Chiropractic Helps Addiction Recovery

Chiropractors have known anecdotally that chiropractic adjustments help people recover from addiction when coupled with addiction treatment recovery programs. Why would this work? This new very nicely designed study doesn't answer that question (of course we still don't know why aspirin works so well, either, so there you go) but does show that addicts in recovery programs stick to the programs and stay clean with chiropractic. Here's the theory:

But what does the spine have to do with addiction? The connection may be explained by the presence, or absence, of brain chemicals that make us feel good. When the spinal chord and its nerves are in proper order, chemicals known as neurotransmitters are released in a specific sequence, like falling dominoes. The result: A state of well-being. However, subluxations or misalignments of the spine can cause pressure and tension on surrounding tissue, interrupting this feel-good sequence.

Anyone who has gone to a chiropractor knows that after treatment, you definitely feel better than before. It is amazing how people feel emotionally different when they walk out walking tall. If you have battled addiction or even depression and anxiety, chiropractic is a nice concommonant treatment to help conventional treatment work more effectively.

Gaza: Women Human Shields Save Terrorists--Update

Are they human shields or are they terrorists, themselves? Or, if they prefer "freedom fighters." Either way, they seem a lot like soldiers sending in reinforcements.

Once again, terrorists who have no regard for life exploit The West's love of life. Next time, shoot them. They are soldiers--they were armed with burqas.

Update: Gateway Pundit mentions that this might just violate the Geneva Conventions. Ya, think?

"I escaped from a violent husband"

After being repeatedly tuned up, a battered wife finally "leaves" her husband after he decides to "take a break" from her. The typical scenario:

She suffered a punctured lung and a cracked rib —but later, bizarrely, claimed her injuries were a result of falling out of bed during an energetic love-making session.

Chapman was never charged. Former Hot Gossip dancer Debbie found out what had happened when she saw the headlines of the next day's papers on a garage forecourt.

Do you think the man should be charged no matter what the woman says? If a woman has kids, I say absolutely. Frankly, I think she should be charged for child-endangerment, too.

Meanwhile, Back at the MSM, Gay Sex for Everyone!--MORE UPDATES Scroll Down

I read about this last night. The U.S.A. Today leads with "Evangelical leader hit with gay sex claims." I asked my husband if he had heard of the pastor. His response was the same as mine, "Who?"

Newsflash, major media: the Christian community is not the Borg. I am barely vaguely aware of what happens outside of my little 200 membered church here in the Houston area. How the hell (oops! Hades) would I know about a church leader in Denver?

Oh, yeah, I remember. Christians aren't individuals they are a monolithic gay-hating homophobic organism so when an "evangelical" somewhere, anywhere in the world gets accused of gay sex, we are supposed to recoil in horror, run for the hills, and give up on the Republicans.

So far, the pastor denies all of the fine, upstanding (former) male prostitute's accusations who brings forth the story because this married pastor, father of five is a hypocrite:

Jones told the radio station he went public because of Haggard's support for Colorado's proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

"I cried many nights; I got sick tormenting myself about whether I should do this," he said. "I finally had to come to peace with myself. ... I had to do the moral thing."

Jones, who said he no longer worked as a prostitute, described himself as a Christian and said that although he was a registered Democrat he had voted for Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush for president.

Let's just say the pastor is guilty of this behavior--I wouldn't be surprised in the least, but I'm rather cynical about people in positions of absolute power. You know, like Pastors and Newspaper editors and Judges. That power tends to....what's that? Oh yeah, corrupt. Why didn't this Christian, former prostitute go to his brother, ala Matthew 18? And if the sin wasn't stopped, why didn't he follow the next step and go with a witness? Does his Bible resolve matters of sin via the Press?

That the media continues to run these kind of articles reveals yet their utter contempt for the average person, especially average Christian person. Christians are hateful, mean-spirited cretins in this world-view. Oh, and they're hypocrites. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.

About that last part? The MSM is right. There isn't a non-sinning person on this planet. Unlike the Press who believes people like Ma Sheehan have unassailable moral authority, Christians tend to believe the only one with moral authority is Jesus. The rest of us are contemptible worms worthy of death, who by grace, are saved from that fate--not because of perfection, but because of belief.

