Thursday, March 31, 2005

Catholic Social Teaching

The Pope has not articulated anything new in the way of Catholic teaching. Now, if a person were dying naturally, one would not be obligated to insert a tube--that would then be an extraordinary means. This difference is easy to see and because of this difference, many hospice organizations, oriented as they are toward paliative care for the dying, will withdraw once a tube is inserted, since a tube should only be inserted if the person is not dying. In fact, Terri was NOT dying when the tube was inserted. She was a good candidate for tube feeding (medically, ethically, and morally) and it should NOT have been withdrawn.

Now, please God, with big shot Senators showing up, the courts, the legislatures, the executives will listen to our pleas for life. Unfortunately, they have been listening, of late, to the polls, as though polls can tell you right from wrong.

Here is an excellent article from another Christian--this one a man whose political enemies sent him to prison and tried to kill him that way. We live in perilous times! God help us. Christina

QUINLAN, SHAVIO AND THE CULTURE OF DEATH...

Many years ago, when I was a young man of twenty, most ordinary folks never
really thought much about issues like abortion and the so-called "right to
die." Back in those days, almost everybody agreed that abortion was a grave
wrong and that whenever someone died...they died...God's call...not ours.
Medical doctors were quite different back then...they actually believed in
the "sanctity of life" and they would exert extraordinary care to save the
life of a dying patient.

Unfortunately, things have changed...today; the "culture of death" has grown
like a malignant tumor and has spread its wicked tentacles into every aspect
of American society.

Take the case of Karen Ann Quinlan...In April, 1975, Karen Ann was
21-years-old and had collapsed at a party after allegedly partaking of
alcohol mixed with tranquilizers. The doctors saved young Karen's life...but
she suffered brain damage and slipped into a coma. Eventually, she would
experience prolonged periods of not breathing and she was placed on a
respirator. Karen Ann's parents requested that the life support be
terminated...but the physician refused. (NOTE: Imagine a physician refusing
to do so today...they seem so eager now to pull the plug).

Karen's parents went to court in 1976 and won the legal battle to have the
ventilator removed...so that Karen would simply die. So...when the
physicians removed the life support that had been sustaining her life, Karen
simply would not cooperate and just die like she was suppose to. Instead,
Karen went on breathing...all on her own...much to the shock and dismay of
everyone. Oh...of course...she had to have a tube inserted for food and
water. But...back in those days...humanity had not sunk into the dark pit it
wallows in today...no one would seriously consider starving a helpless,
brain-damaged person to death. When asked about removing the feeding tube,
her father said "no" and said that it was now God's decision as to when
Karen Ann would die.

Well...Karen was a stubborn cuss. She continued breathing on her own for
nine more years...and, finally, she died in 1985...when God finally decided
that she should die.

Consider the difference with the Terri Shavio case. First, Terri is not in a
coma...Karen Ann was comatose. Second, Terri is not on a ventilator...she
breathes all on her own...unlike Karen Ann...who was on life support. Terri
Shavio is in much better shape than Karen Ann was. Yet...Terri will
die...while Karen Ann continued to live. Why? Because we have changed...We
have abandoned the "culture of life." Our people have slipped down that
slippery slope and skidded into that bottomless pit where mankind proclaims
that he has replaced God as the final arbitrator of life and death.

It will not end with Terri Shavio...just as it never did with Karen Ann
Quinlan...or Roe vs. Wade. The "right-to-die" folks have new frontiers to
conquer...the old and the senile...the retarded and the deformed...the
chronically ill and the weak. It will never end...God help us.

Monday, March 21, 2005

Southern Women--the reserves!

Jane Bott and Darlene Medlock have given my state of South Carolina tort reform--with a little help from the Governor. We're poised to reform education next. Here's what I think is happening here.

I think we're coming out of another civil war, a 30 plus year war on traditional American, and these are very much traditional Southern values of goodness and self-reliance, a period in which everything was questioned, even the existence of truth.

