Uncomfortable Olympic Go(l)d

What better way to tear down an Olympian than to criticize her faith. Via Professor Jacobson, the Slate delves into Christian bashing with aplomb:

Headline: Did God help Gabrielle Douglas win?

Subhead: The gold medalist is a teenager of deep faith and gratitude — and that can be a little unnerving

Unnerving because Gabby tweets about her faith. God forbid. She lives her faith. How horrible. If she were a Muslim who found strength in faith, she would be championed. But she’s not. She’s a Christian. How passe.

Mary Elizabeth Williams, a self proclaimed papist, writes with as much disdain as she can muster:

Gabby Douglas is now officially a star. When she won the individual gold medal in women’s gymnastics in London Thursday, the breakout darling of the 2012 games, she immediately found herself a celebrity worthy of a cereal box. If her performance in the women’s individual all-around didn’t blow your mind, you cannot possibly have been paying attention. Yet after her victory, one of the first responses that truly resonated for me was from a colleague who noted, “I would like her more if she were not so, so, so into Jesus.” Which raises the question – what is Jesus going to do now for Gabby Douglas’ career?

Douglas isn’t exactly the only outspoken Christian in America – or even the only high-profile Christian athlete. So jam-packed is this year’s roster with them that Douglas didn’t even make the cut for the Christian Post’s “10 Christian Athletes to Watch.”But her newly minted status as a champion and her unguarded outspokenness about her faith are going to give her a new platform from which to preach. After her win Thursday, Douglas said, “I give all the glory to God. It’s kind of a win-win situation. The glory goes up to him and the blessings fall down on me.”

She’s a 16-year-old with both deep faith and profound gratitude, a girl who yesterday tweeted from the Psalms to her followers, “Let all that I am praise the LORD; may I never forget the good things he does for me” and Friday sent out a retweet from the Faith in God feed. And that clearly authentic image of a hardworking girl with strong values makes her a natural icon to her fellow Christians, just as it makes the somewhat less faithful uncomfortable.

Emphasis my own. Obviously Williamson counts herself among the “uncomfortable.” And my, how uncomfortable she is:

We are a nation that is lousy with Christians — a fair number of whom are not nearly as nice as Gabby Douglas. A lot of them aren’t super-clear on the whole “freedom of religion” thing and can get pretty gung-go about trying to shut down people with different beliefs. A lot of them are insistent that everybody in the world should conform to what they know for an absolute fact is the one and only truth. So even when Douglas is merely expressing her personal philosophy, posting #christmotivation quotes in her Twitter feed or talking about how she meditates daily on Scripture, there’s always that lurking hint of proselytism. Dear Christians: It’s a fine line between sharing your beliefs and selling them. And there’s something else too.

But there obviously isn’t a fine line between being obnoxious in denouncing the faith of  others and raking a 16 year-old girl through the coals over her religious beliefs because she makes you feel uncomfortable.

I’ve watched so much craziness unfold this week on Facebook over the Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day. People I thought to be rational went nuts calling out others (by name!) for their support of “hate chicken” by arguing that they believe in a loving God. I do, too, but I also believe in a facist-free country that allows others the right to free speech. Apparently some speech is more free than others and “the right to not be made uncomfortable” is tolerated much more than the right to express one’s faith.

That’s what makes me uncomfortable.

 

Who needs algebra?

So asks Andrew Hacker writing at the NYT when pondering our (national) educational shortcomings:

This debate matters. Making mathematics mandatory prevents us from discovering and developing young talent. In the interest of maintaining rigor, we’re actually depleting our pool of brainpower. I say this as a writer and social scientist whose work relies heavily on the use of numbers. My aim is not to spare students from a difficult subject, but to call attention to the real problems we are causing by misdirecting precious resources.

The toll mathematics takes begins early. To our nation’s shame, one in four ninth graders fail to finish high school. In South Carolina, 34 percent fell away in 2008-9, according to national data released last year; for Nevada, it was 45 percent. Most of the educators I’ve talked with cite algebra as the major academic reason.

Shirley Bagwell, a longtime Tennessee teacher, warns that “to expect all students to master algebra will cause more students to drop out.” For those who stay in school, there are often “exit exams,” almost all of which contain an algebra component. In Oklahoma, 33 percent failed to pass last year, as did 35 percent in West Virginia.