Most Christians I know don't throw stones at passing sodomites or adulterers or fornicators or thieves or idolaters or disrespectful children or drug addicts or alcoholics or murderers. Most Christians hope for mercy and beg for forgiveness. Most Christians repent of their sins and finally find freedom. Most Christians want to help others do the same.

The cursing and condemnation isn't coming from Christians these days, but since the source of the cursing and condemnation don't usually believe God exists, they're under no moral obligation to cease the rancorous hate. I don't see it ending any time soon.

UPDATE: LaShawn Barber has more. She says, "Here’s a newsflash for unbelievers: Christians can be perverts, too!"

Shakespeare's Sister says this:

And here are some other rather amusing details: Haggard found Jones either “through an ad Jones placed in a gay newspaper or on the website Rentboy.com.” (Yes, that sounds like someone just looking for a meth dealer.) And for two and a half years, Jones had no idea what Haggard’s position was, but “about six months ago,” Jones was watching TV and “saw a History Channel program on the Antichrist that included Haggard as an expert.” An evangelical leader outed to his gay hooker via a cable documentary featuring his expertise on the Antichrist. The best fiction writers in the world couldn’t come up with this stuff.

The News Blog concludes: "I have decided there is only one answer, God has tired of the Republicans."

Glenn Reynolds has an excellent insight:

This puts me in mind of something I wrote a while back, drawing on Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon. And reader Mark Shepard notes an even more on-point passage from another Stephenson book:

"You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices," Finkle-McGraw said. "It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticise others -- after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism?"

"Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticise others' shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticise another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever of his behaviour -- you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy.

"We take a somewhat different view of hypocrisy," Finkle-McGraw continued. "In the late-twentieth-century Weltanschauung, a hypocrite was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign of deception -- he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy. Of course, most hypocrites are not like that. Most of the time it's a spirit-is-willing, flesh-is-weak sort of thing."

"That we occasionally violate our own stated moral code," Major Napier said, working it through, "does not imply that we are insincere in espousing that code."

Stephenson's position as a moral thinker is underrated. Of course, that's an advantage of writing science fiction -- you can slip that stuff in without being overbearing.

It seems inconceivable to some that a gay man could oppose gay marriage and believe practicing homosexuality is wrong. Is it possible that he so vehemently opposes gay marriage not just because of religious beliefs but because of his experiences? There has to be a drug addict somewhere who wishes drugs were banished and opposes drug use--for moral as well as experiential reasons. Isn't that the same for any sin, any addiction that interferes with a relationship with God?

UPDATE II: Ace makes essentially my point, but is funnier, as usual, and more subversive, but he gets the gist of it right off the bat and I'm pilfering his post in it's entirety.

Biggest Story Of The Century: Some Guy You Never Heard Of Is A Homo

—Ace

At least according to the left, it's a very, very big story.

Because this guy you never heard of is also an Evangelist you never heard of, and making anti-gay statements you never heard of, while having gay sex with dudes you definitely never heard of.

But it turns out he's a homo, so suddenly he's someone you're going to be hearing a lot about, and, in fact, will become within 24 hours The Most Important Figure On The Religious Right In All Of The History Of The Universe.

And you'll hear less about the fact that, for a fire-breathing right-winger, he was kind of a liberal pussy.

But no matter. I just found out another one of my heroes who I had never heard of before had on occasion lunched at the Sizzler's Man-Steak Buffet.

His name is seared, seared into my memory, or will be, once I find out what it is.

I haven't been this dejected since I found out George Michaels was gay and Nick Rhodes was straight.

Reports say that some of his parishoners began to become suspicious of his sexuality when they realized he looked like this:

(Okay, cheap joke, probably borderline homophobic, and on top of that, even Instapundit's made it already. But, come on. I'm not saying that some people "look gay." I would never say such a thing. No one "looks gay."

On the other hand, some people do "look Supra-Gay.")

Apparently he was outed by a gay prostitute whom he'd been paying for messages, with incidental gay sex and drugs included gratis.

I feel bad for this guy. I mean, an Evangelist preacher buying drugs and paying for sex from a gay hooker.

Sometimes disaster just seems to strike out of nowhere, doesn't it?

I wonder how people hold on to their faith when such unforeseeable tragedies befall them.

By the way... The Gay Hooker came forward with his allegations when he realized an Evangelist was against 1) ordaining gay preachers and 2) gay marriage.

You can imagine how important those issues are -- beconing a preacher, getting married -- to a Gay Hooker.

