No, you cannot express any kind of concern for young white males who are suddenly finding themselves behind other groups at university thanks to affirmative action.
This PC nonsense is so annoying. If you disagree with that particular university president, then you ought to debate her on the merits of what she’s saying. That would be the grown-up thing to do.
After one meeting (albeit a lengthy one) this article was forwarded to me three times.
It’s Diane Francis of the Financial Post declaring we should all officially adopt China’s One Child Policy.
I think it’s satire. From what I know of Diane Francis, she’s not an idiot. But this is the sort of drastic and unattainable policy that some would think completely normal and/or useful in combatting “climate change.”
Paragraphs like this one lead me to believe this is a ruse:
The fix is simple. It’s dramatic. And yet the world’s leaders don’t even have this on their agenda in Copenhagen. Instead there will be photo ops, posturing, optics, blah-blah-blah about climate science and climate fraud, announcements of giant wind farms, then cap-and-trade subsidies.
You bet they don’t have it on their agenda at Copenhagen… And maybe we need a few more articles like this to highlight how the climate change file is a crazy one.
Anyway, vote now: satire or not? I say it is.
______________________
Andrea adds: I stand corrected. Apparently, Ms. Francis is, with a straight face, advocating for the totalitarian impulses of Communist China to be applied To. The. Planet (insert echo voice here).
And apparently, I must get rid of my optimistic tendencies–this impulse that would have me see the best in everyone. Misguided! Oi ve.
People who say the monarchy is useless haven’t heard about this lady.
Queen Rania, who regularly appears without head-scarf, let alone hijab, has given her quiet support to women’s rights groups who want to change laws amounting to legal impunity for men involved in honour killings.
Standing against her is another symbol of the country’s attempts to show a progressive face. Jordan’s MPs, who have been given more power to hold the government and royal family to account than in other Arab countries, have shown little enthusiasm for the moves.
[…]
King Abdullah, Rania’s husband for 16 years, trained at Sandhurst and is said to speak better English than Arabic. The queen regularly appears in glossy celebrity magazines, and is one of the world’s best-known users of Twitter, updating followers with details of the latest Hollywood “chick-flicks” she has watched with her children.
For her, it is deeply offensive that the killing of women not only appears to be condoned, but seems to be on the rise: the number of deaths reported, currently between 20 and 25 a year, is increasing.
Sentences remain low, often as little as six months to three years in jail.
The government is introducing a special tribunal to hear honour killing cases, but a parliamentary alliance has so far blocked attempts to change two articles of the legal code. The first is article 340, which allows an “in flagrante” defence to a man who kills his wife and her lover if he finds them in bed together. It has only ever been used once. More important is article 98, a “crime of passion” defence, which is commonly used and gives reduced sentences to those who claim they commit violence in the fury of the moment.
The government wants a minimum penalty of five years even under this defence, but is coming under vociferous attack.
“We are not for taking the law into your own hands,” said Sheikh Hamza, an affable, white-bearded man who is among the government’s more measured critics. He insists that Sharia, or Islamic law, does not support honour killings.
“But we believe there are political forces which stand behind this issue, and they are trying to destroy the family.”
I’m sorry. Is he saying that lending support to groups who pursue stronger sentences for men convicted of killing their wives or sisters in the name of “honour” amounts to “trying to destroy the family”? Oh, sure. I buy that.
I say, you go, Queen Rania!
(Visit her YouTube channel here.)
True, I don’t know any more about the Tiger Woods affair than anyone else – probably less, now that I think of it, considering that I don’t watch television. But I read reports like this one and shake my head in disbelief. No doubt there are plenty of other factors involved – human affairs are, after all, reasonably complex. But wouldn’t his life be less complicated if he had managed to, you know, behave like a married man who takes his marriage vows seriously? Millions of men manage; why couldn’t he? I’ve tried both marriage and golf and while I would hesitate to call marriage a picnic, it’s a heck of a lot easier than playing par.
_____________________
Puzzled update: Why are Globe female columnists so determined to excuse him? First it was Margaret Wente, now Lysiane Gagnon.
My goodness, what a horrible mistake to make.
After hearing a joint submission in favour of Sherry Sherrett-Robinson by the Crown and defence, the court told the 34-year-old woman it was “profoundly regrettable” that she was wrongly convicted based on errors by Charles Smith, who was once the toast of the pathology community.
“The tragedy of this four-month-old child’s death is compounded by the fact that his mother was wrongly convicted of infanticide, served a year in jail, and she lost her other child,” Mr. Justice Marc Rosenberg said.
Ms. Sherrett-Robinson was convicted in 1999 after Dr. Smith testified that he found signs consistent with homicide on the body of her four-month-old son, Joshua Sherrett.
James Lockyer, a lawyer for the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted, told the court Monday that all four of Dr. Smith’s suspicious findings – a skull fracture, swelling of the brain, burst blood vessels and small, unexpected lacerations – were either normal in accidental asphyxiation cases or caused by Dr. Smith’s autopsy techniques.
[…]
Judge Rosenberg said that, based on a review by two prominent pathologists, it is quite possible that Joshua suffocated in his crib after becoming entangled in bedclothes.
Ms. Sherrett-Robinson’s eldest son, Austin, was seized and put up for adoption after she was charged. She is not permitted to seek him out until he is 18.
“I still get pictures and letters twice a year from him,” she said. “I’d give anything to get him back, but it’s my responsibility as a mother to leave him where he is most comfortable at this point. He is well taken care of.”
A conversation I had with Jeff Gardner on Catholic Radio International. My bit starts about 20 minutes in.
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZDEggAlSEA&feature=player_embedded]
Thank you to those who are paying attention for letting us know: ProWomanProLife has been nominated for the Pro-Life Blog Awards! Voting is set to begin tomorrow.
The first round of voting is still underway at the Canadian Blog Awards. We’re in the “political” category.
Just a reminder that it is possible to raise a child without Bumbos, disposable wipes warmers, Diaper Genies, or $75 baby carriers. Watch this:
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnMewMRKnPw&NR=1]
It’s a state, and now it’s a movie about abortion, too. Read about it here, and watch the trailer, here.
The news article describes how some feel it is a pro-life movie. I’d say that’s probably true, because it’s usually pro-lifers who want to draw attention to the pro-abortion status quo we live in and promote debate. But there’s always the question of how that is done, and whether it is an intellectually honest film or not… and I can’t tell that from the trailer. (As a side note, I’ve always quite liked the Cranberries and now I learn Dolores O’Riordan, lead singer, is critical of abortion. Good news. We need more movie stars, singers, and generally famous people to stand up and act as role models, thereby empowering more young women to also say–hey, I’m against abortion.)