From the first time my name and my association with a Southern institution were mentioned in the national media, I have been ridiculed and attacked--seeking to respond to these attacks,led, as they were, by the New York Times, I encountered an editor who dismissed my concerns that the "Newspaper of Record" show some concern for the truth, with "what is truth"? (Sound familar? Pontius Pilot?) And his boss, Howell Raines of Alabama, backed him up. Now Howell is teaching ethics at my alma mater, Alabama. (And it looks like he's going to hire shamed reporter, Rick Bragg--can Jayson Blair be next?) But the students there are fighting a brave fight against speech codes and other anti-American nonsense--the people are fighting back.

And who is working to pull us out of this? Here in SC, it's the women, just like it was the women last time, i.e.,after the last Civil War. Why? Because ideologoy has less effect on us. We want to protect the home and environment in which we raise our children. We might prefer to stay home and mind our own businesses, but when that becomes impossible, because the culture no longer allows us to do that, then we'll fight for our homes and our way of life. Witness the womoen of Chili who marched and banged their pots to drive out a Communist dictator from their land.

America has become the greatest nation on earth because of the republican values of its people. (See Tocqueville's Democracy in America.) These values are not in our genes. They are passed down with great effort from generation to generation. Just as 70 years of atheistic communism could not completely drive religion out of the Russian people, 30 years of relativism have not driven out republican virtues (this is not a partisan term, btw, although today there is more awareness of these virtues in the Reupublican Party than in the Democrat). Thankfully. However, if young people continue to be taught that America is an evil country that has made its wealth on the backs of the oppresesed, it will be harder and harder to maintain a great nation.

For that reason, South Carolina women are organizing to put women in office and positions of influence throughout the state. Stay tuned for more.

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

My presentation at the Pope Center Conference

Freedom and the American Campus

The John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy

October 19, 2004

Conference Presentation
by
Christina F. Jeffrey, Ph.D.

The problems we confront on our campuses today, from political correctness, to outright discrimination against Christians and Jews, such as F.I.R.E has been opposing are not simply caused by a series of bad hiring decisions.
Anyone the left perceives to be an enemy, can be persecuted and daily are persecuted on our campuses. If we look for a reason why this is happening, we will find that it is the result of generations of bad ideas, un-American ideas.

These bad ideas are coming home to roost outside the academy as well, as business men think they can cook the books, live high on the hog and defraud billions of dollars from stockholders and taxpayers; some people think it's perfectly acceptable to lie under oath, if it's just about sex; and there are even priests who feel free to define their own morality and that includes molesting altar boys and young girls.

As Richard M. Weaver put it so eloquently half a century ago: "Ideas have consequences" and let me add to that: bad ideas have bad consequences.

What we have seen is a seismic shift from an educational culture once based on that unusual combination of what Tocqueville called the spirits of liberty and religion to once based on “do your own thing.” Tocqueville noted that we had separation of Church and State but both reinforced the other to their mutual benefit as well as the benefit of the nation as a whole.

Psychologists, who deal with the wreckage we make of our lives, have discovered something old but for us moderns, it is new--how we think affects how we act.

But what are we teaching in school? Are we filling the young with stories of ethical behavior from history and literature? Do we have an ethical tradition to replace religion, or has the removal of religion come at the same time that we have adopted other academic fads resulting in a great void where ethics should be.

The National Association of Scholars of which I am the SC affiliate president, has commissioned several polls that have provided some useful insight into what is being taught and not taught in our colleges and universities.

What have we learned from these studies?

First, that the goal of most students is money, not education.

Professors tend to blame students for this goal, but given what students are learning and not learning, it's not surprising they would just choose to make money.

And when student respondents were asked, Which of the following statements about ethics was most often transmitted by those of your professors who discussed ethical or moral issues?
73% chose "what is right and wrong depends on differences in individual values and cultural diversity."
25% chose "there are clear and uniform standards of right and wrong by which everyone should be judged."
Add to that the fact that college seniors typically know less than high school graduates of 50 years ago and you have the underlying cause for the ethical mess we see all around us.

When I talk to people in South Carolina, I tell them about the white males at Baptist Colleges who have been fired in the last couple of years because they aren’t politically correct, not because they were doing anything wrong, but because the powers that be at their universities did not like their political ideas.

Alternative voices to the post-modern, relativistic message are being silenced, even in a state as conservative as South Carolina and even at the most conservative colleges in that state.

