Thoughts From Tess

We The People

The news is very disturbing for me as of late.  As a child, I was taught that living in the United States of America was something to treasure... something to be intensely thankful for... and that I owed a great debt and level of gratitude to those who had secured that freedom and liberty that I enjoyed as a citizen of this country.  Today I find little pride in those things.

I still feel the intense gratitude for those who came and stood for independence... to those who drafted the guidelines that became the framework for our government.  But unfortunately I feel that today... if many of those men could see the USA in its current condition... they would weep.  I believe they would mourn and wonder what they could have done differently.... how they could have acted in a way that would prevent the decline of the ideals they set forth.

I find myself feeling embarassment at the actions of those in power around me.  I find myself researching other nations and their governments... wondering if perhaps now is the time for a change.  A change in an effort to offer my children more opportunities and more freedoms and liberties... not just the lip service that those things get in today's American society.

Obviously, this is something of a ramble.  Even the more so since those of you who pop in here regularly know that I rarely post anything remotely resembling a political stance.  I want my children to find the same sense of pride in knowing that they are a part of a nation that is strong and idealistic and committed to their well-being... not a nation based on a race for the maximum power by the minimum number of people.  'We the people' has become for the most part an empty phrase.  I mourn that.

Being A Man

This is an extremely long post... something I generally try to avoid at all costs... but it was difficult for me to pick and choose quotes, so I decided to post the entire article.  Perhaps you'll only read the first few paragraphs and move on to something else... and that's okay... but I think there's a lot of value in what is said here...

**********************************************************************

Being a Man

Harvey Mansfield ponders the male of the species.

by Christina Hoff Sommers

04/10/2006, Volume 011, Issue 28

ONE OF THE LEAST VISITED memorials in Washington is a waterfront statue

commemorating the men who died on the Titanic. Seventy-four percent of the

women passengers survived the April 15, 1912, calamity, while 80 percent of

the men perished. Why? Because the men followed the principle "women and

children first."

The monument, an 18-foot granite male figure with arms outstretched to the

side, was erected by "the women of America" in 1931 to show their gratitude.

The inscription reads: "To the brave men who perished in the wreck of the

Titanic. . . . They gave their lives that women and children might be

saved."

Today, almost no one remembers those men. Women no longer bring flowers to

the statue on April 15 to honor their chivalry. The idea of male gallantry

makes many women nervous, suggesting (as it does) that women require special

protection. It implies the sexes are objectively different. It tells us that

some things are best left to men. Gallantry is a virtue that dare not speak

its name.

In Manliness, Harvey C. Mansfield seeks to persuade skeptical readers,

especially educated women, to reconsider the merits of male protectiveness

and assertiveness. It is in no way a defense of male privilege, but many

will be offended by its old-fashioned claim that the virtues of men and

women are different and complementary. Women would be foolish not to pay

close attention to Mansfield's subtle and fascinating argument.

Mansfield offers what he calls a modest defense of

manliness. It is modest, not because its claims are cautious--Mansfield

courts wrath and indignation on almost every page--but because, as he says,

"Most good things, like French wine, are mostly good and accidentally bad.

Manliness, however, seems to be about fifty-fifty good and bad. . . . This

is what I mean by a modest defense."

"Manliness," he says, "is a quality that causes individuals to stand for

something." The Greeks used the term thumos to denote the bristling,

spirited element shared by human beings and animals that makes them fight

back when threatened. It causes dogs to defend their turf; it makes human

beings stand up for their kin, their religion, their country, their

principles. "Just as a dog defends its master," writes Mansfield, "so the

doggish part of the human soul defends human ends higher than itself."

Every human being possesses thumos. But those who are manly possess it in

abundance, and sometimes in excess. The manly man is not satisfied to let

things be as they are, and he makes sure everyone knows it. He invests his

perception of injustice with cosmic importance.

Manliness can be noble and heroic, like the men on the Titanic; but it can

also be foolish, stubborn, and violent. Achilles, Brutus, and Sir Lancelot

exemplify the glory of manliness, but also its darker sides. Theodore

Roosevelt was manly; so was Harry "The Buck Stops Here" Truman. Manly men

are confident in risky situations. Manliness can be pathological, as in

gangsters and terrorists.

Manliness, says Mansfield, thrives on drama, conflict, risk, and exploits:

"War is hell but men like it." Manliness is often aggressive, but when the

aggression is tied to the concept of honor, it transcends mere animal

spiritedness. Allied with reason, as in Socrates, manliness finds its

highest expression.

