Friday, November 17, 2006

Offended? Don't Be a Boob!

By Alan Burkhart

I’ve often thought that there are people in this world who spend their days walking around just looking for something to get offended about. An article in the November 17, 2006 edition of USA Today has confirmed that notion. The most inoffensive and natural act a person can perform, that of a mother nursing her baby, caused a young family to be removed from a Delta Airlines (operated by Freedom Airlines) flight back on October Thirteenth. Why? Because a flight attendant found it offensive.

Emily Gillette had just begun feeding the child while awaiting takeoff. According to her own account of the incident, she was using her free hand to hold her shirt over her breast. She had a window seat and her husband was sitting next to her in the aisle seat. They were seated near the rear of the aircraft. Offensive? Hardly.

Nevertheless, a flight attendant insisted that Mrs. Gillette cover herself with a blanket. When she refused, the entire family was booted from the plane.

The incident took place in Vermont, and Mrs. Gillette has filed a complaint through the Vermont Human Rights Commission. Vermont state law protects a woman’s right to breast feed in any place “of public accommodation.” A group of parents and children have staged a “nurse in” at the Burlington International Airport in support of the Gillette family.

Let’s put this in perspective. There are some activities that simply should not be done in public places. Some activities are socially acceptable depending upon where you are at the time. And in some cases it’s a matter of context. A woman whose breast is partially-exposed during nursing is not the same as a drunken stripper who “loses” her top in an IHOP at three in the morning.

A commercial airliner is in essence a bus with wings. Breastfeeding in an airliner does not equate to mooning Luciano Pavarotti in a fine opera house (now there’s an idea).

For the life of me, I cannot fathom how the flight attendant’s life might be adversely affected by a young woman feeding her child. Some people are uncomfortable around a nursing mom, but rarely does anyone make a fuss about it. I for one am sick and tired of reading every day about self-important people getting offended over the most trivial of matters. Life would be so much simpler for all of us if we’d just live our own lives and stop meddling in the lives of others. Emily Gillette was absolutely correct to file a complaint.

Think about it. We’ve got people out there in the world who are offended by Christmas decorations, religious symbols, music, literature, movies, free speech (if they don’t agree with the speaker) and even the act of eating meat. What are we supposed to do? Should we just stay at home, keep our mouths (and shirts) closed and read books about how to be more sensitive to others?

And now an arrogant flight attendant has chosen to be offended by the simple act of a mother feeding her child in the most natural and healthy way. What’s next? Seriously folks – we’re reaching a point in which just about anything we do or say runs the risk of offending someone else.

The only people in this scenario who have the right to be offended are the Gillettes. Frankly, I hope they (groan) milk the airlines for all they’re worth.

Related Reading:

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Back to School for Republicans

By Alan Burkhart

It had to happen sooner or later. The Left has fought for twelve years to get back into power. With a slim majority in the Senate, a larger majority in the House and an unpopular lame duck Republican president, they have accomplished that goal.

Now comes the hard part. They lack the numbers to override a presidential veto. A significant number of incoming freshman Democrats are politically centrist rather than liberal. And with the exception of a small handful of RINOs, they can expect the Republicans to fight them at every turn. They have gained the responsibility for running the nation, but they lack the mandate voters gave the GOP back in 1994.

With the exception of the Deaniacs, American voters didn’t cast a vote against Conservatism on November Seventh. Americans voted against a Republican party that has grown fat and lazy. The temptation to engage in sleazy behavior overwhelmed many Republicans while others squandered political capital by growing the government after countless promises to shrink it. The GOP turned its Armani-suited back upon the Conservative / Libertarian majority in this country and they have paid the price for their shortsightedness.

Now comes the time for the GOP to learn from its mistakes while America watches the Democrats commit the same miscues that drove them from power twelve years ago. If the GOP rediscovers its collective spine and displays a willingness to govern from the right instead of the middle, America will gleefully vote them back into power in 2008. If they show signs of being the same noodle-spined group of special-interest slaves that they’ve become, or if the Democrats miraculously wake up and discover that America works better when governed from the right, then the Repubs will be out of power for the foreseeable future.

What did the GOP do wrong?

Our government has grown at an alarming rate. I’m not talking about necessary expenditures for Homeland Security or the War on Terror. George W. Bush and the Republican Congress have placed a gigantic fiscal burden on our future with out-of-control social spending and pork barrel projects. As I recall, that was not a part of the Contract With America.

