC, and ABC; has a subscription to Time or Newsweek; and watches Oprah.
It's not that a person can't watch or read these things and not be a follower. He can. But he has to add to his repetoire the countless other media sources: web news, radio, cable television, and The Wall Street Journal. He must also read voraciously -- not just books but periodicals and magazines (not women's magazines, please). Only when you do these things can you get an accurate picture of what's really going on in America.
Most blind followers are liberals. Why do I say this? Because 99.9% of the time, when you ask a self-described liberal where he got his information, he'll know nothing of the sources I just named. He'll do a great job of complaining about what's wrong with America -- and offer no solutions -- but he won't be able to explain his reasons in a logical, cohesive manner. If you don't believe me, try this exercise out for yourself. The next time you find yourself -- assuming you're a conservative or a moderate -- in conversation with a liberal-minded person who's ranting about the state of the world, ask him why he thinks what he thinks. Trust me: You'll stump him.
My point is this: I believe every person should stand tall and proud for whatever it is they believe in. But if you stand tall and proud and have no idea what you're saying or why you're saying it, you have nothing to be proud of.
Why Americans are Afraid to Take a Moral Stand
One of the reasons many people are reluctant to speak out about morality -- about what they believe Americans should or shouldn't do -- is because they fear having a mirror turned upon themselves. Simply put, people need permission to fail -- and they believe the only way to make allowances for this is to remain silent about other people's failings.This is understandable, but it's misguided. Taking a public stand about "the way things ought to be" doesn't mean the person speaking out considers him or herself perfect. It doesn't mean the person thinks his or her way is superior to everyone else's. The purpose of speaking out about morality is to support and encourage all of us -- including the person who's doing the preaching --to be better people.
Preacher-types (Bill O'Reilly notwithstanding) are not arrogant. Not most of them, anyway. Most of them want one thing: to right wrongs. That's all they're interested in. What they feel is a deep-seated passion for injustice, and they can't help themselves from speaking out. I mentioned Dr. Laura in my last post. Bill O'Reilly is another. Glenn Beck. Hannity. Laura Ingraham. There are countless others who are less well-known but who spend just as much energy on righting wrongs. Do these folks tend to be conservative? You bet. NOT because conservatives are more moral than liberals, but because conservatives are not afraid of moral absolutes. They consider high standards a good thing. Conservatives don't see authority, or the existence of a universal moral order, as evil -- or something that holds them back from being their true selves.
Progressives do. Progressives see morality as constantly in flux. They see only gray and no black and white. They subscribe to the Holy Grail of moral relativism: what's right for one person isn't necessarily right for another. To a modern liberal, morality comes from within. Only through soul-searching can we come to the right answer. God can't provide it. Society can't provide it. Only individuals can. The inner self is an inner sanctum to a liberal.
So it's not that progressives are lacking morality and conservatives are all moral; it's that a progressive's morality is fluid. Consequently, they tend not to be the folks who speak out about morality. After all, they need permission to be flexible with their choices. If they speak publicly about "the way things ought to be," they'll have to live up to it.
But here's the thing: Just because we hold ourselves to high standards does NOT mean we don't have permission to fail. I've been preaching for years, and I've made plenty of mistakes. Indeed, the most misunderstood aspect of being conservative is the idea that conservatives are always on their high horse. They are not. They simply want to preserve the good society, and the only way to do this is to encourage us all to shoot for the high moral ground.
We don't always make it there, but we never lower the bar.
Conservatism and the University Campus
Speaking of college professors (from my last post), today there's an article in the WSJ titled "Conservatism and the University Curriculum." The fact that college campuses are dominated by liberals and teach solely through this lens should be of paramount importance to Americans. It is no small matter.When I was in school (at Boston University in the late eighties) I took a course at the School of Education which required aspiring teachers to choose a topic and teach the class. I recall one student in particular who, when it was his turn to teach a social science topic, gave absolutely no indication of where he stood on the matter. He was superbly neutral -- which I knew would make him an excellent teacher. That's what teaching is about: making students think. (And, in some cases, making them wonder what their teacher thinks.) Such is the hallmark of a true education.