Women can be manly--Margaret Thatcher is an example--but manliness is the

"quality mostly of one sex." This creates problems for a society such as

ours that likes to think of itself as "gender neutral," egalitarian, and

sensitive. Manliness is not sensitive. Today, we mainly cope with it by

politely changing the subject. The very word is deemed quaint and outmoded.

Gender experts in our universities teach as fact that the sex difference is

an illusion--a discredited construct, like the earth being flat or the sun

revolving around the earth.

And yet, the complex range of behavior that "manliness" characterizes

persists. It is still mostly men who embody it. We have succeeded in

bringing the language to account, but we have not managed to exorcise

masculine thumos.

After almost 40 years of feminist agitation and gender-neutral pronouns, it

is still men who are far more likely than women to run for political office,

start companies, file for patents, and blow things up. Men continue to tell

most of the jokes and write the vast majority of editorials and letters to

editors. And--fatal to the dreams of feminists who long for social

androgyny--men have hardly budged from their unwillingness to do an equal

share of housework or childcare. Moreover, women seem to like manly men:

"Manliness is still around, and we still find it attractive," says

Mansfield.

Mansfield's amusing, refreshing, and outrageous observations must already be

causing distress for his Harvard colleagues. But many readers will be

grateful to him for his candor and bravado. Today, when

scholars acknowledge sex differences, they do it timorously. They follow

every assertion of difference with a list of exceptions, qualifications, and

caveats. Into this world strides Professor Mansfield, loaded for bear, and

lethally armed with all the powerful stereotypes thought to be banished from

bien pensant society. And he deploys them without apology in shocker after

shocker:

    [Women] shun risk more than men and they perceive risk more readily;

they fear spiders. . . .

    Women seem to desire more than men to make a nest and to take

responsibility for making it. To do this, they sometimes need the help of

their men, and they nag them responsibly and more or less charmingly

according to their skill. . . .

    In my experience, it is difficult for a man who is attracted to a woman

not to find her cute, rather than intimidating, when she gets angry.

Mansfield reminds us that philosophers and poets were worried about

manliness long before contemporary feminists began to anguish over it. He

presents a magisterial survey of the role played by manliness in the thought

of the great philosophers.

From the Greeks to Thomas Hobbes and Friedrich Nietzsche, philosophers have

extolled or deplored manliness--but mostly they looked for ways to control

it. No one, says Mansfield, understood the vices and virtues of manliness

better than Aristotle and Plato. They gave it its due while "remaining wary

of its dangers."

Unfortunately, few modern philosophers have followed their example. The

ancients well understood that too much--or too little--manliness is a bad

thing. Too much is dangerous, but too little is fatal to a society's

prospects for greatness--or even for its survival. Modern philosophers err

on the side of wariness and suspicion and, according to Mansfield, "the

entire project of modernity can be understood as a project to keep manliness

unemployed."

The entire project of modernity? This says, in effect, that modern

philosophy has been engaged in making wimps out of men. As Mansfield sees

it, since the dawn of the modern era, philosophers have conspired against

manly thumos. Hobbes, for example, ignored the higher forms of heroic and

philosophical manliness: He reduced it to a simple aggressive drive that

leads to a "war of all against all." It had to be broken--not

accommodated--by handing over power and rights to an absolute sovereign.

Hobbes placed self-preservation at the center of his theory. But, says

Mansfield, manly men do not merely want to survive: They seek glory for

themselves and their causes. For Mansfield, Hobbes is the extreme--but still

typical--example of modern philosophers' disdain for manliness: "Liberalism

is unmanly in setting down self-preservation as the end of man, as do Hobbes

and John Locke."

Mansfield himself does not mind being a loner. For years, he has fought a

forlorn battle at Harvard in defense of high standards. He was the only

member of the faculty to vote against establishing a women's studies major.

All the same, one would have expected him to find a few defenders of

manliness somewhere in the annals of modern philosophy. But he does not cite

any. With the possible exceptions of Baruch Spinoza and Edmund Burke, he

complains that philosophers of modernity just don't get it when it comes to

understanding and valuing male spiritedness: "Modern thinking does not want

to cooperate with manliness, and does not care for thumos."