Love the last quote from a teacher. We can’t teach this skill so let’s just get rid of it, thus preventing more kids from dropping out. Rather than solving the problem (the lack of skill addressed at an earlier grade level when kids are then just passed on like chattel to the next grade without necessarily mastering the skills necessary), let’s … um, get rid of it! That’s the solution!

Pathetic.

Hacker points out the need for solid basic math skills. I agree. But that’s lost in today’s education system as well. And next we’ll be told that it’s not necessary, either.

“The notion of allowing women into Ranger School because denying them the experience would harm their careers makes Ranger graduates cringe.”

So explains former Army officer and Ranger Stephen Kilcullen in the WSJ as to why the current discussion of allowing women access to Ranger school as a necessity of opening Infantry units to women would be disasterous. “It’s a career enhancer” isn’t the best of reasons, no? That it proves to be a good marker for success for the officers and enlistees who brave the course is an after effect: they pass against all odds because of grit and determination, not because it’s a career enhancer. More:

Ranger School isn’t about improving the career prospects of individual candidates. Our motto is “Rangers lead the way.” Many a Ranger has lived these words before being killed in action—certain that if a Ranger couldn’t accomplish the mission, nobody could. This unique culture lures the kind of young, smart soldiers needed to get the toughest jobs done. The promise of something bigger than oneself—bigger than any career track—is what motivates these men.

It is this culture of excellence and selflessness that attracts young men to the Ranger brotherhood. The Ranger ethos is designed to be deadly serious yet self-deprecating, focused entirely on teamwork and mission accomplishment. Rangers put the mission first, their unit and fellow soldiers next, and themselves last. The selfishness so rampant elsewhere in our society has never existed in the Ranger brotherhood.

And that is the secret of the brotherhood’s success. Some call it “unit cohesiveness” but what they are really describing is a transition from self-interest to selfless service. The notion of allowing women into Ranger School because denying them the experience would harm their careers makes Ranger graduates cringe. Such politically correct thinking is the ultimate expression of the “me” culture, and it jeopardizes core Ranger ideals.

The military has changed many policies in recent years, based on individual self-interest masquerading as fairness and antidiscrimination. As we debate new policies, decision makers need to ask two simple questions: Is a proposed move good for the majority of service members? And does it improve or hinder our ability to execute our mission?

After all, the military does not exist to provide careers. It is a responsibility, a way of life and a higher calling that only 1% of our citizens choose to follow. A top-notch fighting force composed of dedicated and strong men who are the very best at what they do is what defines our armed forces—and the Rangers as among their best. Let’s not destroy this small but incredibly important culture under the banner of “me.”

Hoorah.

Liberals will do all they can to destroy the  one arena of American life where merit, grit and determination can truly guide someone from obscurity to success. All in the name of “politically correct.”  Read the rest.

H/t: Hot Air headlines

UPDATE: now a Memeorandum thread, but sans much discussion. Why? This is a big deal, y’all. Either way. Waiting for Allahpundit tonight. (Warning: the one thread linked is… viciously feminist and imagines irony behind every word. How does the Army having to lower physical standards in order for any female to pass allow “women to pursue equality”? Really.)

What happens when feminism meets Marxism

This:

Virginity, by definition, is simply the state of a person who has not engaged in sexual intercourse. But we all know that there are many more implications to it than that, especially for women. Most traditional societies, cultures and religions place a high value on a woman’s virginity aka her chastity. So much so that it is tightly bound to her worth and her perceived self-worth.

With this archaic notion of “value” placed on a woman’s virginity comes the belief that exclusive rights to her womb should be saved for the highest bidder; that it is a commodity to be bought (in most cases by her husband) and sold (usually by her father). And if she gives it away or, God forbid, it is taken from her, she loses value as a woman and as a human being

Because we all know a young lady’s self worth is improved by sleeping around at random?

The  argument above, penned by Alexandra Gekas writing at “The Frisky,” illustrates the marriage of feminist and Marxist thought. Why can’t a woman choose not to commodify herself? Is it somehow different if she doesn’t want the free dinner and drinks beforehand?

The cause of this angst on parade? An Olympian speaking out about the challenges she faces maintaining her virginity.  