Also damaging to Republicans is Bush’s ill-advised mega-network of highways to connect Mexico, Canada and the US. The “NAFTA Superhighway” will badly compromise national security and create a glut of cheap labor from south of the border. That’s on top of it being the largest federal land grab in American history. Millions of people would be displaced to create a right-of-way for this needless and costly project. A groundswell of opposition is mobilizing against it, and it’s a good bet that many members of that group voted against the GOP across the board.

The GOP has done very little to please conservatives and libertarians regarding border security and illegal immigration. With illegals continuing to stream across the border, the best the GOP has done is to pass suspect legislation for a wall that’ll cover roughly one third of our porous border with Mexico. It doesn’t help that authorities in South Texas have uncovered irrefutable evidence that Muslim terrorists have also been crossing into the US from Mexico.

In spite of an economy that has done well overall, our manufacturing sector has taken a hit with many jobs going to Mexico or overseas. The GOP could have alleviated this situation by passing tax and regulatory reforms that would have made the USA more business-friendly. Instead, they bowed to the pressure of the Democrats’ propaganda that portrayed the Republicans as being too friendly to business. Amazing, when one stops to think that a business-friendly America would result in a job market that favors the employee. I work in one of the few industries in which exists a shortage of qualified employees and I can pretty much write my own paycheck. You’d think the Left would realize that such a situation would benefit all those “downtrodden” Americans they claim to care about.

Conservatives have become angry over the GOP’s inability to avoid scandalous behavior. Mark Foley is only the most recent of a long list of Republicans who have tarnished the reputation of a party that supposedly stands for family values. Foley voted for and spoke loudly in favor of legislation to protect minors from sexual predators. All the while, he was engaged in improper communication with teenage pages in the Capitol. If conservatives were tolerant of hypocrites, we’d have left the Democrats in power back in 1994.

Need I even mention how badly Bush and Company has bungled Iraq? In truth, the Iraq situation is nowhere nearly as bad as Bush’s dishonest critics have claimed. But it’s still a mess, and questions will always remain regarding those infamous Weapons of Mass Destruction. Bush’s biggest mistake in this matter was his failure to take into account the stream of foreign terrorists that has continued to delay the completion of operations in that country. Mission Accomplished? Yeah, right George.

Lastly, the GOP must present a 2008 presidential candidate with unsurpassed conservative credentials. Bush’s “big tent” mentality has led to a host of problems resulting from his tendency to compromise conservative principles. Nothing less than a true Reaganite can be considered acceptable for a presidential candidate. Bush, at least on the surface, appears to be a moral conservative but he’s anything but conservative on fiscal issues. Under Bush, the federal government has grown like a kudzu vine and spending has grown along with it. The process must be reversed. The federal government must grow physically (and fiscally) smaller.

These are the problems the GOP must solve, and they have about a year and a half to get it done. By the time the 2008 election campaigns kick off, Americans who supported Democrats in 2006 will be slapping themselves on the forehead and asking the question: “Why did I vote for these idiots?”

If the same old bunch of wishy-washy “big tent” compromisers inhabit the GOP in 2008, we’ll get two more years of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid being in power. That fact alone should be sufficient to scare the RNC back to its senses.

On the other hand, if the GOP returns to its roots and presents viable and believable conservative candidates, the Democrats will be kicked back to the curb where they belong.

Time will tell.

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Will Hanging Saddam Free Iraq?

By Alan Burkhart

Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to hang for the deaths of 148 Kurds he claims were involved in an assassination attempt against him. While these deaths represent only a tiny fraction of the deaths of which he is guilty, the verdict may at last provide some closure for the Iraqi people.

Parts of Iraq are showing signs of becoming calm. The Baghdad area is still a war zone, but that may change with time. The question is, what will Iraq be like once the dust has finally settled? The new Iraqi constitution makes generous allowances to Islamic law. That could make the “new” Iraq a de facto Islamic regime. What a shame that would be. At this point it could go either way. Hard line Muslim fundamentalists will not peacefully retreat to the sidelines and allow a secular government to rule Iraq.

A number of changes must occur for Iraq to become a peaceful and free nation. First, the various factions must come together with an honest desire for peace. The Sunnis and Shiites must lay down their weapons and leave tribalism behind. The Kurds must have some degree of autonomy. And all of them must learn the hard lesson that there is no freedom to be had under a theocracy.

Our Founding Fathers recognized that last fact. Religion and government must coexist peacefully for freedom to be achievable. One governs the physical realm of people’s day to day lives, while the other provides guidance to our hearts and minds. Unfortunately, one can easily make the case that hearts and minds guided by Islam end up wearing bomb belts and blowing up pizza parlors.