Alas, these days are gone. Today's universities are as corrupt as the mainstream media. Sending your 18-year-old to college now is like throwing them to the wolves: They will be eaten alive by liberals in power. "The political science departments at elite private universities offer undergraduates a variety of courses on a range of topics. But one topic the undergraduates at these institutions -- and at the vast majority of other universities and colleges -- are unlikely to find covered is conservatism," writes Peter Berkowitz.
I would also add this: It isn't just in the political science departments that liberalism reigns. It may not be as overt in other schools on campus, but it is always there -- subtle and insidious. As a result, conservative-minded students are routinely marginalized, feeling like outcasts. This is a travesty, for while powerful liberals like to think they speak for the masses, while they like to believe their way is the only way-- the right way -- to think, the reality is that most Americans (unless they hail from New York or CA) are conservative-minded. Which means that at least half of all college students today are guided away from their parents' tutelage and toward a new worldview. For some it will stick; for others it won't. Certainly parental influence is much greater than the influence of four years away from home.
Still, "without an introduction to the conservative tradition in America and the conservative dimensions of modern political philosophy, political science students are condemned to a substantially incomplete and seriously unbalanced knowledge of their subject." Indeed, most students are condemned to a seriously unbalanced education.
Going to college ain't what it used to be. We have a lot of work to do to prepare our children for this reality.
The Silent Majority
Just in case you think there's no one in the media who isn't a raging liberal...below is a list of conservative-minded celebrities:Clint Eastwood
Britney Spears
Adam Sandler
Kelsey Grammer
Angie Harmon
Chuck Norris
Dennis Hopper
Tom Clancy
Naomi Judd
Danny Aiello
Sara Evans
Marie Osmond
Mel Gibson
Kathy Ireland
Jon Voight
Bruce Willis
Scott Baio
Rick Schroeder
Dr. Phil
Bo Derek
Nick Lachey
Kin Alexis
Cheryl Ladd
Robert Duvall
Rachel Hunter
Tony Danza
Pat Sajak
Patricia Heaton
Elisabeth Hasselbeck
Chris Evert
Sylvester Stallone
Stephen Baldwin
Arnold S.
Susan Lucci
Sarah Michelle Gellat
Kirk Cameron
Martina McBride
Gloria Estefan
Heather Locklear
Jessica Simpson
...and more
If this list surprises you, that's because you're bombarded by liberals everywhere you turn in the media. It isn't just the obvious media, either. For example, did you know an Oct 2008 survey of professionals in the publishing industry revealed that 86% of respondents intended to vote for Obama? This is a shocking figure. What it means is that the vast majority of books that get published in this country are liberal books. This can include nonfiction or fiction, for even in novels it isn't uncommon for authors to reference politics. And nine out of ten times it's Republicans, not Democrats, who are bashed. The last two I read that come to mind are Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert and Tell No Lies, by Julie Compton.
Add to the publishing industry Hollywood -- a bastion of liberalism -- the mainstream media, and and the fact that liberal professors outnumber conservative professors on college campuses 10:1 -- and it's no wonder everyday Americans feel as though we're a dying breed.
We're not a dying breed. We just don't have the microphone.
Everything You've Been Taught about Guilt Is Wrong
Speaking of baby boomers, I'm reading the book Split: Stories from a Generation Raised on Divorce, by Ava Chin. In the introduction the author mentions that when a divorced and happily remarried mother of a friend of hers learned about Ms. Chin's book project, she asked, "Will it make already guilty-feeling parents feel even more guilty?"Ms. Chin then writes: I was both surprised and appalled. (How self-centered our baby-boomer parents could be!)
Indeed. That's one of my points in the previous post. Here's a woman around my age (I'm 41) who wants to understand and help women avoid the same mistakes their parents did -- you'd think that'd be a good thing -- and the response from a baby boomer is all about the parents of these women. The boomer philosophy is simple: Thou shalt not make anyone, women in particular, feel guilty about their life choices.