Update III: More.....

Jones said he had thought about revealing his alleged affair with Haggard months ago but was advised by his attorney that he needed to gather more evidence. He said he decided to come out with his story before the election to influence voters.

He fails a lie detector and won't take another one. Hmmm...... Could is be that the pastor was playing with the idea of doing a very bad thing? Or did he do parts of this -n- parts of that. Or, is the gay prostitute a big, fat liar? Having the pastor's message on the phone is bad enough and enough to cause a storm like this and no doubt the prostitute knew it. If political operatives had a hand in this, oh my goodness......

One of the church overseers says this:

"As Christians, we are never surprised at sin," Brendle said. "Ted has been a mentor and a good friend. I am commited to standing by him and his family. It is a sad time, but I am committed to serving New Life Church and our community. I believe with all my heart our best days are ahead."

Interestingly, those exposing all this, don't believe any of this is a sin.

NYT: Iraq Going Nuclear

Ostensibly to embarrass the administration, The New York Times reveals today that Iraq had detailed nuclear plans:

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

This is Paragraph 16. Let's see what a lead paragraph says:

Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, fearing that the information could help states like Iran develop nuclear arms, had privately protested last week to the American ambassador to the agency, according to European diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. One diplomat said the agency’s technical experts “were shocked” at the public disclosures.

Now wait just one, little minute. I thought that Iraq didn't have any nuclear ambitions. I thought "Bush lied and people died". Could it be possible that Bush didn't lie, after all?

• Captain Ed has been translating documents for ages. Here's his take.
• The Anchoress has a pretend conversation from over at The Times.
• Betsy has more.
• Michelle Malkin finds it humorous that the NYT suddenly cares about protecting secrets. She brings up a good point: Is this little admission designed to impugn the government so they can say, "Hey, the government revealed important stuff, too. Are you gonna sue them?"
• StoptheACLU has an excellent round-up. Everything you need is there. He pointed me to:
• AJStrata who notes that the Clinton admin gave Iran the most important nuclear technology. He says this:
  

  These media hits from the United Nations IAEA right before elections are getting to be tiresome. And someone should seriously investigate why the IAEA feels it can coordinate with the NY Times to influence our elections every damn year. Recall in 2004 they leaked the Al Qa Qaa weapons dump story right before those elections. It was the IAEA that broke the news about the Niger Forgeries right after Bush’s state of the Union speech in 2002 (forgeries which were in a safe in the CIA in Valerie Plame’s section for months until the speech). They meddle too much and can’t even do anything about Iran. I doubt the information was all that useful to Iran, because about building a bomb when he was President:

  The CIA, using a double-agent Russian scientist, handed a blueprint for a nuclear bomb to Iran, according to a new book “State of War” by James Risen, the New York Times reporter, who exposed the Bush administration’s controversial NSA spying operation, claims the plans contained fatal flaws designed to derail Tehran’s nuclear drive.

  ….

  But the deliberate errors were so rudimentary they would have been easily fixed by sophisticated Russian nuclear scientists, the book said.

  The operation, which took place during the Clinton administration in early 2000, was code named Operation Merlin and “may have been one of the most reckless operations in the modern history of the CIA,” according to Risen.

  That is why none of this information is critical to Iran. Clinton gave them the design to the hardest part of making a nuke - the trigger. He did it in 2000. Of course the NY Times fails to mention any of that. I guess to journalism majors, the material looked really complex and scary. I would wager nothing in these documents could not be found in college text books. We do train people to deal with nuclear reactors and weapons to some level. I have no problem with a review and double checkon the material - makes sense.

So, The New York Times clearly wants to be the only ones with information so they can sift through it, eliminate what might be helpful to the administration and publish only the information that might be helpful to terrorists and rogue nations. I hope Hoekstra doesn't give up with on-line thing. No doubt more information is buried in there showing what a noble and pure leader Saddam Hussein was. We wouldn't want to miss that, would we?

Lebanon: Where the Girls Are

This article from The New York Times is very interesting (I'll cover the other interesting one in another post). In Lebanon, the number of eligible women to men is 5/1. The women are turning into aggressive, insipid, provocative tarts to try to snag a man.

Surely, more than economics has to do with this sad state of affairs. Hasn't war eliminated men, too?

