The law of unintended consequences: rise in infectious disease tied to plastic bag ban

Husband and I have debated this one, though I admit we never thought the rise in infectious disease would be measurable. Via HotAir, a fascinating look at the dirty problem associated with reusable grocery bags:

Liberals will have no problem arguing a bird or turtle’s life is worth more than a human’s because they do it all the time (Wesley J. Smith’s “A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy” exposes the grotesque reality of the PETA position). But when children start dying en masse from cross-contamination that could have been so easily avoided by a cheap disposable bag, will some folks wake up? I wonder.

In full disclosure, I have plenty of cloth bags, though I never (ok, rarely) use them for groceries. I color-code our laundry by bag and shuffle it up and down narrow staircases to the laundry room and back to hanging on bedroom doors. Another functions as a great swim-class bag. But none carry raw meat or poultry, and it’ll likely stay that way.

Cross-posted at Pundit & Pundette.

Advertisement

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.

 

From the comments, some, um, commentary

It never fails to impress me–the hatred engendered by liberal supporters of abortion for deviant thoughts. How terrible to protect the life of a child, no? From last week’s post on Chinese forced abortion, I received this:

Wait – let me insert the standard conservative response, found all over Yahoo news in the ‘comments’ section: “She knew the rules – it’s her OWN FAULT! Everyone knows the Chinese have a one child policy. She got what she deserved”. There. Typical response noted. Oh – wait – critical thinking skills?? Been forced to abort or bear your rapist’s child? Or your just keen on forcing your religion on others – kinda like the Chinese forcing this woman to have one child. See the correlation? Of course not you Dumb bitch, I mean, fellow citizen.

Mean, ain’t he? And not particularly bright, either. I am conservative, and I have never heard anyone use what he points to as the “standard conservative response” let alone think it myself. Yet somehow I’m lumped into a category he not-so-logically clumps with the ChiComs.

Go figure.

“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.

And folks wonder why I blog anonymously

I’ve always said its primarily to protect my husband’s Miliary career. Very true. It’s also out of a sense of need to guard my family, apparently a darn good reason these days as Stacy McCain has had to move his family to ensure their safety after exposing a well-funded lefty radical who happens to be a convicted bomber (no joke). Said convicted bomber, Brett Kimberlin, has already harassed, intimidated and stalked other bloggers–for telling the truth–to the point that attorney Aaron Worthing (who did blog under a pseudonym) and his wife both lost their jobs. Scary, no? The Lonely Conservative rightly calls the situation “horrible.”

Michelle Malkin Labels this what it is: an assault on free speech.

Hit Stacy’s tip jar, and do what you can to help Worthing. Liberals a la Streisand keep cretins like Kimberlin floating in donations. Let’s support our own in the fight againstthese who wish to silence truth.

Surreal: WaPo could care less about any Obama BFF offer to pay for Reverend Wright’s silence, but oh my, that Romney is suspect because of a nineteenth century Mormon-militia massacre

Journalistic integrity on display.
Headline: Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith tangles with a quirk of history.

From the headline, I assumed a direct connection. How silly of me:

CARROLLTON, Ark. — On the wildflower-studded slopes of the Ozarks, where memories run long and family ties run thick, a little-known and long-ago chapter of history still simmers.

On Sept. 11, 1857, a wagon train from this part of Arkansas met with a gruesome fate in Utah, where most of the travelers were slaughtered by a Mormon militia in an episode known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Hundreds of the victims’ descendants still populate these hills and commemorate the killings, which they have come to call “the first 9/11.”

Many of the locals grew up hearing denunciations of Mormonism from the pulpit on Sundays, and tales of the massacre from older relatives who considered Mormons “evil.”

“There have been Fancher family reunions for 150 years, and the massacre comes up at every one of them,” said Scott Fancher, 58, who traces his lineage back to 26 members of the wagon train, which was known as the Fancher-Baker party. “The more whiskey we drunk, the more resentful we got.”

There aren’t many places in America more likely to be suspicious of Mormonism — and potentially more problematic for Mitt Romney, who is seeking to become the country’s first Mormon president. Not only do many here retain a personal antipathy toward the religion and its followers, but they also tend to be Christian evangelicals, many of whom view Mormonism as a cult.