How did this happen? Simple. The boomer philosophy I discussed in the last post -- the ethic of being "true to oneself" as opposed to adhering to a universal moral order that makes demands on us -- eradicates any semblance of guilt. Think about it. If every decision we make is ultimately the right one because at the time we made it we felt good about it and were simply being true to ourselves, then no one can ever be blamed for making a bad decision. If, on the other hand, we admit we made a bad decision and that the decision was wrong, then we must take responsibility for it. But modern liberals don't believe in personal responsibility. They don't want people to ever feel bad about themselves; to them this is the hallmark of a bad society. But the truth is, without our consciences we're no different from animals. Guilt is good. Guilt keeps us in check. Guilt builds character. We should be proud of -- and embrace -- our ability to feel guilt.
Needless to say, this is not a popular philosophy today. Guilt is considered very bad, and something to rid oneself of. Look at any newsstand in America and you'll find scores of editors who're trying to convince the public that guilt has no place in their lives. No matter what the subject -- food, sex, marriage, motherhood -- women should not feel an ounce of guilt. Ever.
Naturally, motherhood gets the most attention. Consider this: In the current issue of Working Mother magazine (June/July 2009) is a cover story of a working mother who describes the day she left her 8-month old baby in day care while she went to work. The previous five months, this woman's family -- her husband, mother, grandmother, sisters, and aunts -- stepped in to care for the baby; and the woman felt (understandably so) perfectly at ease. Then came the inevitable: day care. She describes the first day she dropped off her baby as "one of the hardest" days of her life. When she handed her baby over to this perfect stranger in an unfamiliar place, she said he turned to her, held out his hands begging her not to leave him, and "cried as if I was abandoning him." The mother said she cried all the way to work and was emotionally bereft. But eventually, she says, she resigned herself to the fact that she was "not going to be the best mom in the world, or even try to be."
There are thousands of stories like hers. And what's the message? That it's perfectly normal, preferable even, to ignore the natural voices inside your head that cause people extreme emotional anguish.
Yet this "voice" is our conscience talking to us. The emotions that accompany our actions are warning signs -- not of doom and gloom, necessarily, but in a "maybe this isn't such a good idea" kind of way. We must listen. Unfortunately, modern society encourages just the opposite. Rather than suggest people listen to their inner voices, as people did years ago before guilt became a bad word, they suggest people force themselves through the pain -- until it eventually dissipates. And it does dissipate eventually -- after it gets tired of trying to be heard.
The common refrain from women in the media when it comes to guilt is that it's society's fault. Society is to blame for why people feel guilt. Hogwash. Guilt comes from within. It's natural. It's good.
Embrace the guilt.
The Baby Boomer Legacy
In today's Wall Street Journal (June 10, 2009) is an article entitled "Boomers to This Year's Grads: We Are Really, Really Sorry."Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, 60, tells the graduating class at Butler University that boomers have been "self-absorbed, self-indulgent and all too often just plain selfish." In addition, Colorado Senator Michael Bennet, 44, tells seniors at Colorado College that "our generation has not been faithful enough to our grandparents' example."
The purpose of the article is to stress Baby Boomers' failures with respect to the economy. This is all well and good, and certainly appropriate for a college graduation, but the real legacy of the Boomer generation is its impact on America's moral fiber. Neil Howe, an author and historian highlighted in the article, said the social movements of the 1960s "caved in on itself" as boomers focused more on "their own inner voyage" and less on their obligation to society.
Indeed they did, and the results have been disastrous. While Boomers weren't the first group to lead a revolt in this country, theirs was life-altering, dramatic -- and has left a permanent scar on American culture. There was a time -- before Boomers did their damage -- when America was a unified nation. "Before the sixties, most Americans believed in a universal moral order that is external to us, that makes demands on us. Our obligation was to conform to that moral order and its commandments: work hard and try to better yourself, be faithful to your spouse, go when your country calls, and so on," writes Dinesh D'Souza in Letter to a Young Conservative. But, he continues, "Beginning in the sixties, several factions -- the antiwar movement, the feminist movement, the gay activist movement, and so on -- attacked that moral consensus as narrow and oppressive. They fought for a new ethic that would be based not on external authority but on the sovereignty of the inner self."