In place of the heroic, but rationally controlled, conception of manliness

offered us by the ancients, modern thinkers give us a pallid, cautious,

risk-averse bourgeois manliness--a world of Babbitts, rather than Achilles.

But this perspective is badly skewed. Surely Mansfield would not deny that

the "bourgeois" male denizens of modernity have been responsible for some of

the most prodigious displays of genius in art, literature, and music. They

invented science, the free market, and liberal government, and they refined

the art of war, magnifying its lethality a thousandfold. It would appear

that Mansfield systematically underestimates the manliness of modern man,

and of philosophers like Hobbes, Locke, Francis Bacon, and René Descartes

who helped create him.

His discussion of Nietzsche's powerful influence on contemporary feminism

shows Mansfield at his philosophical best and manly worst. Here, more than

elsewhere, Mansfield dazzles us with the aptness of his insights, while

being recklessly inattentive to nuance, exceptions, and complexity. He has

no doubts about Nietzsche's manliness. He sets up a dramatic contrast

between the manly ideal favored by Plato and Aristotle and the unrestrained

masculinity promoted by Nietzsche.

Both Plato and Aristotle developed a conception of ethical manliness based

on courage, tying manliness to protectiveness and reason. Manly men (and

women) are the guardians of Plato's Republic; they are the noble gentlemen

in Aristotle's polis. Both maintained that philosophers, not warriors, are

the manliest of all.

By contrast, Nietzsche, a classicist by training, idealized the pre-Socratic

Homeric age. He preferred the warrior to the philosopher, exalting Achilles

over Socrates. He criticized Plato and Aristotle for putting reason above

passion. For Nietzsche, says Mansfield, "Humanity is not to be found in

reason but rather in the spark of life--the assertion of each man's life by

that man." Nietzsche has burdened modernity with an exceptionally dangerous

philosophy that Mansfield calls "manly nihilism." Where Plato and Aristotle

place severe constraints on manly expression, Nietzsche gives us a manliness

unrestrained by anything outside itself. Says Mansfield: "Manly

assertiveness feeds on itself alone, and does not serve to protect and

defend a cause greater than itself."

So where did contemporary feminists turn for philosophical inspiration? They

had their pick of any number of the polite, sensible, and sensitive thinkers

of modernity. John Stuart Mill would have been perfectly suitable. But no,

says Mansfield, they turned down this nice guy--"a wimp when you come down

to it"--and "went mad for crazy manly Nietzsche."

Nietzsche is hardly the philosopher one would expect to emerge as the muse

for modern feminism. Not only did he valorize unrestrained male assertion,

his contempt for women was famously explicit:

    The true man wants two things, danger and play. For that reason he wants

woman, as the most dangerous plaything.

    When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is usually something wrong

with her sexually.

In another context, he said women were for the "recreation of the warrior."

His advice to men on the subject of women: "Forget not thy whip." Why, then,

did Nietzsche's point of view appeal so strongly to intellectual feminists?

"In the 1970s," says Mansfield, "nihilism came to American women. . . . What

interested [feminists] in Nietzsche was the nihilism he proclaimed as

fact--God is Dead--and the possibility of creating a new order in its

place." Of course, most American women were not reading Nietzsche. But many

did read Simone de Beauvoir, and she was the herald of the new nihilism. In

Mansfield's words, she was "Nietzsche in drag." Far from being critical of

Nietzsche's hypermasculine fantasies, his "will to power," and his rejection

of the Judeo-Christian ethic--she embraced it all and urged women to emulate

it.

Beauvoir famously said, "One is not born, but becomes a woman." She rejected

the idea that there is anything like human nature or any other source of an

authoritative moral order. When she said that women must seek

"transcendence," she meant that they should reject all the inducements of

nature, society, and conventional morality. Beauvoir condemned marriage and

family as a "tragedy" for women; both are traps that are incompatible with

female subjectivity and freedom. She described the pregnant woman as "a

stockpile of colloids, an incubator for an egg." She compared childbearing

and nurturing to slavery.

Mansfield reminds readers how far Beauvoir's "womanly nihilism" strayed from

the classical feminism of Mary Wollstonecraft and American suffragists. The

early feminists questioned the rigidity of sex roles, but they never doubted

that there was such a thing as human nature, and that women had distinctive

roles to play in the family and society. Simone de Beauvoir wanted women to

be free of all roles. Toward what end? She did not specify. Beauvoir's

womanly nihilism inspired apostles like Germaine Greer, Shulamith Firestone,

Kate Millett, and (to a lesser extent) Betty Friedan. In the decades

following the sixties, it became official feminist doctrine.

