The Conservative Edge

If you are a frequent visitor to this blog site, then you know I am less than thrilled by the actions of the Obama administration. Much of the legislation passed this year was done in speed and haste. You might say that some things were enacted because the liberal/Democratic bunch have greedily desired to beat up certain industries (like tobacco and automobiles); yet some issues are hastily being dealt with (namely health care) because they don’t want to give us a chance to disagree with their efforts.

But I do have to commend President Obama for his recent remarks concerning the dignity, and importance, of fatherhood. He has openly talked about the neglect he endured from his own father. He turned that negative relationship into a positive motivator, vowing to be a better father when he had children of his own. “I don’t want to be the kind of father I had,” the president is quoted as telling a friend in a new book about him (read more on Yahoo! news).

Fathers, and men in general, are being lost in an ever-growing tidal wave of feminism. If you look at the way TV shows, for instance, are being promoted, you can see a marked difference. Ads for “The Closer” and “Saving Grace” show a headstrong woman single-handedly rescuing society from evildoers. But men aren’t allowed to be independent butt-kickers anymore. White males, especially, have to be part of a multi-ethnic team now; look at the way the new drama “Leverage” is depicted. Perhaps more degrading is the manner in which men are shown on network programming. They are either stupid, lazy louts who can’t groom themselves, or they are weak, effeminate servants of some dominant female character.

Men and fathers are better than that, if they can only believe. I am often amazed when I read of the literary genius of a Winston Churchill or a J.R.R. Tolkien; or the deep reflection and power of observation of a Carl Jung or an Abraham Lincoln; or the artistic talents of a Pablo Picasso; or the mathematical and scientific ability of a George Boole or an Albert Einstein. These were all great men, remarkable in their various achievements. They can also be examples of what men can achieve, if they but only try.

I once read a book about the fall of the Roman Empire, and what lead to the breakdown of Roman society. The author cited the disintegration of the family unit as the beginning of the end of the empire. When the family lost the leadership of the father, there was a subsequent loss of tradition, discipline, work ethic, and honor. The author also drew a parallel to modern American society; indeed, we are witnessing the erosion of fatherhood, just as Rome lost its way. It has been estimated that 24 million Americans are now growing up without a dad. How tragic that we now esteem single mothers who raise kids alone, while men and fathers are deemed unimportant.

So, at least dads get one day of recognition tomorrow. We will have our T-bone steaks hot off the grill, we will have our iced teas (with perhaps a splash of tequila mixed in), and maybe enjoy an after-dinner cigar and a siesta. And then, come Monday, we will slide back into obscurity as the feminists see fit. It has been said that it takes a village to raise a child; that village better have some good men in it, or else I sure feel sorry for the kids.

Happy Father’s Day!

Last Friday (June 12), the federal government enacted legislation that, according to Yahoo! news, granted itself unprecedented authority to regulate and restrict cigarettes and tobacco products. President Obama remarked that this makes history “by giving scientists and medical experts at the FDA the power to take sensible steps.”

Apparently, we are living under a 21st century version of Prohibition. Look at what the government has done for itself. It now has “unprecedented authority” and “absolute power” not just to regulate the tobacco industry, but our personal lives as well. None of the Democratic candidates for president campaigned on promises to eradicate tobacco use. Yet, the Democratic agenda is clear: destroying the tobacco industry, and our right to use tobacco, takes precedence over creating jobs.

I felt so strongly about our rights to use tobacco that I wrote an essay for one of my college classes. Some of the statistics that I cited were from a report by Joe Jackson about the lies perpetrated by the anti-smoking zealots. Here is most of the essay that I wrote:

“In November of 2006, voters in the state of Ohio approved an indoor smoking ban for all workplaces. The ban, known as Issue 5, passed by a 59-41 percent margin. Some voters believed that private clubs and family-owned businesses would be exempt. However, the fine print in the law allowed few, if any, exemptions.
“Despite the ban, tobacco continues to be a legal product sold in Ohio. Tobacco products are also heavily taxed. In January 2009, Congress again raised the federal excise tax on cigarettes, now amounting to $1 per pack. If tobacco is a legal substance and subject to taxation, then Ohio residents who pay taxes on tobacco products should have input in determining Ohio’s smoking laws.
“The anti-smoking establishment maintains that no one has the right to subject others to secondhand smoke. This idea gained traction in the 1970s, when the more politically savvy members of the anti-smoking movement realized a need to show that tobacco smoke was harmful. At a World Health Organization conference in 1975, former British Chief Medical Officer Sir George Godber stated, ‘It would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them.’ But two significant studies on the risk of secondhand smoke failed to find any real danger. The World Health Organization, after conducting a 10-year European test, admitted in 1998 that it found no significant statistical proof of risk. The British Medical Journal, in 2003, published the results of a 39-year study done in California, which concluded that any risk was essentially too small to measure.
“Most studies of secondhand smoke influence are conducted by groups with clear anti-smoking agendas. These studies are usually financed by pharmaceutical companies which make money selling nicotine patches and gum. But the real intent of the anti-smoking movement is to stigmatize smokers, not to protect the public. This leads to the enactment of intrusive and unreasonable laws that restrict the freedom of American citizens. For example, the mayor of Los Angeles signed a law, effective in September of 2007, that banned smoking in all city parks and beaches, and also prohibited even the carrying, lighting, or discarding of tobacco products. As a result, individuals could be fined or arrested for carrying a product that was legally purchased at a gas station or convenience store.
“There are sensible measures that can be taken to appease the anti-smoking fanatics and avoid treating smokers like second-class citizens. Taxes on tobacco products should be used to install better ventilation systems in public workplaces and private organizations, much like using gasoline taxes to repair roads and bridges. This is a practical idea, since good ventilation systems can remove particles as small as .30 micron; tobacco smoke particles measure 1 micron. Tests have shown that, with a good ventilation system, the air in a smoking environment can be cleaner than the air in a non-smoking environment without ventilation.
“The anti-smokers have morphed into a powerful prohibitionist movement. They promote intolerance and social tension, and wield too much control over the lives of many Americans who use tobacco. Abraham Lincoln once said, “No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.” If American people consent to the bully tactics of the anti-smoking movement, many other freedoms could be sacrificed in the name of social engineering.”

Do we really want government officials and scientists to wield so much control of our lives? I hope Americans come to their senses and understand how the liberals are taking away our freedoms one by one.

Some of you may recall my post about a particular column written by Kathleen Parker. I was moved to write her in response to her piece, as she insinuated that we, as readers, should suddenly be as nice to Barack Obama as we were hateful to George Bush. I merely wanted to remind her that many people learn to be hateful or judgemental from the ideas presented by columnists and writers such as herself.

It appears that another column written by Kathleen Parker is due a response as well. The April 10 edition of the Dayton Daily News featured her commentary, in which she asserts that Obama’s method of world leadership utilizes his ability to listen to others, and shows his humility. There is nothing wrong with being able to listen or being humble. The trouble is, Parker thinks that testosterone is what makes a man arrogant and aggressive, and the lack of testosterone is what makes a man a good listener. This is a great misrepresentation, and a hasty generalization.

Parker completely overlooks the principle of personality types. She is blindly accepting the recent notion that testosterone-powered male leadership is the cause of America’s problems. As I noted before, columnist William Kristof maintains that since Wall Street is dominated by male traders, it was testosterone that drove men to make poor trades, resulting in the market’s nose dive. Parker is making a similar point. She says that, “If George W. Bush was a cowboy, Obama is a group hug.” She also claims, “Unfortunately, most of world history seems to have pivoted on the balance or imbalance of hormones, with testosterone presenting the greatest challenge.”

Nonsense. If that were true, Parker would effectively be ruling out the opportunity for female leadership, since women suffer more hormonal and mood swings than men ever do. It is a gross oversimplification to think that a man’s social skills and decision-making process is controlled solely by his testosterone levels.

What makes an individual a listener or a talker? Why do some people recharge their batteries in solitude, while others get energized in social gatherings? It’s simple. The personality type—or psychological profile, if you will—determines most of a person’s typical behavior. It has been discovered that there are several personality types. We have, for example, the thinking introvert who uses his senses to make logical and reasonable decisions. There are also extroverted people who have keen intuitions, and enjoy the whole conversational and social processes. Furthermore, we all have minor, opposite sides that complement our preferred behaviors. The introvert actually has a warm, social part of his personality that must be exercised from time to time. Conversely, the extrovert must recognize that he must pay attention to his quiet self, and nourish the inner man away from the noisy crowds.