This revolt, which began over forty years ago, has officially made its mark on American society. We are no longer a unified nation. Rather, we are split down the middle: on one side are those who still believe in a universal moral order -- we call them "conservatives," but it includes Kennedy Democrats as well -- and on the other are those who remain faithful to the inner self. (Today we call these folks "modern liberals" in order to distinguish them from old-time liberals like Kennedy.) Once the universal moral order was replaced with the new ethic of being "true to oneself," American society began its decline. Now fast-forward several decades. The Boomer philosophy is the reason partial-birth abortion is not considered a travesty by 100% of the population. It's the reason parenting has changed for the worse. It's the reason divorce is accepted and even embraced. It's the reason public schools are a disgrace. It's the reason sex education is a license for kids to engage in casual sex. The consequences of taking the focus off of society and onto the desires of the individual is mind-numbingly far-reaching.
Which is why I'm so grateful for having had older parents. I was born in 1968 -- technically, a Generation Xer -- but my parents were at least a decade older than my friends' parents. They were part of the World War II generation, whose values were not embraced by the Boomers. As documentary filmmaker Ken Burns said in an interview last month, the Boomers' greatest tragedy was to "squander the legacy handed to them by the generation from World War II."
Though I escaped the Boomer influence by luck of the draw, there were times when I wished my parents were more like my friends' parents. My friends' parents dressed a little different, talked a little different, and basically were just "nicer" -- which, to a child simply means a person's not strict. My friends' parents were more "open." Tolerant. Cool. Hip. The way so many of their children, who are now parents, grew up to be. As Reb Bradley points out in Born Liberal, Raised Right, "It is our parents who, by their style of discipline and training, shape our views of authority and develop our outlook on life." In other words, if I had had Baby Boomer parents, chances are I'd be a modern liberal -- which means I'd no doubt contribute to our nation's moral decline.
Thank God my parents weren't hip.
The naysayers will be shocked at my claims. Don't I believe in progress, they'll ask. Are we supposed to be stuck in the fifties forever? To which I say: Of course not. Progress is good, even encouraged by most Americans -- conservative and liberal -- but the fact remains that there are some things in life that never, ever, ever, ever change. Things that, when dismissed, make life a helluva lot more difficult -- and people a helluva a lot less happy. Things like faith in God. Lasting marriages. Parents at home. Respect for authority. Repsect for life. Service to others. Sacrifice.
These things, these traditional values (we should call them classic values), can be questioned all day long -- in fact they have been for decades now, since the Boomers began their revolt -- but, in the end, they still work. They even work alongside progress. Just like clothing, some things never go out of style.
I have to believe America will see this someday. As Winston Churchill once said, "We can always count on Americans to do the right thing...after they've exhausted all other possibilities."
Smokers' Rights
My heart bleeds for smokers, and not just because I used to be one. It's just a terrible time to be a smoker. God forbid a person wants to light up anywhere in public -- even outside. Ten tables away from a nonsmoker. Blowing in the other direction. With a smokeless ashtray.I'll never forget my shock several years ago when I was in Manhattan with my husband. It had been several years since we had been there (babies have a way of stunting travel) and during that time the city had banned smoking in all public places. It was one of the first cities to do so, but I didn't know that.
It was around New Year's, and we were in SoHo. Snow had laid a beautiful white coating on the city, and it was still falling. Nothing of any consequence accumulated; it was just enough to make everything gorgeous. At any rate, we bought my husband a cigar and I decided to buy a pack of cigarettes with the intention of having just a few. Having been home with babies for five years I think I just wanted to smoke because I could.
After my initial shock in paying over $7 for a pack of cigarettes -- I'm still not over that -- I was promptly asked if I knew about the smoking policy. No, what smoking policy? You can't smoke anywhere in New York. What do you mean, I can't smoke anywhere in New York? Just what I said: You can't smoke anywhere in New York. Except outside. Nowhere? No corner of a dark hotel bar? What about my husband? Is there a cigar bar anywhere? Nowhere, he said. Except outside, of course.
I was shocked. Floored. Flabbergasted. If there was anywhere in the world I could maintain my liberties it would be New York City. Alas, those days are gone. So my husband and I were banned to the elements. I opted not to smoke -- out of sheer defiance and because I hate smoking outside -- but my husband smoked his cigar and we bound through the streets of New York. He looked so debonair in his long coat and hat -- with the snow falling all around him. Down by Washington Square Park, the scene was reminiscent of the 1940s.