Of course, as Mansfield observes, women are not men, and so inevitably they

are less effective at being true Nietzscheans. Unlike radicals in other

social movements, the feminist revolutionaries of the 1970s and '80s never

engaged in violence. None went to jail. So how did they succeed in changing

American society?

As Mansfield explains, they "relied on womanly devices." They formed

"consciousness raising" groups and enrolled in "assertiveness training"

workshops. Pronoun policewomen went to work cleansing the language of

sexism. Tantalized by the Nietzschean idea that knowledge was a form of

power, and not the result of disinterested inquiry, feminist scholars went

on a rampage "reinventing" knowledge. In the academy, women took full

advantage of manly men's gentlemanly reluctance publicly to oppose and

thwart women.

Is Mansfield being fair to feminism? Is Nietzsche its main guiding spirit?

Not really. His description of "feminist nihilism" rides roughshod over many

distinctions within feminist theory and the women's movement. Alongside the

reckless feminism of Beauvoir, Firestone, Greer, and company, there was a

quieter, more reasonable, eminently sane version (inspired by those "wimps"

Locke, Mill, and David Hume) working its way through American society and

bringing needed reforms. Mansfield is aware of, and appreciates the

achievements of, this moderate wing, but Manliness gives the impression that

Second Wave feminism was one long Nietzschean production. It was more than

that.

But one forgives Mansfield his imprecision and hyperbole because so much of

what he says is profoundly true. Not all of contemporary feminism is a

playing out of Nietzschean themes, but a great deal of it is. He is also

right when he points out that many feminist leaders emulate some of the

cruder and unappealing qualities of manliness.

An example (not given by Mansfield) is Eve Ensler's male-averse play The

Vagina Monologues. This is loosely based on interviews with more than 200

women on the subject of their intimate anatomy. Its more serious

preoccupation is exposing male insensitivity and violence. Pathological male

thumos is everywhere: The play is a rogues' gallery of male oafs, losers,

brutes, batterers, rapists, child molesters, and vile little boys. It is as

if honorable manliness never existed.

Mansfield's analysis of women's nihilism gives us the lens to understand

these developments as caricatures of the feminist will to "empowerment." It

is a form of manly assertiveness unmoderated by Aristotelian ideals. Here we

have an example of women imitating masculinity in its lower range. It is the

dark side of the "gender neutral society" in which we now live.

The women who champion Eve Ensler's production are rightly concerned about

the problem of male violence. But the known solution is to teach boys (and

men) to be gentlemen. "A gentleman," says Mansfield, "is a man who is gentle

out of policy, not weakness; he can be depended upon not to snarl or attack

a woman when he has the advantage or feels threatened." And any gentlewoman

or "lady" is naturally more suited for the task of civilizing a vulgar,

barbarous male than a whole army of gender warriors.

What would Mansfield have us do? His book is primarily a conceptual analysis

of manliness. It is not a self-help book. But it should surprise no one that

this bossy, opinionated, and intrepid male thinker has a lot of advice to

dispense. Women who like manly men will want to pay close attention. He says

a lot of useful things your women's studies professors probably forgot to

mention.

First of all, he thinks we should clearly distinguish between the public

realm and private life. In public we should pursue, as best we can, a policy

of gender neutrality. He firmly believes that the law should guarantee equal

opportunity to men and women. However, "our expectations should be that men

will grasp the opportunity more readily and more wholeheartedly than women."

Though he mentions it only in passing, it follows from his position that our

schools should be more respectful and accepting of male spiritedness; they

must stop trying to feminize boys. A healthy society should not war against

human nature. It should, he says, "reemploy masculinity." That means it has

to civilize it and give it things to do. No civilization can achieve

greatness if it does not allow room for obstreperous males.

In the private sphere, his advice is vivé la difference! A woman should not

expect a manly man to be as committed to domesticity as she is; nor should

she assume that he is as emotionally adept as her female friends. Manly men

are romantic rather than sensitive. They need a lot of help from females to

ascend to the higher ethical levels of manhood, and Mansfield urges women to

encourage them in ways respectful of their male pride.