I guess Lolo is just too counter-cultural to make the Wheaties box. Patrick Archibold comments:

But it makes some people very angry when you speak like this. Not because of some silly notion of “exclusive rights to the womb” nonsense. It makes people angry when someone ascribes such value to something they themselves gave away without any thought. They don’t want to think about what they threw away.

If you gave away a Babe Ruth signed baseball because you didn’t think it had any value, you certainly wouldn’t like it if someone kept talking about how priceless it was would’ya?

True enough.

Really, JCPenney’s?

Somehow I missed the Mother’s Day hoopla. But the latest salvo in the war in marriage comes from JCPenney’s. Hardest hit: my grandmother.

Via Life Site News, a look at the idyllic Father’s Day, when you have a two-for-one special!

After commemorating Mother’s Day with an ad featuring two lesbians, JCPenney is releasing a Father’s Day ad depicting two gay men and their children.

The recent ad, published in their June catalog, states that a father is a “swim coach, tent maker, best friend, bike fixer and hug giver – all rolled into one. Or two.

Below the picture of a smiling homosexual couple playing with a little boy and girl, the ad reads: “Real-life dads, Todd Koch and Cooper Smith with their children Claire and Mason.”

Real-life dads. Wow. Why escape reality with models when the real thing can be shoved into unsuspecting hands? I used to love poring over my mother’s catalogs as a girl. And now legions of kids who do will be exposed to something that’s not inevitable as some would like us to believe. Since, you know, it has been voted down in over 30 states, including California.

Liberals are cooing over JCPenney’s stand. Let ’em. They won’t shop there, and the customer base it has will erode quickly.

“pro-choice” label alienates, fewer self-identify

I wonder why.

Support for abortion rights dropped to a new low in the 18-year Gallup survey.Witness feminist teeth gnashing over this one:

The 41% of Americans who now identify themselves as “pro-choice” is down from 47% last July and is one percentage point below the previous record low in Gallup trends, recorded in May 2009. Fifty percent now call themselves “pro-life,” one point shy of the record high, also from May 2009?

Gallup began asking Americans to define themselves as pro-choice or pro-life on abortion in 1995, and since then, identification with the labels has shifted from a wide lead for the pro-choice position in the mid-1990s, to a generally narrower lead for “pro-choice” — from 1998 through 2008 — to a close division between the two positions since 2009. However, in the last period, Gallup has found the pro-life position significantly ahead on two occasions, once in May 2009 and again today. It remains to be seen whether the pro-life spike found this month proves temporary, as it did in 2009, or is sustained for some period.

Ed Morrissey notes the largest shift among demographics:

Independents now favor the pro-life position 47/41, a dramatic shift from last years’ 51/41 support for abortion, and the trend lines for independents roughly mirror the trends of the overall population.

You don’t say. Maybe The Lightbringer needs to call a press conference to say his former position–you know, not caring that infants born alive could survive the abortion procedure against the original intent of the mother–has now changed because he’s so Christian and that his thinking has evolved since public opinion means so much to him.

 

 

 

Bring on the jokes (because abortion is just soooo funny)

The abortion jokes, that is. For some reason liberals happen to think it’s such a laughing matter. Pat Archibold at NCRegister writes:

“Newt Gingrich’s campaign is so dead, Mitt Romney wants to baptize it and Rick Santorum wants to put it in a jar and show it to his kids.”

That’s the joke that Jimmy Kimmel was going to tell at The White House Correspondent’s Dinner. He didn’t, but only because an ABC News reporter told him that it could “cause the room to turn against him.”

Yup. Jimmy Kimmel thinks dead babies are funny. It’s a ghastly ghoulish joke in which I see no possibility of humor. None. But that’s why I wish he would’ve told it.

I can’t help but wonder if Jake Tapper were the voice of common sense and reason since Kimmel apparently has none. Like Archibold, I wish the joke had been told:

I don’t want this topic of the sacredness of life to be whispered about. I want to see and hear what people actually think about things like 50 million dead babies. I want to hear where pro-aborts find humor in that. I think the more punchlines people hear, the more people will see the truth. And the truth is that many people don’t have any problem whatsoever with the destruction of human beings.