But the situation is not hopeless, and in fact, right here in this area, thanks to Congressman Walter Jones who has a zero-tolerance attitude toward the misuse of taxpayer money to mis-educate the young, and to the efforts of candidates like Whit Whitfield and Rachel Hunter who have popularized the plight of conservative students who face unfair treatment on their campuses, as well as the Locke Foundation which keeps constant pressure on the education establishment, progress is being made.

I like to remind people that we are an ethical people. We are a religious people. We don’t believe the end justifies the means. We actually do believe in free speech and fairness to our opponents—even if these ideas have been lost on our campuses. Those of us with children have taught them right from wrong. So is the content of college classes any of our business? What about academic freedom? Leaving that last question for another day, let me quote Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." And then let me go further and say if men do nothing to protect their nation and their way of life, if they allow their tax money to be used to misteach the next generation, the generation that must some day take over the country--then they aren't good men at all. Good men do not neglect their children and their nation.

As ACTA regularly points out, Colleges and Universities have marketing departments. They recruit students, faculty and alumni support. They are sensitive to public opinion--not very sensitive--it takes a lot of opinion to move them, but move they will, if they have to, to survive. I urge people, when they learn of disturbing developments at their alma mater, the local state university or even local private colleges, to write letters to presidents and board members. And if they don't get a response, or don't like the response they get, to consider taking their complaints to the public airways, talk shows and newspapers. It isn't easy to move a conservative (in the old sense) institution like a university, but if enough of us make the effort, we can.

Today even private colleges are dependent on tax money--the figures I've heard are these: While public universities get, on average 60% of their funding from the public, private universities get 40%. So we should also contact our legislators and congressmen about the problems we see in higher education. They won't like it, but they have to listen. Just last week, I attended a fundraiser for a would-be state senator. A group of us guests were talking about the latest college outrage when the guest of honor walked up to thank us for coming. I then turned to him and asked this former coach and teacher, what he would do about discrimination against conservatives in South Carolina's public university system. Would he support the Academic Bill of Rights? He froze. Literally. So I asked him if he would introduce the David Horowitz’Academic Bill of Rights. He didn't even answer.

They aren't going to like this--but it's an issue we can make them deal with.

Finally, it's an issue for judges and in states where judges are elected, like this one, we should make it an issue. Thank God for a candidate like Rachel Hunter who is herself making the politicalization of higher education an issue in her campaign for the Supreme Court.

It's a long road, but the colleges and universities became leftist while the country was voting for anti-Communists. It should be easier for us to take back our institutions than it was for the other side to seize them from us. It's all about education. We have our work cut out for us, but we can do it.


There's a Gilbert and Sullivan line that goes like something like this: Every child that's born alive, is either a little liberal or a little conservative! I do believe we are born with inclinations that lean toward change or toward the status quo, and whatever differences conservatives today may have with Europeans conservatives, and they are considerable, I do think we lean toward order and that leans us toward the status quo. On top of that, we have libertarian, individualistic instincts, and they don't always rise to the level of Tocqueville's "Self-interest rightly understood." Conservatives, as long as they are personally comfortable, are not likely to do anything to upset the status quo.

In the battle we are in, to wit, the battle for the hearts, minds and souls of students—and I mean that in the best way because we don't want to own our students, just liberate them, we have been at a tremendous disadvantage—first, because most of our side has been completely unaware of the war we have been losing.

In one fight after another, over many years, we have seen those in the university with agendas to advance, agendas such as the cause of world-wide socialism, the destabilization of the West, or radical feminism get their way because they know what’s at stake and have a plan to get what they want. So they go into every meeting, every search committee, ready to fight for the changes they want. Conservatives have not even defended the ground they wanted to keep and so, they have lost it. Maybe it takes one to know one, and it has taken former student radical David Horowitz to point out and describe the radical sons who are now tenured in the universities and are driving out professors and administrators who do not agree with them. It has taken former Stalinist Gene Genovese to directly challenge them, in the wake of a bloody century that saw millions of innocent lives slaughtered by totalitarian dictators supported by tenured American radicals. The question Gene puts to them, "What did we know, and when did we know it?" is not a question they want to hear or which they are willing to answer.