Men, for their part, need to be gallant to women and respectful. Above all,

they must listen to them. Mansfield offers this advice to young men:

    Women want to be taken seriously almost as much as they want to be

loved. To take women seriously you must first take yourself seriously and

after that ask them what they think. And when they tell you, try to listen.

He is not suggesting that women accept a subordinate role; on the contrary,

he compares women to philosophers. They are, on the whole, less assertive,

but that makes it easier for them to be observant, reflective, and calmly

judgmental: "It should be expected that men will be manly and sometimes a

bit bossy and that women will be impressed with them or skeptical."

The world of gender studies has never before had to confront anyone quite

like this solitary rogue male professor of politics. Critics will rail

against his excesses and feminists will be indignant and offended. But many

women will be charmed by his effrontery, and grateful for the truth and

wisdom in Mansfield's elegant treatise.

Christina Hoff Sommers, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise

Institute, is the author of The War Against Boys and coauthor of One Nation

Under Therapy.

Taylor Marie Behl

About eight weeks ago, Taylor Marie Behl disappeared from the campus of Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, VA.  Her body was found about four weeks ago, on October 5.  The cause of death is still undetermined, although it is currently being considered a homicide.  That this 17 year old's life came to such a sudden and tragic end is horrible in and of itself... so much potential... so much hope unfulfilled.

I'm also deeply disturbed by the personal information that has been released about this young woman... information that, quite frankly, I don't think anyone in the general public needed to know.  You see, Taylor had a blog... and a posting at MySpace... just like many teens today.  And while I understand that by posting words in a forum such as this... just as I do... and most of you reading this do... and that this is far from a private outlet... I am still bothered that newspapers are publishing her most intimate and heartfelt thoughts nationwide.

I understand the need to post responsibly... and that weighs with the need to post honestly... and for many of us, personally and vulnerably.  But there are many things that I would write here in this context that I would never publish in a newspaper... with my complete and real name and address... the names and addresses of my family members and other personal details.  I feel a great sense of personal violation on Taylor's behalf.  As if it isn't enough that her life was ended at the hands of another... perhaps even the hands of one she met through this medium... her heart's thoughts are being bandied about as casually as the morning weather report.

There is surely a fine line here between news and information that is publicly posted online... and I don't know exactly where the line falls... but I do feel confident that it's been crossed.

Political Viagra

Just as a warning... before reading any farther... please be aware that this post has reached a new low in pathetic... but I couldn't help myself...

I went to see "The Dukes of Hazzard" the other night... it was just one of those things we had to do.  After all, I'm a southern gal who grew up watching Bo and Luke and their outrageous escapades... it was a nostalgia thing.  Now, personally... in spite of all the things the critics said... it was a hilariously funny movie... and the bloopers that they played during the closing credits were the perfect touch.  It is, however, one of those movies that you have to view in the proper frame of mind... no political correctness police screaming in your head.  Having said all that... and warned you that this is an absolutely tasteless post... I present to you the following two liner...

What happens when you give a politician Viagra?

He gets an inch taller.

I really couldn't help myself... really I couldn't... honestly I tried... I did...

Rules of the Game

"Let no one be in any doubt.  The rules of the game are changing."  - Tony Blair

It's about time.  The New York Times says that Tony Blair's recent declaration "nudges Britain toward policies adopted by the United States - and widely criticized by leaders (in Great Britain) - after the Sept 11, 2001 attack."  I'm not sure I buy into that comparison... the US seems to muddy the lines between accepting all people(s) and accepting all behaviors.  In our determination to be tolerant and fair, we've gone too far.  All people are valuable... and should be treated as such, regardless of skin color, cultural association, personal beliefs, etc.  But all behaviors are NOT acceptable... especially when those behaviors fail to recognize the value of each and every person.  It's not a game... and it's about time the rules changed.

Hat's Off to Britain

Yes, I know... I've been a bit political lately... but just one more...

Found this today at Fine, Why Fine? and once again, my hat is off to the British.  I know what it felt like to be an American on 9/11... and I was here for the backlash and the public criticism that seemed to meet every decision our government made in the immediate aftermath... so I'm impressed to see the British demonstrated a united front... and showing their backbone.  The info originally came from a post a USS Neverdock.

PM Tony Blair's approval rating jumped from 32% to 49%

Should action be taken against suspected terrorists even if they have not committed an offense yet? Jumped from 75% to 81%

Restrict the civil liberties of terror suspects even though there is not enough evidence to charge and convict them? Jumped from 58% to 70%

As a result of the terror attacks will change the way you lead your life? 88% No.