Bottom line: I understand banning smoking on airplanes. I understand banning it in restaurants or even cars with kids in them. But everywhere? Preposterous. I don't smoke anymore, and I hate being around the stuff in close corners, but to ban it altogether is just wrong. The few smokers I know are left to feel criminal if they light up anywhere in the vicinity of another human being.
Something is very wrong with that.
Dr. Tiller and Our Social Conscience
I don't believe in an eye for an eye. For this reason alone, I -- nor any other self-respecting human being -- should be gloating about the fatal shooting of Dr. George Tiller. Scott Roeder, the assailant, should get whatever sentence is appropriate under the eyes of the law.And yet. Those of us, pro-choice or otherwise, who had a serious problem with Dr. Tiller's line of work -- killing perfectly healthy 9-month old babies by partially delivering them and then puncturing their skulls -- have, admittedly, a difficult time feeling bad Dr. Tiller's life has been extinguished. Last year, Tiller reported aborting 192 late-term fetuses -- oh, let's just call them what they are: human beings -- whose mothers had come from far and wide to have their babies killed. Partial-birth abortion is against the law throughout much of the country; but for some reason, Kansas (of all places) allows late-term abortions -- if continuing the pregnancy "would endanger the woman or substantially impair her physical, mental, or emotional health."
Technically, then, Dr Tiller wasn't doing anything against the law. His case is solely a matter of morality -- something with which today's Americans have an ongoing struggle. Modern liberals -- whose mantra is "live and let live," or "to each his own," or "my body is mine to do with as I please" -- will no doubt cry foul at Tiller's death, blaming every conservative known to man for his death. To a modern liberal, Tiller's death is an outrage. But to a conservative -- even a moderate or left-leaning conservative -- the 192 deaths Dr. Tiller caused last year are also an outrage. Maybe even more so, since these individuals were innocent and Dr. Tillman was not.
This is what the word "choice" has done to this country. In the name of choice, moral responsiblity is purged. In the name of choice, every act is a good one. If an act is taken as a result of a sincere belief the person is being helpful in some way -- especially to women -- the person is deemed morally sound. According to abortion activists, Dr. Tillman was a morally sound man.
Yet consider what his life must have been like. A pregnant woman walks in to his clinic, clearly devoid of a pregnant glow. The enormous belly between them proves there is, in fact, another human being in his midst. After perusing some papers that tell this woman's story of her inability to be care for the child in her belly -- a conclusion Dr. Tiller, for a split second, realizes the woman could have come to seven months earlier -- he dismisses his conscience and decides he must help this poor woman. So he goes into a nearby office, gives the woman some drugs, births her baby -- head first, if possible -- and punctures his skull.
There. Problem solved.
Any person or organization (think Planned Parenthood) who considers this "procedure" -- called a D and X -- necessary enough to undermine one's natural instincts that tell us right from wrong is either ethically challenged or sorely lacking the facts. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which includes abortion supporters could "identify no circumstances under which this procedure would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."
I must admit that even without the above information, I find it hard to believe there are people in this country who think allowing a doctor to kill a woman's baby and burn his remains (abortionists generally cremate said babies) will impair a woman's "physical, mental, or emotional health." (On the contrary, I would think the procedure itself would impair a woman's emotional health.) But there are. Shelley Sella, a colleague of Dr. Tillman's, suggests we should "honor [Dr. Tillman's] memory." Honor his memory. If that doesn't strike you as insane, I don't know what would.
If there's one thing partial-birth abortion demonstrates, it is this: Give the average person an inch, and he will often take a mile. In every state in America, early abortion is legal. The moment a woman discovers she's pregnant when she doesn't want to be, we give her an out. She can have an abortion. But in most states -- 31 to be exact -- the option stops there. In 27 states, partial-birth abortion is allowed, though the circumstances in which a woman may receive one differ. Such reticence suggests Americans still have a conscience. And that conscience tells us that allowing a woman to change her mind about being a mother up to the point of delivery is not a matter of women's rights. In fact, with the exception of women dying as a result of giving birth (virtually unheard of today), women's needs are irrelevant at this point in a pregnancy.
That's the thing about becoming a parent: It forces people to think of someone else's needs before our own. What a concept.