Plus, there are lots of Lebanese immigrants here in the U.S. I know a fella who went back home to marry "a nice virgin girl". Sounds like he had lots of choices.

Thailand's New Muslim Leadership

A Thai-speaking friend who spent a couple years in Thailand and knows the politics and culture, assured me, after the latest coup that "that's the way they deal with leaders who take too much on themselves" and continued, "the military at the Monarchy's request, removes the offending office-holder and installs someone better." I was reassured somewhat.

Not so fast, says Charles at Little Green Footballs:

The new Muslim prime minister of Thailand, installed by military coup, has apologized to Muslims in the south.

And he’s urging the “limited use” of shari’a law.

PATTANI, Thailand - Thailand’s interim prime minister publicly apologized Thursday for the former government’s hard-line policies against an Islamic insurgency, promising an investigation into allegations of human rights abuses by the administration deposed in a recent coup.

In an unexpected initiative, Chulanont Surayud also said he would urge the limited use of Islamic law in Thailand’s Muslim-majority south to settle some disputes, especially over inheritance and family affairs, he said.

Surayud was accompanied by army chief Gen. Sondhi Boonyaratkalin, a practicing Muslim who led the Sept. 19 coup. Previous governments have shown little acceptance of Muslim culture.

An “unexpected initiative?” Not unexpected at LGF:
Thailand Coup Installs Muslim Prime Minister
The Real Subtext of the Thai Coup

This is not good at all.

Kerry: Part Trois

An indignant commenter at this blog who shall remain nameless, mostly because he/she/it posted anonymously, said this:

"Stop pretending that John Kerry speaks fo Democrats as a whole..."

Who does Kerry represent then? He was the Democrat's candidate for President only two years ago. Is he just some isolated Democrat doofus with a platform? No, he was the man you lament isn't President right now, right? Greyhawk reminds us of who Kerry is. (As a beautiful aside, Greyhawk also shares a story of Sunnis and Shiites working together against the real enemy.)

The reason I refuse to let this topic go, and I know, dear readers, some of you break out into hives when the topic turns political, but oh well.... is because this is important. We are a country at war. As an example, turns out those chaps over in Britain intended to blow up planes over the U.S., not the Atlantic, to do more damage. Terrorism isn't a figment of Republican's imaginations.

The Anchoress has lots to say:

1. The New York Times is lying about and for Kerry.
2. Kerry's Non-Apology offensiveness.
3. Important stories we're missing because Kerry's an ass. (Okay, she didn't say that last part. Something about his oxygen sucking or some such....)

Meanwhile Captain's Quarters has one of the funniest headlines: I'm sorry if you didn't understand my Genius-Part 37B.

Ace also has a great headline:

Kerry Was For Calling Our Soldiers Economic Dead-Enders Before He Was Against It

He goes on to note this:

The fact that Kerry served doesn't mean he liked or respected the sort of people he served with. His vicious Winter Soldier libels should indicate the level of contempt with which he held his fellow fighting men.

He wasn't a part of them. He was above them, looking down at them.

As usual.

Veteran does not equal "supporter of the troops." Ever had a job where you despised just about everyone you worked with and considered yourself well above working there at all?

I have.

Kerry has. Actually, he's had few jobs were he didn't feel that way.

Kerry represents modern leftist progressives who make up the majority of the Democratic party these days precisely because of this contempt for the common man and especially the enlisted soldier. Pelosi, Reid, the rest of the Democratic leadership are playing possum right now because they don't want average Americans to know what they truly believe. If they talk, the I'm-smarter-and-better-than-you attitude just seeps out. They can't help it. Kerry talked. And out of his mouth fell the Democrat dogma. And they wanted you to think that a guy like Harold Ford--Bible-believing, God-fearing, Playboy-bunny loving, football enjoying conservative--represents them. Ha!

So, to get some perspective and as a reminder, here is what an Iraqi says are the stakes both for his country and the world. Now, you tell me, do you want a soldier-hating, Military-condemning, spineless party running this country and waging this war?

Let's call the battle for middle east, and I think politicians do not need anyone to explain to them what this part of the world means…the outcome of war in Iraq does not affect Iraq alone, a victory means disrupting the ring of terror and extremism the enemies are trying to establish while failure would be equal to allowing them to establish that huge ring, or should I say that gigantic octopus of terrorists and terror-supporting regimes that would extend from Afghanistan in the east to Libya in the west and from Iraq in the north to Sudan and Somalia in the south.