And there are signs that people are starting to wake up to the danger of Islam itself. The number of people who think Islam, as opposed to Islamic fundamentalist, poses a threat to Western democracy jumped 14%.

If the terrorists aim was to drive a wedge between America and Britain or to force Britain to withdraw from Iraq, that too has backfired.

Moreover, the bombings have failed - despite Mr George Galloway's best efforts - to undermine support for the British presence in Iraq. The proportion wanting British troops brought home quickly has fallen and the proportion who now want Britain to retain its close ties with the US has risen. The section of the chart headed "Assessing performance" tells a story of which Britons can be proud.

Tune Out

As a child growing up, my brother and I would often whine to my mother about something the other was doing.  Often her answer was "Just ignore him and he'll stop"... and usually she was right.  Now... I'm not saying that ignoring terrorists is the answer... but showering them with the noteriety and attention that they are so desperately seeking certainly isn't the answer either.

Tony Blair has risen several levels in my estimation over the last several days... his handling of last week's onslaught has been strong and gracious and consistent.  And while he's stated a course of action... and worked to ease the impact of the bombings as much as possible... he's refused to allow it to immobilize him or his nation.  To quote John Tierney in "When Fear Stalks, Tune Out"....

"Tony Blair was as eloquent as ever when he faced the press at the G-8 summit meeting yesterday, but what was most impressive was what he didn't say.  After uttering three sentences of gratitude to the other leaders for their support after the London attacks, he dropped the subject of terror.

Instead of giving murderers publicity on worldwide television, he talked about poverty in Africa and global warming.  When a reporter tried to distract him by asking what "went wrong" in London" he said it was the terrorists' fault and went right back to the business of the G-8.  The prime minister was a blessed relief after the talking heads in America the past two days."

How many hours do we need to listen to pundits and politicians ramble on about who is doing what wrong?  How much convincing do we need to realize that what happened in London was a horror?  How much bickering do we need to be witness to among our own over where the lines should be?  A line of action has been determined.  Consensus has been reached that terrorism is wrong and needs to be stopped.  Governments are working together toward that goal.  No, I may not agree with every little detail.  And yes, I want to be informed about what is happening and especially about how that impacts my life and my safety... but in my opinion that takes no more than five minutes of air time a day.  How about if we spend the rest of the day living life and focusing on the things that we CAN change... loving the people in our lives... throw in a random act of kindness or two... and seize the day.

Uncivilized and Barbaric

The tragedy of the violence that struck Great Britain has impacted us all... not as directly as those on the scene on that tragic morning... but the reality of the evil has shown its ugly face in a way that awakens both the darkest fears and the brightest good across national boundaries.  The bombs that exploded there have spread shrapnel across the free world in a million different forms.  And still, there are those in our midst who say that the war on terror is a waste of time and effort... a futile cause... a mistake... unnecessary.

I am a peaceful person.  I seek to avoid conflict whenever possible... and when not possible, I seek resolution in positive and respectful ways.  I rarely even raise my voice.  And I'm notorious for seeing both sides of most every situation, even when my position is firmly on one or the other side.  But I believe that there are times when standing aside to allow evil and terror run their course is a greater evil than the evil itself... times when we must take a stand, no matter how unpleasant the stand is.

The excerpt below is from an article that I consider outstanding posted by John Derbyshire at NRO... the entire article is a bit lengthy to post here, but well worth the read.

"Here, though, you come to another equation in the calculus of appeasement. Is the United States willing to fight this war the way it needs fighting, with grim ferocity and cold unconcern for legalistic niceties? To lay waste great territories and their peoples, innocent and guilty alike, to level cities, to burn forests and divert rivers, to smite our enemies hip and thigh, to carry out summary execution of captured leaders? Of course not — how barbaric! And yet (whispers the ancestral, tribal voice in our heads, and in British heads too) if not, then what’s the point? War is a tribal affair, one tribe exterminating another, or reducing it to utter impotence and ignominious surrender. That’s what war is, and it isn’t anything else. We know this in our bones, from a million years of tribal living and fighting. If we are not willing to fight a war like that — which apparently we are not, being much too civilized — then we should not be too surprised if our allies turn and cut deals with our enemies. At least they’ll have a quiet life, for a while."

