Menthol?

From a recent news story -- a panel was established to study the banning of menthol in cigarettes. The study just came out and the panel leans toward a ban. Menthol is a very popular cigarette in the black community, so for some this is an effort to save them from themselves. But this paternalistic attitude was not accepted when Pro-Life forces posted a billboard in New York City which declared that abortion is killing black people disproportionately.

Banning menthol from cigarettes will keep blacks (and others) from killing themselves and banning abortion will keep blacks (and others) from killing their next generation.

I'll go with the menthol ban if they'll go with the abortion ban! Otherwise, let adults make the menthol decision themselves!

P.S. My mom always smoked menthol cigarettes and she was definitely European-American!

Libya

The Obama foreign policy is simply the Bill Clinton foreign policy, isn't it. Because Libya sure isn't the War on Terror now is it? No, this is Somalia 1993 and Bosnia 1995 redux. See injustice being perpetrated in certain countries and take some action under a UN or NATO umbrella. It sounds good, but how does this advance America's interests? Criticize the War on Iraq all you want, but Saddam Hussein had invaded a sovereign nation and had used poison gas on his citizens. In the context of 2002-2003, when we were demanding full compliance of any potential enemy, we needed to hold Saddam fully accountable for his refusal to cooperate with world leaders.

Gay Marriage

Here we are, just sixteen years after a bipartisan House and Senate voted 80% to 20% in favor of the "Defense of Marriage Act" and a Democratic president signed the bill. (Senate: 85-14; House: 342-67) And somehow, our current president feels like he can get away with allowing this DOMA to go undefended in court. In 1995, there was no question that "gay marriage" was a political bombshell and no politician would dare support it. Even before the 2008 campaign, Senator Obama said he was against "gay marriage."

And with all of this powerful influence on legislators you'd think that the "gay" population was suddenly booming, when in fact it is something like 2.3% of the population. "The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann, et al, The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994). This amounts to nearly 4 million openly gay men and 2 million women who identify as lesbian.” link

I don't get it. Where is the outrage? My own state of Maryland is on the precipice of legalizing same sex marriage, despite the fact that a large number of Democrats are also Catholics, at least in name. The Bible says it's wrong. Biology says it's wrong. Recent news on certain communicable diseases demonstrate that these sexual practices are wrong.

I do admit that the way my side has framed the debate is all wrong. "Defense of marriage." "Save marriage." The gays are right that their marriage does not threaten any normal marriage. Divorce threatens marriages. Sexual relations outside of marriage threaten marriage.

But it's just wrong! And I don't want to have my children thinking that it is right. Bigamy and polygamy are wrong, right? Marrying close relatives is wrong, right? I am convinced that these people are deluded into believing that they are "oriented" this way when I believe they have a choice to do what they do. And by appeasing them with "gay unions," "gay marriage," "gays" in the military, we do them no help. It is a mental condition and they have given up on fighting it just as other mental conditions exist.

The irony is that the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s gave people freedom to have sexual relations outside of the traditional marriage relationship. Living together became accepted. And now the gay lobby says they want to have their version of 1950's "Ozzie and Harriet" relationships.

How about this -- let's pass a law banning sex outside of any marriage -- homosexual or heterosexual. Make us all go back to the 1950s. No more promiscuity for anyone. Somehow, I don't think the gay community would go for that. They like gay sex too much!

Freakonomics and Abortion

Sick at home this morning, I turn on Netflix streaming to pass the time. Not much available, really, but I gave the movie "Freakonomics" a try. Interesting, I guess. Always good to look deeper into the causes of various things. But when the author came up with Roe v. Wade and an increased abortion rate as the cause of a dramatically lower crime rate in the 1990s, I was pretty disgusted. The theory being that less unwanted children would have grown up and been committing crimes in young adulthood in 1990. I know this book is at least five years old, so I'm a little late to this debate. Lifenews.com had a link a couple of years ago to a study which refuted the Freakonomics claim.

Another abortion-related matter came up last week when protesters demanded the removal of a billboard in New York City which used the quote that the most dangerous place in the world for a black person is in the womb due to excessively high abortion rates in the black community. The protesters did not like facing the truth, apparently. Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder, believed in a "better world" with eugenics and birth control by reducing the number of undesirable people like, in her mind, black people. See this link originally from a 1992 Citizen magazine article.

I like the billboard but I've got to admit that we conservatives are being a little inconsistent here. The attitude of the billboard is that blacks are the victims, when in fact they are both perpetrators and victims. We conservatives like to believe that all races can raise themselves up with sheer individual effort. The real reason that billboard was offensive to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson is that it put up a mirror for the black people to see what THEY were doing to their own people. They're not victims. They are the active participants in this exercise.

One Year Old

Baby is one year old this week! And I've posted next to nothing in this past year. Coincidence? Obviously not. He's at my feet/knees/ everywhere right now! Hard to find time to idle away at a blog when all this is going on.

I'd love to write something, though. Facebook is not my choice of media for political expressions since I want it to be mostly friendly and non-controversial.

Four Months Offline

Actually, it's just that I haven't posted on this blog since March 13th.

The newborn baby in February, the passing of my Dad in March, the hospitalization of our baby in March, an injury to my Mom in April, etc. All of these things kept me from spending much time with the computer and especially not much time to really think about developments in Washington and the world.

So much to comment upon! Health Care Reform passed. Arizona makes an effort to secure the border. The economy continues to drag. A Supreme Court justice retires.

I hope to be able to check in here with more regularity and post my thoughts on the issues of the day. For now, I'll just say: I'm Back!

Our friend's letter was published

Sarah P. has a letter to the editor today.

(Different Sarah P. than you probably expected!)

We've known her since she was a toddler and we're so proud of her for getting published!