I would encourage anyone to find out more about the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. You will be able to find out your personality type by taking a simple test. The test is simply a set of questions that ask you about your preferred way to handle certain situations, and how you choose to make judgements and decisions. For example, I found that my Type Indicator is expressed as “ISTJ.” This means that I am an introverted person (the “I”) who uses fact and more linear thought (the “S and “T”) to arrive at a clear judgement (the “J”). I’m proud to say that I have the same profile as Abraham Lincoln and Albert Einstein. No kidding.

So, I think Kathleen Parker has it all wrong. If Obama is a good listener, maybe he has introversion as his dominant process. If he is instead an extrovert, then maybe he chose to exercise his complementary side while he was in Europe, using his minor ability to be humble and listen to others. I just hope he can keep his humility with those he actually governs here at home.

I’ve been working on an argument essay for my English class at college. Everyone in the class was free to choose a topic. I decided to write my essay about the Ohio smoking ban. This ban, known as state Issue 5, was approved by a majority of Ohio voters and prohibits smoking in all public buildings and all workplaces. Someone asked me why I chose this subject, since I don’t smoke. My reason is that there are too many American citizens who don’t realize they are being targeted for a great social re-engineering.

People don’t realize that, before they actually lose a particular freedom, they are first stigmatized by the movements who want to take the freedom away. Tobacco users, for example, are (and have been since the 1970s) labeled pathetic and helpless “addicts” who really want to quit smoking but can’t. Smokers are also accused of making non-smokers suffer from secondhand smoke. Once this negative association with tobacco use is made, it becomes easier to eliminate tobacco from society. The same is true with gun ownership. Honest, law-abiding American citizens are stigmatized as ignorant, uneducated, irresponsible threats to American society. As a result, they pay heavy taxes on ammunition, and must meet endless purchasing and licensing requirements just to be able to own a gun. Once the idea is accepted that a vast number of armed citizens is actually a threat to society, it becomes easier to outlaw gun ownership.

And so I am writing about the smoking ban because I feel that everyday Americans should stand up for their freedoms, liberties, and pursuits of happiness. Here is some of my essay:

“The anti-smoking establishment maintains that no one has the right to subject others to secondhand smoke. This idea gained traction in the 1970s, when the more politically savvy members of the anti-smoking movement realized a need to show that tobacco smoke was harmful. At a World Health Organization conference in 1975, former British Chief Medical Officer Sir George Godber stated, ‘It would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them.’ But two significant studies on the risk of secondhand smoke failed to find any real danger. The World Health Organization, after conducting a 10-year European test, admitted in 1998 that it found no significant statistical proof of risk. The British Medical Journal, in 2003, published the results of a 39-year study done in California, which concluded that any risk was essentially too small to measure.

“Most studies of secondhand smoke influence are conducted by groups with clear anti-smoking agendas. These studies are usually financed by pharmaceutical companies which make money selling nicotine patches and gum. But the real intent of the anti-smoking movement is to stigmatize smokers, not to protect the public. This leads to the enactment of intrusive and unreasonable laws that restrict the freedom of American citizens. For example, the mayor of Los Angeles signed a law, effective in September of 2007, that banned smoking in all city parks and beaches, and also prohibited even the carrying, lighting, or discarding of tobacco products. Imagine being fined or arrested for carrying a product that was legally purchased at a gas station or convenience store!

“The anti-smokers have morphed into a powerful prohibitionist movement. They promote intolerance and social tension, and wield too much control over the lives of many Americans who use tobacco. Abraham Lincoln once said, ‘No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.’ If American people consent to the bully tactics of the anti-smoking movement, many other freedoms could be sacrificed in the name of social engineering.”

So, what do you think? Just replace tobacco use with gun ownership, freedom of religion, conservative news media, or other American interests. You’ll likely find that some liberal organization is targeting you, and preparing to take away whatever freedom you enjoy. Write your Representatives and Senators; write letters to the editors of your newspaper; join conservative organizations; give yourself a voice. If we don’t stick together, we will surely lose this America we love.