We are far down the road, the enemy is more than within the gates, the enemy has mounted the very heights of the academy and inside the academy, they control the high ground.

What I see now, in my state, is a willingness, on the part of administrators who are either themselves radicals or are threatened by them, to sacrifice greatly to rid the fort of all potential problems. Among the things they are willing to give up in order to get rid of us is Free speech—because they are in a position to protect their own, free speech can be jettisoned—it's free speech for me but not for thee and conservatives are finding themselves under attack for what once was ordinary academic speech—once vigorously defended in the academy.

Examples from my state include an art professor at N. Greenville College; an English professor at Charleston Southern, and a longtime, tenured history professor at Limestone College—all putatively Baptist Colleges. The administrations of these colleges were willing to spend down the endowments of their schools to rid themselves of these conservative white males.

Another thing that is willingly sacrificed in Georgia and in many other states is tenure. Tenure has been pulled out from under us. And what conservatives, especially legislators, don't understand is this—tenure might have been a bad idea in the first place—but when is simply pulled out from under already tenured professors, liberals will still effectively have tenure—they will be protected--only conservatives are in real danger of losing their positions when they are post-tenure reviewed—and untenured conservatives will just leave—they don't want to keep silent forever, and that's what post-tenure imposes on them. A lifetime of no academic freedom in a world where the left has perfect freedom.

When post-tenure review was introduced in Georgia, a young lawyer professor in my department told me quit teaching. As he was packing up to leave, he told me that it wasn’t worth it to have to censor himself for the rest of his academic career—to never really have academic freedom. He also told me that I was probably the only person in the whole Georgia University system who still had tenure since I was the only person who made it clear that I was not voluntarily surrendering it but wrote, spoke and campaigned to maintain tenure for those who had already earned it. The rest, he said, by their acquiescence, could not claim, ex post facto, to have objected to the withdrawal of tenure, when they did not object at the time.

Liberals believed the administration that post-tenure review would be a good thing; it would get rid of the 1% of non-performing, mentally retired faculty and besides, everyone was told, the legislature would give it to us anyway—conservatives believed that also and so, except for myself, allowed the tenure they had worked so hard to obtain, that they knew they’d never get again, to be taken from them, without compensation of any sort.

People are astounded when I tell them that all is not well in such conservative places as S.C., Ga., Alabama, and North Carolina, states with which I am most familiar.

I have a theory that the left digs in deeper, tries harder, feels more self-righteous, and is better able to recruit the useful idiots into their schemes the more conservative the hinter-land around them. Thus it was that a nobel prize winning physicist could give an annual lecture at Berkeley on the role his faith plays in his work, but when he moved to the U of Ga., it was suddenly a big, big deal, and the university took steps to shut him up. They lost. Nobel prize winners still have free speech in Georgia.

Thus it was that the free speech of a physiology professor at the U of Alabama, who modeled his annual, extra-curricular talk to graduate students on what his faith means to his work, was shut up—an action appealed by that professor all the way to the Supreme Court in a case called Bishop v. Delchamps. In this case, Bishop, an untenured ass't prof., lost. Untenured professors do not have free speech in Alabama.

These are 15 year old cases—what did we learn? Nothing—a few of us got it and we're gathered here today, Steve Balch got it and started the NAS—but it is still small in number. Gene Genovese got it, and started the Historical Society. Rachel Hunter got it, and she's running for justice of the Supreme Court—If I had time, I’d tell you about some people who have been amazingly slow to get it, but that will have to wait for another day.

Monday, October 18, 2004

Freedom and the American Campus

Spoke at a wonderful conference Saturday in Raleigh. Because better journalists than I have blogged the conference already--(See John Plecnik's www.theconservativevoice.com and other url's to follow)--I will just talk about my experiences--all good and stimulating. It was great to be with such leading lights of the campus freedom movement as David Horowitz and Charles Alan Kors. David's message is more bellicose than Alan's--a Churchillian call for relentless engagement; Alan Kors'energy level is as high and his confidence of success as great, his tactics are milder.