I hate the idea of war.  I hate the idea of innocents dying because they are caught in the crossfire of such a war.  But even more I hate the idea of terrorists being given free reign to murder innocents at will.  I hate the concept that while a year ago I felt completely safe and at ease riding the subway in New York City... but if I were there today I wouldn't feel the same sense of safety.  I hate that more weight is given to the rights of murdering terrorists than to my right to live peaceably with some sense of security.

It's time to act... without reservation... on the brave words that the leaders of both the United States and Great Britain have uttered... time to stop being intimidated and to make good on our determination to "not yield to these people" (GWB).

Yes, it sounds very uncivilized and barbaric... war always is... but do you really believe that a world dominated by terrorists would be anything less?  Do we as a nation believe it is more noble to stand aside and watch innocents murdered... slaughtered while guilelessly going about their daily lives?  Is that truly more acceptable?

Not in my world it isn't.

A Human Problem

The New York Times ran a mighty fine OpEd piece today by Matt Miller.  It's called "Listen to My Wife"... which every woman in the world knows is a very wise title!

It's a nice fit with another OpEd piece the Times ran earlier this week... "What Women Want" from John Tierney.  In a lot of ways, I think the two meant to say the same thing... only difference is that Matt Miller stated his opinion in a much more politically correct and reader friendly way.

The general consensus is that it's about time that we stop making our careers our lives... and put them back in their proper place as a part of life.  Matt Miller says very clearly that this isn't a women's problem... it's a human problem.

"In a world where most people are struggling, the search for "balance" in high-powered jobs has to be counted a luxury. Still, there is something telling (if not downright dysfunctional) when a society's most talented people feel they have to sacrifice the meaningful relationships every human craves as the price of exercising their talent.

Nowhere is there a greater gulf between the frustration people feel over a dilemma central to their lives and their equally powerful sense that there's nothing to be done. As a result, talented people throw up their hands. Women are "opting out" after deciding that professional success isn't worth the price. Ambitious folks of both sexes "do what they have to," sure there is no other way. That's just life."

It's not just life... life is what happens everywhere else.  It's ours to control... it's about time we did.  If there were enough squeaky wheels, we'd be running our lives instead of running a rat race.

Parental Notification

Okay... I'm going where angels fear to tread.  The Supreme Court is gearing up to decide whether pregnant teenagers facing a health emergency may have an abortion without notifying their parents.  First of all... to clear the air... this is NOT a post about abortion.  I have my own opinion about that... but that's not what it's all about today.

My teen-aged daughter isn't allowed to have an Advil in her backpack at school... or to take a Tylenol on the premises of the school.  Written permission from me isn't sufficient to allow this... nor is a prescription in a bottle with a written note from her doctor.  The only way my daughter can be allowed to take ANY kind of medication on the grounds of her school is if I am physically there handing it to her and staying with her while she takes it.

Teens aren't legally allowed to purchase or use alcoholic beverages or tobacco products.  Adults selling these products to minors are breaking the law and are arrested when caught.  Parents allowing their children to drink alcoholic beverages... or to smoke a cigarette... can have their children removed from their custody by social services.

But as a society we will allow teen-aged girls to undergo a surgical procedure... potentially life threatening... and often emotionally wrenching... without parental notification.  We'll allow them to make a decision that could impact them the rest of their lives... possibly impair their ability to bear children at a later date... and change the course of their lives... all without so much as a parent's knowledge.  Not to mention that the desperation of a teenager in that situation leads them to jump at the first option that presents itself instead of looking for the absolute best medical care available to them.  And financial restraints often cause teens to settle for substandard care.

Yes, I understand that there are situations where to notify a parent about an issue like an unwanted pregnancy or abortion would put a teen at great risk.  I'm not saying that parents have to be the adults notified.  But any teen facing this kind of a decision in her (and his) life should have the wisdom of an adult advocate working for and with them in the decision making process.

This isn't about abortion... or choice... or any of those things.  The topic has been tainted by the fact that 'abortion' is part of the issue.  But it's bigger than that... it's about whether or not we allow children to make adult choices.  We don't allow them to drink... or to drive until a certain age... or possess firearms...or to use tobacco products... or to hold certain jobs... or to vote.  What defines an 'adult' decision?  Since when does the proximity of a highly visible topic make it okay to throw kids into adult choices?  Because it's wrapped around a politically volatile issue, we're willing to sacrifice our children in the name of political correctness.