And instead of creating islands of democracy and liberty, connecting them and extend from there to change the world to the better, the enemies would engulf those islands and add them to their multi-jointed entity of terror.

We need the decision-makers to rise above the rhetoric of who's right and who's wrong and focus on protecting the world from falling prey to the vicious enemies of civilization.

We are in the middle of this situation now and losing is not an option.
You know what, maybe the world isn't going to harvest direct benefits from winning the battle of Iraq but the world still has to spare no effort to win this battle, again not because winning will bring direct benefits but because losing here will bring subsequent losses that would no doubt be great.
Posted by Omar @

Losing is not an option. The first step is to have the political will to send people to Washington who make winning a priority. Supporting and bolstering our troops means everything. Kerry represents the Democrats, alright. That's why they must lose.

Russia Bullying: Doing What It Does Best

Will the U.S. help subsidize gas prices now that Russia is doubling gas prices to Georgia? I've written before how important this all is to the West's interests. Russia seeks to influence the world again. She will do it however she can--whether through allying with Iran,

Brenda Shaffer of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy calls Russia and Iran “partners in need,” motivated mainly by three ends: curbing U.S. influence, maintaining a multipolar world, and undermining U.S. efforts to sideline both states (take, for example, the new Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline which skirts both Iran and Russia). Yet Michael Eisenstadt, writing in Arms Control Today, says cooperation between the two countries “is driven as much by fear and mistrust as it is by opportunism and shared interests.” Regardless, closer Russia-Iran ties pose challenges to peace in the Middle East, analysts say, especially if Iran goes nuclear over the next decade.

China, now Egypt and whatever other crazy regime will give her money. And the former Soviet Republics trying to enjoy freedom? Not so nice to them.

More here, here and here. Oh, and here, too. I keep beating this dead horse. No one much comments.

Anti-depressant Link to Suicide Questioned

When kids go on anti-depressants their risk of suicide increases. This linked research (poorly designed and worthless in my opinion) says that's hooey. But what if the link isn't causative? What if the two are just correlated?

That has always been my theory anyway. The drugs themselves definitely change the body chemistry and no one knows what monkeying around with the brain ultimately does. But I think the problem is simpler: When children are put on medication, the cause of their desperation and depression, now can be dismissed as a "brain problem". It's the child's fault that something is wrong. I have yet to see ever where a child's problem was not symptomatic of the dysfunctional system the child comes from. The "cry for help" alerts everyone. The child is then the identified patient. The child might be blamed but isn't the problem. This leads to more desperation and hopelessness. Wouldn't you feel helpless and hopeless if you got all crazy and no one listened to your concerns? Might you up the ante to finally be heard?

Upping the ante often means a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

Hello Baby!

A woman with stomach pains finds out that she's 9 months pregnant. How does this happen, exactly? It happens. To me, there must be some sort of psychological disconnect. Does the woman so badly not want another child that she doesn't see the signs? Does she fear losing her relationship so ignores the act?

We see in the headlines women who give birth and leave the baby in the bathroom or throw it away. I've always wondered how the women manage to do this all by themselves--these women endure the pain that most modern women faint at just thinking about. This just tells me that the mind is indeed very powerful and can control many of the processes that seem autonomic.

Parents of Preemies Less Stressed with Education Program

This research correlates to de-stressed parent resulting in shorter preemie hospital stays for their babies. I'm always dubious when the data is gathered by "trained observers". But it does make sense that educated people, who feel more in control, will be less stressed.

Nothing but getting my son out of the flippin' hospital alive was going to reduce my stress. Four months of subservience to an ignorant hierarchy controlling my son's care, does not make for shiny, happy parent feelings.

You know how new mothers are extraordinarily aggressive to perceived threats? Let's just say I found my voice in the hallowed halls of medicine.

John Kerry Part Deux--No Longer A Silent Majority, The Maligned Majority Speaks

This picture says it all. Glenn Reynolds links to this by N.Z. Bear:

Why are some folks being so sensitive about Kerry's remarks --- and why are they right to be so?

The key phrase we’re looking for here is “never again”. If people like Kerry -- and indeed Kerry himself -- had not been responsible for destroying the morale and reputation of the American military after Vietnam, we wouldn’t have to be sensitive to jokes like his failed one. But they did, and we do, because we absolutely cannot allow what happened to the soldiers of that era to begin happening to those of ours.