Kimmel’s former girlfriend Sarah Silverman recently tweeted a picture of her stomach after she had a big meal and again later when it wasn’t sticking out so far – like a before and after pic. She tweeted that she had a “quicky aborsh” or something like that. many were reasonably outraged that anyone would make so light of that topic. But I say, keep those “aborsh” jokes coming because in humor there’s truth. And the truth is that many pro-abortion rights folks don’t really think ripping babies apart in the womb is that big of a deal. In fact, they laugh at folks who do.

You know all the creased brows and thoughtful looks that pro-abortion rights folks give when they say their cliched favorite lines like “safe, legal and rare” or “I’m personally pro-life?” That’s the real joke. And you’re the punchline.

When the second generation of bioethicists recently proposed after-birth abortions, it caused  a furor even though the suggestion has been proposed for decades a la Peter Singer. Logically, the young bioethicists had a point: if it is legal to commit infanticide in utero, then why not after birth? They argued an infant is no more capable of self-actualization or care than a fetus, therefore it, too, should be equally abortable. According to that logic, they’re correct. The more liberals expose the truth and humor of their core beliefs, the more likely we are to win the argument.

H/t: Creative Minority Report

Celebrate mom by helping others avoid motherhood.

This rivals a suggestion on Facebook when a former schoolmate asked others to donate to NARAL in lieu of wrapping up a gift for Christmas. Saves paper and bows! Besides, what says joy of infant Jesus like the slaughter of the unborn?

Kirsten Gilibrand stuck her foot in it today. Via Hot Air, behold:

“This Mother’s Day, I can’t think of a better way to honor all the mothers in the country — past and present — than with a contribution to EMILY’s List,” Gillibrand writes. “They’re the ones working tirelessly to elect the pro-choice Democratic women who are making sure that our freedoms are protected for generations to come.”

“So, this year, join me in commemorating Mother’s Day with a contribution to EMILY’s List to help elect the Democratic women who will continue to secure our rights,” the senator continues. “On Mother’s Day, let’s get women involved and make sure they know who is truly fighting for them – the pro-choice Democratic women EMILY’s List is working each day to elect to office. Make this Mother’s Day extra special. Honor mothers around the country with a contribution to EMILY’s List.”

Feminist liberals cannot honestly celebrate mothers without first thinking mothers should have the right to murder their offspring. How enlightening.

Oh history, inevitability and same sex marriage

A very useful reminder from Rich Lowry:

 

History is littered with the wreckage of causes pronounced inevitable by all right-thinking people. The failed Equal Rights Amendment looked inevitable when it passed Congress in 1972 and immediately 30 states ratified it. Opposition to abortion that was supposed to inevitably wither away is as robust as ever. The forces favoring gun control seemed unstoppably on the march when Congress passed the Brady Bill and the assault-weapons ban in the 1990s, but there are more protections for gun rights now than two decades ago.

Gay marriage’s inevitability hasn’t been evident to the voters in 31 states who have written into their constitutions that marriage is between a man and a woman. The latest is North Carolina, where 61 percent of voters embraced the traditional definition of marriage in a referendum. North Carolina isn’t Mississippi. President Obama won North Carolina in 2008, and Democrats are holding their convention there. Nation-wide, no referendum simply upholding traditional marriage has ever lost, and even in Maine, voters in 2009 reversed a gay-marriage law passed by the legislature

“Like, YAY” generation willing to trade “like, liberty” for that pack of free birth control pills

I can’t shake this out of my head.

Pundette posted this gem among many yesterday of a college crowd’s response to a Romney rally [emphasis hers]:

But there was no indication that Romney’s message resonated. Some of those watching called out “Obama 2012.” The first question was pointed: “So you’re all for like, yay, freedom, and all this stuff,” a woman said. “And yay, like pursuit of happiness. You know what would make me happy? Free birth control.”

Young white college gals ain’t so different from the black folks who wanted the free Obama money. Except they’re willing to sell their liberty for easy sex.

Read the rest and wince at what 40 years of like, feminist drivel and like, abysmal education systems have wrought: young ladies willing to prostitute themselves, for like, free!

(On a side note, I wonder what the young lady in question would say if she like, thought about the consequences of “free” birth control so freely given by the state. Like what happens when those free pills don’t work and you’re forced into free abortions? Or forced sterilization? I’m sure she doesn’t worry about such like, atrocities now, but maybe if she read the news she would. Or maybe not.)

Related: Allahpundit‘s palate cleanser isn’t a far stretch for the “like, yay” generation, Onion or not.