Five paragraphs to tie Romney in as a cultist. The angst the WaPo staff feels on behalf of poor Mitt, who is obviously doomed because of his religion? But wait:

And yet, there is scant evidence that Romney’s religion is making much difference in how voters here are thinking about the presidential election and whether they are willing to back the former Massachusetts governor.

Dammit!

Be careful about the ancestry you claim

Unless you know the full story. Via Legal Insurrection, a cruel irony in Elizabeth Warren’s saga:

Throughout her career and political campaign, Elizabeth Warren has found victims everywhere she looked, including when she looked in the mirror and saw an alleged descendant of one of the most historically victimized groups, Native Americans.

In what may be the ultimate and cruelest irony, not only is it unlikely that Elizabeth Warren’s great-great-great grandmother was Cherokee, it turns out that Warren’s great-great-great grandfather was a member of a militia unit which participated in the round-up of the Cherokees in the prelude to the Trail of Tears.

Whoops.

“The ghost of liberalism future”

The glories of long car trips. I attempted to explain to my husband the gory details of Elizabeth Warren’s Indian implosion somewhere after St. Louis. And though she looks like what she is–chiefly, a horrid liar incapable of defending her use of an incorrect label she took gross advantage of–I would never put it past liberals to overlook crooks and liars. (Marion Barry?!)

But I do think Warren has inflicted more damage to liberalism than the potential loss of the”Kennedy” seat: she has proven the uselessness of racial preferences in hiring. If she can claim Indian status, then anyone can.

From Commentary:

Because Warren is playing an important role in our political discourse: she is the ghost of liberalism future. Warren’s alleged use of affirmative action, if true, would have to be the most egregious abuse of the system at the expense of minorities we’ve seen yet. Elizabeth Warren is, as a white woman, statistically speaking very much a member of this country’s majority. The only category in which she is a true minority is wealth: Elizabeth Warren is very, very rich.

How telling. I read something earlier I can’t find: Professor Warren is the only non-Ivy League grad in the law faculty. Double-minority has benefits, no?

But Warren was not done making a mockery of a system she seems to have exploited, and in so doing risked discrediting. To call her on these shenanigans, she explained, is sexist. Hot Air has caught her repeating this claim, making it a pillar of her defense. First, her campaign spokeswoman said this: “Once again, the qualifications and ability of a woman are being called into question by Scott Brown who did the same thing with the Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan. It’s outrageous.”

Then Warren waded into it herself, saying of Brown: “What does he think it takes for a woman to be qualified?”

The sad part about all this is that Warren is clearly intelligent and dedicated to her (redistributionist) cause. Back in August, Christopher Caldwell wrote a piece on her in the Weekly Standard in which he praised her earlier writing as “brilliant and counterintuitive work.” Though many on the right object to Warren’s politics, no one thought she was ill-equipped intellectually for the important debate on economic policy now sweeping the public sphere.

To say nothing of her inability to have a better excuse at the ready for the long-lived lie.

Ann Romney spent WAY too much money on a shirt (that would have been FABULOUS on Michelle O!)

Because we all know Ann Romney is evil and rich whereas Michelle is FABULOUS at all times (NB: In case you’re wondering, “fabulous” must be read in best parody sing-song attempt to further mock the media hacks who live by such gross double standards.)

Or, as Lonely Conservative put it: Media Suddenly Takes Interest in in the Price Tag of Clothing of  Candidate’s Wife

ABC interviews the horrified designer of a $990 shirt Ann Romney bought off the rack:

The fashion house that makes the nearly $1,000 blouse worn by Ann Romney on morning television earlier this week tells ABC News that they had nothing to do with the wardrobe choice, remarking that they’d prefer to stay out of politics.

“We had nothing to do with it,” a rep for designer Reed Krakoff said. “She must have bought it from Saks or Bergdorf’s, we definitely didn’t send it to her.”

“It’s 100 percent a Reed Krakoff shirt, but we 100 percent didn’t send it to her,” the rep added. ”We don’t get involved politically.”

Translation: Dammit, why could Michelle not have worn our shirt?! It would have been FABULOUS!

No one cared Michelle’s ugly sweater cost over 2 grand.

Or, as Lonely Conservative reminds us, the hideous $500 sneakers worn to a homeless shelter.

No, we’re the tone-deaf  ones.