And the source here matters. If John McCain had made Kerry’s remarks, we’d be astounded, but McCain’s history would argue in his favor and we’d grant him the benefit of the doubt. But Kerry’s history does the opposite: his past exploits and efforts to drag the reputation of American soldiers through the mud are absolutely relevant and mean he doesn’t get to pretend that nobody could ever think he’d say something denigrating about the military. If you’ve never been known to raise your hand in anger towards a woman, you can crack a joke about beating your wife and get away with it (even if you shouldn’t). But if you’ve got a history of beating your wife, you don’t get to make jokes about beating your wife without bringing the full weight of society’s suspicion and opprobrium down on you.

Remember when America had a "Silent Majority"? Since 9/11, the Silent Majority ceased to exist. When G.W. Bush told the world's countries to choose sides, he inadvertently told Americans to do the same thing. Some wrongly assumed that after the worst terrorist attack on civilians in American history, America would choose one side: America's.

That hasn't been the case. A group of Americans, comprised of the progressive left made up of eternally infantile hippies have lead the charge for a world that conforms not to American ideals based on the superiority of the notions embodied in a constitution written by a bunch of "dead white guys" but ideals that conform to a multi-cultural utopia where all ideas are granted equal weight--even the idea that only one set of ideas is worth impressing on the world through forcing Sharia law on all world citizens by a few power-crazed Mulluhs in the name of Allah. If that sentence reads convoluted, it represents the convoluted feelings of those who would cause America to bow in obeiesence to multiculturalism so that the whole world feels that things are "fair" and "equal".

Equally destroyed.

During Vietnam, a swath of the citizenry sat mute watching Jane Fonda and John Kerry and Walter Cronkite and the dippy hippies they represented make sweeping declarations about war, the soldiers and America's stand against the tyranny of communism. They watched young people roll in the mud naked listening to music and smoking pot and traveling in flower-painted VW vans and hold vigils and protest and riot and spit on soldiers. Meanwhile, these silent watchers enforced an authoritarian ethic at home and sold their souls to the corporations, paid taxes and generally did their duty.

The kids of the Silent Majority, Generation X, my generation, grew up listening to Ronald Reagan. We saw the shuttle explode before our stunned eyes. We swelled with pride as the wall between East and West Germany was dismantled by the oppressed people relishing freedom for the first time. We said no to drugs. We went to college. We went to work in the "worst economy in twenty years" blared the headline of the newspaper my mom sent me the year I graduated from college--1991. So we worked up from the bottom. We went to graduate school hoping the economy would perk up a bit. We started businesses. We had children--and we parent. Individualistic yet more traditional, tight with our children yet more authoritative while being less authoritarian or permissive, this generation coupled with the Silent Majority constitute the new media, new business and Bush voters.

Now, I'm no Karl Rove, but I'll bet he's so confident because he knows this group I just described: The Maligned Majority. I say maligned, because the Old Media and politicians like John Kerry insult and denigrate this group of people unceasingly. All one needs to do is watch The View or the nightly news or read a newspaper to know that while these people have the pulpit, they obviously don't represent the majority of America. How do I know this? The other side keeps losing elections--elections they should win.

The members of the Silent Majority had no outlet for their voice. Generation X helped drive the Tech innovation, most centered on the web and putting the power of the people in the individual's hand. Actually, Boomer Bill Gates started it. Another Boomer Glenn Reynolds continues the transformation. The internet liberates and unifies the disenfranchised former Silent Majority with the Gen Xers.

The Maligned Majority is not as uniform in their thought and opinions as the opposition would like to believe. Glenn Reynolds, himself is a good example. While he was pro-Iraq war and beating terrorists down with force, he is socially permissive. In fact, many of these people while they may not like state sanctioning of an issue like gay marriage, in practice show exceeding tolerance to those with different lifestyles. This apparent paradox mystifies those in a more liberal progressive political camp. In fact, the Progressive Left represents a much less diverse group of people philosophically.

2006 is not 1976. The Maligned Majority has a voice, and though not rallying or protesting (we have jobs, after all), we are pushing back against the media, political and cultural elites assumed entitlement to the bully pulpit. No longer simmering in silence, the Maligned Majority writes and occasionally makes it on a major media outlet as the Freak Show display. These are the people heckling Barbra Streisand. These are the people not buying the Dixie Chicks (heaven knows the media still gives these birds a perch to squawk from). These are the people outraged at Kerry's disrespectful view of soldiers and saying so.