The Middle East is a deeply religious part of the world. More so than the United States and certainly more than secular Europe. The problem here is that Islam is such a violent religion. I’ll not spend time extolling the virtues of Christianity. It should however, be noted that Christianity left its bloody history behind centuries ago. Baptists don’t lop off the heads of Methodists, and Evangelicals don’t strap on a bomb belt and blow up the local Kingdom Hall. Compare the reactions of Muslims around the world to the now-famous cartoons of Muhammad, and the quiet dignity and forgiving nature of the Amish in Pennsylvania after the recent bloodbath in a one-room schoolhouse near Lancaster.

Freedom of (or from, if you prefer) religion is among the most important freedoms any nation’s people may possess. In Iraq, true religious freedom and equality would allow other teachings to be heard throughout the country and this could eventually lessen the influence of Islam. As Islam’s iron-fisted grip was loosened, both the violence and the ignorance perpetuated by that vile so-called faith might finally begin to decline.

This of course begs the question: Can Iraq find its way to religious freedom? Do they even desire it?

I wish I knew. To put it mildly, Saddam was a brutal dictator. But if one can momentarily set aside the corruption and avarice of his regime, the reasoning behind his harsh ways becomes apparent. Had Saddam, who is more of a secularist than a zealot, sought to be a benevolent ruler, he’d have been overrun by Islamic fundamentalists. A pack of wild dogs is ruled by the meanest and strongest mutt of the pack, and Saddam was arguably the “baddest dawg” in all of Iraq. Iraq was a cruel and dangerous place under Saddam, but not so much as Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban. His willingness to kill political and ideological opponents kept much of Iraq in line, and the result was a somewhat orderly nation. Not a free nation by any stretch of the imagination, but an orderly one.

I’m not defending Saddam. He’s an evil and egomaniacal man who richly deserves the noose. But I will go as far as to say that he isn’t the worst of the evils lurking in the desert. As long as Islamic fundamentalists hold sway over the minds of the Middle East, there will be no true freedom. Well-meaning but misguided efforts by the US and other nations to “free” Arabs from Islamic rule will continue to meet violent resistance, and the reason is obvious to those willing to face the unpleasant truth.

Western-style freedom is looked upon as a corrupting influence by Islamic true believers. A culture that requires women to cover themselves head to toe for the sake of “decency” cannot be expected to embrace a way of life that might include bare breasts at Mardi Gras, mini skirts, hip hop music and gay marriage. Our culture is regarded with disgust and fear by Muslims. And that disgust and fear has lead to hatred and violence. The 911 attacks didn’t occur because of any specific action by the US. Those attacks occurred because of what and who we are. The US has no desire to coerce Iraq to embrace indecent behavior, but many in the Middle East perceive otherwise.

The influence of Islam may very well be the downfall of Iraq’s future. No civilized society can exist under the heel of an oppressive theocracy, and no religion is more oppressive than Islam. Until the Arab world recognizes the necessity of keeping religion and government out of each other’s way, the Middle East will continue to be a place of death and destruction. To be honest, if they were only killing each other and leaving the rest of us alone, I doubt I’d care all that much. They’ve been busy destroying each other for centuries and they’re not likely to change anytime soon. But that culture of death is spilling over into the civilized world, and the result has been chaos across Europe and the catastrophic attacks on the US in 2001.

Osama bin Laden has falsely claimed that America is at war with all of Islam. Perhaps it’s time to make his claim a valid one. As long as Islam exists in its current form, there will be no end to the violence. Saddam Hussein wasn’t the problem in Iraq. He was a symptom of the disease called “Islam.”

AUTHOR'S NOTE:
A number of my regular readers are atheists. And, I know that right about now some of you are thinking that if there was no religion in the Middle East that all this would simply go away. The reality of the situation is what it is, so please spare me the finger-pointing and sarcasm. Religion codifies the basic requirements of a civilized society. All of the great religions of the world, including Islam, have common ground in terms of civil behavior, honesty, solid work ethics, and humility. Each provides a Higher Authority to which all people are answerable for their wrongdoings regardless of their station in life.

For the sake of this discussion, it doesn't matter whether you believe that Man was created by God, or that religion is a creation of Man. It is the influence of Islam, not the origins of religion, that is at issue. And we can all agree upon how unfortunate it is that a fruitcake named Muhammad turned Islam into a centuries-long nightmare for the rest of the world. Frightening that one man can be responsible for so much death so long after he himself has passed from this world.
--Alan


Related Reading: