I thought I'd share my column from five years ago. You can read the whole thing here, but here's a portion:

Yet the horror that was so stark on that first day was soon overshadowed by the stories of heroism. Firemen walked up the stairs to their deaths, passing others streaming down. Two stockbrokers carried their co-worker in her wheelchair down 90 flights of stairs. Todd Beamer recited the Lord’s Prayer right before he rallied his co-passengers with “Let’s Roll!”. And 24-year-old equities trader Welles Crowther donned a red bandanna rushed from floor to floor guiding others, blinded by smoke, to exits. He, too, was last seen climbing the stairs.

It's those heroes we remember, much more so than the monsters that perpetrated the evil. I must admit I've spent precious little time over the last few years pondering Mohammed Atta, and lots of time musing about Todd Beamer, Rudy Giuliani, or the men of Ladder 12. The reason they are so memorable, I think, is that they, rather than the terrorists, embody true humanity.

• Comments (1) • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

One thing that amazes me about the global warming hype in the news today as the IPCC issues its "Summary" of a report that is not yet complete (doesn't that seem a little backwards and politically motivated), is how a complex scientific issue is being debated in soundbites. Most people, myself included, couldn't explain the science to you if our lives depended on it. But we're supposed to have political opinions that will have enormous economic consequences both here and abroad.

What we need is a good dose of critical thinking. I know where to look if I do want those scientific answers, but even some elementary logic can help us clarify our position. The problem, though, is that most people who are educated in public schools don't know how to do this, and thus are susceptible to media spin.  Here's something that I've figured out with my family recently in talks about this topic:

It seems to me that to believe in the current climate change hype, you have to believe all of these things:

1. The earth is warming.

2. This is a bad thing, and will lead to massive catastrophes. (despite the fact that 3,000 years ago the earth was hotter than it is today, and we were not underwater).

2. Humans are the cause of the earth warming, and not natural temperature fluctuations.

3. We cause it by our carbon emissions.

4. If we substantially reduce our carbon emissions, the earth will stop warming.

5. North America and Europe alone reducing our carbon emissions will stop the earth from warming, regardless of what China and India and other countries do.

6. No new technologies will show up in the next twenty or thirty years that will help us deal with carbon emissions cheaply and effectively without having to drastically change things now.

7. Instead, we must make drastic, drastic changes in our lives now to avoid any warming 100 years down the road.

8. These changes, which will virtually eradicate the economies of many third world countries which rely on trade with us, are nonetheless worth it, even if they cause increases in abject poverty and millions of deaths now, to offset what may happen in the future.

You have to believe each and every one of those things to go along with the hype right now. Many people may believe some of these individually, but not all of them. For instance, you may believe the earth is warming and that we are causing it, but you may not believe the warming is necessarily bad (longer growing season in Canada, for instance). Or, conversely, you may believe it is bad, but that reducing carbon emissions will not actually improve the situation.

Call me heartless if you want to, but I don’t want to increase Third World Poverty unless we are rock solid sure that #1-7 are correct. Since we’re not, I don’t think it’s worth the risk. And it’s not because I don’t care. It’s because I do.

Incidentally, can I have some feedback on #1-8? I’m thinking of it for a column, and if you think I’ve missed anything, or if any are wrong, let me know.

• Comments (4) • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

I was just reading about the Supreme Court refusing to rehear the Doe case that was the nail in the coffin, so to speak, for legalized abortion in the U.S. It reminded me of a column I once wrote to everyday feminists. Here's a bit of it:  

Two thirds of U.S. senators voted to outlaw partial birth abortion. Yet one third of legislators believed we should permit it. Senator Barbara Boxer said the bill “will harm the women of this country”. Hillary Clinton, who also voted no, claimed the bill was an attack on women’s rights. When the best that you can do to champion women’s rights is to fight for sucking the brains out of potentially viable babies, you have a serious PR problem.

So as a woman, I have a message for feminists like these: stop speaking for us. Only 20% of us identify ourselves as feminists anyway, down ten points from 1992, despite the fact that the same survey shows extremely high support for women’s economic and political progress. And perhaps that’s the issue. Women now look at feminists and say “we’ve won. You’re obsolete.” The only things you fight for are things we don’t believe in.

Before anyone tries to convince me about feminist doctrine, I sat through seven years of it in unvieristy. For that matter, I even lectured on it myself. I supported it, hook, line and sinker, with the exception that I have always been pro-life. But then something happened. I had a baby. And I can no longer think of my life as separate from theirs. It’s not me versus them. It’s us.

This reality isn’t reflected in current feminist policies. Childcare is a perfect example. Surveys show that women’s preference would be to find a way to stay at home. If they do work, most would prefer using neighbours or relatives to care for their kids. Day care centres fall right at the bottom of the list. Yet universal day care is what feminist groups push for. It’s as if they’re saying, “that may be what you say you want, but we know what’s best for you.” It’s condescending. To the Liberals’ credit, they extended maternal leave rather than universal day care, and I’m very grateful.

Earlier feminists understood that women’s interests and children’s interests were intertwined. If I had lived in the era of Susan B. Anthony or Nellie McClung, I would have marched along with them. But feminism has largely lost my generation, and its descent is only going to accelerate.

Take a look at the generation that’s coming next. Those born after 1977 are the most conservative generation alive. They place greatest emphasis on loyalty and family. They overwhelmingly want to get married. And over 30% of them state that they want to have three or more children. Unlike Gloria Steinem, they don’t believe “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” If that’s true, then in their world there are a lot of salmon with training wheels.

            At times in this column I say things that anger people, and if I ever do it claiming to speak for “all parents” or “all women”, I apologize. So let’s make a bargain. I won’t speak for all women, but in return I ask feminists to show people like me the same consideration. You don’t speak for me. And if current trends continue, you never will.

One thing I love about homeschooling is teaching about the early feminists from a Christian standpoint--who really were Susan B. Anthony and her friends, and what motivated them? How did they feel about family and babies and God? My girls are definitely getting the message. To me feminism is about choice--but not the kind of choice they espouse! It's about the choice to do what you feel called to do--even if that means staying home and looking after your kids. And if a man feels like doing that, too, part-time, that's wonderful. But feminists don't seem to understand that women may actually like their children.

I sure like mine. And I didn't abort when I was told my son had a serious heart defect and probably wouldn't live, though every doctor told me to (read about it here). That was the best choice I ever made.

By the way, if you want to sign up to receive my column every week in your inbox, you can do it here.

And pray for me! It's hard every week presenting a biblical world view in a secular context!

• Comments (2) • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Did anyone read the judge in the Richard Reid (aka "not very bright shoe-bomber") case? It is just brilliant, and I want to quote it in its entirety and those notice some things of interest to homeschoolers:

Ruling by Judge William Young, US District Court.

Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything to say.  His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record, Reid also admitted his “allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah,” defiantly stating, “I think I will not apologize for my actions,” and told the court “I am at war with your country.”

Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below:

January 30, 2003, United States vs. Reid. Judge Young:

“Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you.

On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General.  On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutively.  (That’s 80 years.)

On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years again, to be served consecutively to the 80 years just imposed.  The Court imposes upon you for each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 that’s an aggregate fine of $2 million.  The Court accepts the government’s recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.

The Court imposes upon you an $800 special assessment. The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it.  But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further. 

This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes.  It is a fair and just sentence.  It is a righteous sentence.

Now, let me explain this to you.  We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid.  We are Americans.  We have been through the fire before.  There is too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with the utmost respect.  Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals.  As human beings, we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant.  You are a terrorist.  You are not a soldier in any war.  You are a terrorist.  To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether the officers of government do it or your attorney does it, or if you think you are a soldier.  You are not----- you are a terrorist.  And we do not negotiate with terrorists.  We do not meet with terrorists.  We do not sign documents with terrorists.  We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court.  You are a big fellow. But you are not that big.  You’re no warrior.  I’ve known warriors. You are a terrorist.  A species of criminal that is guilty of multiple attempted murders.  In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and the TV crews were, and he said: “You’re no big deal.”

You are no big deal.

What your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific.  What was it that led you here to this courtroom today?

I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty of and admit you are guilty of doing?  And I have an answer for you.  It may not satisfy you, but as I search this entire record, it comes as close to understanding as I know.

It seems to me you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. You hate our freedom.  Our individual freedom.  Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose.  Here, in this society, the very wind carries freedom.  It carries it everywhere from sea to shining sea.  It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom.  So that everyone can see, truly see, that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely.  It is for freedom’s sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf, have filed appeals, will go on in their representation of you before other judges.

We Americans are all about freedom.  Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties.  Make no mistake though.  It is yet true that we will bare any burden, pay any price, to preserve our freedoms.  Look around this courtroom.  Mark it well.  The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here.  The day after tomorrow, it will be forgotten, but this, however, will long endure.

Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done.  The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.

See that flag, Mr. Reid?  That’s the flag of the United States of America That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten.  That flag stands for freedom.  And it always will.

Mr. Custody Officer.  Stand him down.

 

Here's what's really neat to me. The judge obviously knows his Winston Churchill and his Abraham Lincoln. Here's Churchill's speech:

It is yet true that we will bare any burden, pay any price, to preserve our freedoms. 

And here's Lincoln from the Gettysburg Address:

The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here.  The day after tomorrow, it will be forgotten, but this, however, will long endure.

It's not verbatim, but he's obviously using their words in his own speech. That's beautiful. Our kids, who are homeschooled to understand real history, and not just pseudo-identity politics history, will be able to do this and understand this and thus speak and write better. It makes me proud.

May God give us more judges like this one.

• Comments (1) • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link