Now people lament the decline in civility. It is sad isn't it? Well, the Progressives have themselves to thank. It started with Vietnam and continues to this day--Code Pink, upending a solid Liberal like Lieberman's candidacy on one issue, ramming Gay Marriage through the courts instead of working through the electorate, screaming racism at every turn reducing legitimate argument to name calling, and on and on.

The Maligned Majority have taken to mocking the Progressives and the Progressives are shocked, SHOCKED when the opposition uses tactics that are funnier, smarter, not necessarily nicer, but more effective than their own nefarious tactics. The shocking thing to me is that the Progressive Left finds this turnabout shocking. Did they really believe the Silent would remain silent forever?

American's Belief in God Fades

How is it possible that America's belief in God has faded so fast? The last research I read before this article, indicated that the vast majority of America believed in God.

Did 9/11 and war cause the slip? Is it the research or the way the questions are worded? That would be what I suspect, but I'm not sure. The question "Are you absolutely certain that there is a God?" eliminates those with rational doubts.

Manipulative Women, Stupid Men--UPDATED

UPDATE: Dr. Helen links to me and says this about my point of view:

Yep, just another pathetic loser who wanted some reproductive rights--shame on him!

Well, I'm for restricting everyone's reproductive rights--including women's. I believe abortion-rights have denigrated a woman's place in society. I believe that women have been the second biggest losers due to abortion. Ultimately, children have lost the most--their lives. The child, or as a commenter so sensitively put it "a piece of tissue", has no rights. None.

When two consenting adults choose to have sex, certain responsibilities are implied. Get rid of abortion and put the responsibility back into everyone's hands. Suddenly, men suffering with foisted fatherhood are joined by the women who suffer the same. Since men won't protect themselves and choose to believe a lie so they can have more enjoyable sex, maybe women will get serious about birth control. Or not. At least everyone would be in the same sorry boat.

And for those who decry this as a throw-back to the bad old days, I'd like to remind you of the costs already borne by society because of responsibility avoidance. Just what we need: more welfare moms.
******************************************

A woman lies to a man and gets pregnant. She might do this because she has always wanted a baby, the guy seems like a nice guy or has good genetics, and this is easier than artificial insemination. She might do this for some or none of the aforementioned reasons, plus she knows he'll support the baby . Or, she might be hard-hearted, calculating witch with a "B" and want the man's money--she has to take the baby as an unfortunate side effect.

This is a very bad woman. If you've ever read the Bible, Proverbs burst with scriptures warning men, especially young men, of this exact kind of woman. Flirting eyes, seductive words, scant clothing, she's the devil incarnate and will put this man in a world of hurt should he fall prey to her charms. I have also known sweet, conservative-looking, conniving women who use coercion rather than communication and lie to get what they want.

For every one of these evil women, there is at least one man willing to be duped. It's the same old story, "I wanna get me somethin' for nothin'." There is no such thing as "free" sex.

Now, why am I talking about this topic? Because Dr. Helen Smith, wife to Instapundit Glenn Reynolds, a clinical psychologist who's interested in Men's Issues, takes issue with Dr. Phil, psychologist to the stars and Oprah disciple. Dr. Phil had a segment about men who wanted more control over their reproductive destiny after the fact--that is, after they have reproduced--the same way women do. That was Exhibit "A". Exhibit "B" was a man who wanted more children than four and his wife was balking.

There are many issues here:

1. Dr. Phil's forum and format irritate a lot of people. The men who watch him feel like he caters to his women audience and sell out men's issues for ratings. Men, and Dr. Smith, too, feel that Dr. Phil promotes misandry and has a very public forum and does great harm.
2. Men should have the right to not support a child they don't want and were deceived into creating.
3. Men should have a say about whether or not to have children if he is going to support them.
4. Society's most discriminated segment is men. They are the new victims.

OK. Let's go topic by topic.

1. All the daytime shows are a depressing cobble of mindless mush. The people are exploited for a little fame. All I could think about watching the segment I saw of Dr. Phil was the poor child caught between two complete morons. The mother actually allowed the baby's picture to be seen. The sperm donor allowed it, too. What is wrong with these people? As long as there is an audience, there will be someone to cater to them. Enter Dr. Phil. I'm not sure what can be done about that.
   
2. Until a man possesses a uterus there will be no such thing as fairness in childbearing and rearing. Period. A dear friend of mine complained that the mother of his child "deceived me and said she couldn't have kids". My response, "And you believed her?" I laughed at him. Come on! That's the oldest one in the book! This woman saw a successful businessman's pocketbook, knew he was the type of guy who would "do the right thing" and exploited his desire to have sex without a condom to get at his money. And, and, he ended up raising the child because she cheated on him, got into drugs, spent some time in the Big House. She is despicable person. All he has to show for it is a beautiful young man who is smart and funny, who we all love. But yes, my friend went through hell in the process. I'm old fashioned this way: as a woman who gets pregnant when the thought just tumbles through her head, I know how easily "mistakes" happen when all birth control works perfectly and no one wants to procreate. You mean to tell me that a man has no responsibility if he buys a woman's line about her fertility? How about if she didn't lie but "oh shit" happens? What then? You see how fuzzy this all gets? What a mess in the courts. In my book, the way things are is the only logical (if unfair--boo hoo-to the man) way: when a man has unprotected sex, he makes the decision to trade that moment of bliss for a lifetime of baby. Would Dr. Helen or all the ranting men at her website like to pay for these babies with tax-payer dollars? Why, yes, that's exactly what I read somewhere. Um, no thank you. The two irresponsible people can deal with the consequences.
3. So the next man on Dr. Phil want more kids and the wife is putting on the breaks. The men cry hypocrisy! Dr. Phil supported the wife who said no, while saying a man should support a baby he never wanted. Totally different situation, in my book. My personal philosophy is that she or he who doesn't want kids, doesn't want to have one more, wins. In that case, the guy who is determined not to have more kids anywhere is free to go get "fixed". It may upset his wife. Tough nuts. (Pardon the pun.) Conversely, if a woman doesn't want to have any more, she's done. Both partners have the choice to divorce and go find their Angelina Jolie and built-in family, ala Brad Pitt, do they not? Otherwise, forcing children on a spouse who doesn't want them is a terrible thing to do, either way. Men, does this sound fair to you? Now, more kids is another thing. A guy should be able to force his wife to have another? Are you kidding me? Until he owns the bits and pieces, he's going to have to live with this "unfairness." A woman could rightly retort that dealing with a parasitic growth is unfair. I've had girlfriends who were deathly ill their entire pregnancy. I know women who have died in the birth process. Is the man, husband, willing to compensate the woman for this risk? Have we really reached this place in society?
4. Men are the new victims. Welcome, men, to the horde of pathetic losers claiming their life is ruined by someone else. Wallow along with the rest of us, will you? Isn't that nice? Dr. Helen thinks men should unite and fight for their rights. It's already happening. And it is crazy. In this men's movement, no thought is given to the children. Oh, yeah! Them....
   

IT'S ABOUT THE CHILDREN, PEOPLE! Our society is filled with such selfish, self-absorbed, indulgent adults that all they can think about is their own gratification and getting away with it with no obligation. Call me a prude. I honestly don't give a rat's ass. The consequences of sex have always been children. Sometimes, but not always, contraception works. Our society falls apart at the seams when no one wants to care for the kid.

I find it fascinating when social libertarians decry the nanny state and then turn around and create a whole new class of people requiring the nanny state. Who will pay for these unfathered children? Not all are born to wealthy women--these are the lying skanks looking for a paycheck, remember? So should men be able to terminate contact, the woman is forced to raise a child?

But she isn't forced, say the Libertarians. She could have an abortion. This is another area I differ. I believe abortion is an abomination for this very reason. It already is used as coercive men. Wives who are told their husbands will divorce them if they have the baby and must decide between marriage and keeping her current kids with their father, and divorce and separation from family. Girlfriends, daughters are coerced to save the man a tough time. I also know of women who tell their boyfriends or husbands, "I'm doing it and there's nothing you can say." And men have similar decisions to make.

And meanwhile, millions of babies die because of selfish, amoral people. This hard-heartedness has created a despicable culture where women and children receive less respect. Men are not respected as a protector--women act as if they don't need them and men don't want to be needed. Everyone is turning in to a gender neutral selfish robot seeking personal gratification.

Yup, sounds like an absolutely fantastic way to build a society.