At dinner Saturday night, I had the pleasure of talking with David French, another conferee, and the new point-man for Kors' Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). David lamented the tendency of the speakers to frame the discussion in terms of politics, to wit, "left" and "right." Also with us was one-time ACLU lawyer and self-described "member of the hard left," Carol Sobel. Carol, of course, agreed. Carol, who defended Sean Hannity when he was accused of political incorrectness in California (probably for gay bashing--I've know Sean a long time and know that he was fired from radio stations in California and Huntsville, Alabama), has worked both sides of the political fence in her efforts to defend free speech whenever it is attacked, no matter the content.

Between that brain power, I wilted and said I would rethink my position--after all, my career has been marked by attacks from right and left. So I rethought my position and came to the conclusion that it is fine for FIRE, which raises money from left and right and defends clients on both the left and right, and it is fine for the President of a chapter of the National Lawyers' Guild to argue we should not frame the free speech on campus issue in terms of left and right, but facts are hard things and the fact is, the suppressors of free speech on college and university campuses today are either leftists or useful idiots (to use Lenin's descriptive term for liberals who helped the cause of International Communism during his lifetime).

David French, however, is brilliant and it was a fascinating evening. He regaled us with his knowledge of contemporary culture, especially movies and quizzed us on the election. Our little group of three lawyers, two professors and one political consultant went 4 - 2 Kerry vs. Bush. Only Carol wanted Kerry to win, the other three are just pessimists.

We also had a lively discussion of the war. David has a friend, high up in the military in Iraq, who has kept him informed. According to him, the insurgents in Iraq, unlike Vietnam and other places, lack the steady supply of troops and materiale to carry on a protracted battle. We will win by attrition.

But the most interesting part of the evening--spent btw at the 42nd Oyster Bar in dt Raleigh--highly recommended and not disappointing--was started with a question by David--"What if, on Sept. 21, 2001, Bush had gone to the Congress and requested a declaration of war against states harboring terrorists? I think we all agreed--I don't think Carol much enjoyed the war talk, but she voiced no objection to the general agreement that Bush would have gotten his declaration, it would have been easier to defend such a war, and we and he would probably be better off today for such quick, bold action.

More later...

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Blogging the Debate

I was so worried Bush would miss the cue to talk about tort reform when the flu vaccine shortage was brought up--Kerry's now trying to make it Bush's fault..the transition wasn't very smooth. "This President has turned his back on the 'wellness' of America." Hmmm not so good after Bush just expressed genuine concern about the need for older people and young people for flu vaccines.

Now we're talking about whether the Congressional health program is good enough and affordable for all Americans. Kerry came out ahead on this one.

Bush 1 Kerry 1 iow, draw

Kerry is gong to reinstate "pay as you go." He has immediately changed the subject to itemize Bush's failures--off topic--now back to topic, he's going to roll back the tax cut; shut the loophole that forces Americans to finance the giveaway of their jobs. He says he shows how he will pay for everything.

Bush brings up Kerry's record and shows how Kerry hasn't been fiscally responsible for the last 20 years. "Paygo means 'you pay' and he goes ahead and spends." Bush says that his plan to reduce deficit ....

Draw

What about lost jobs?

Bush says he has policies to grow the economy and help pay for people to learn the skills they need to fill the jobs of the 21st century He is now touting his No Child Left Behind Plan. Education, he says is how to help the person who has lost a job.

He wants people to have an opportunity to start their career with a college diploma.

Kerry stars with Uh and is now telling us how Bush shifted his subject from jobs to education--however, Bush's "shift" wa pretty smooth. Now he's blaming Bush for tuition increasing and everything else. Kerry says Bush has cut Pell Grants, Perkins, training money, etc.

Bush

More about jobs: Is it fair to blame the Administration for this loss of jobs
Kerry is good on the subject of not subsicizing the loss of their own jobs. He also wants to lower corporate taxes--amazing. Bush didn't help Boeing when Boeing was being hurt by unfair trade. He wants us to stand up to China?

Bush says he has incrased Pell Grants; reminds people of the tac breaks he's offerend.

Bush has the numbers to back up his contnetion that Kerry is liberal--the far left bank of American politics -Ted Kennedy is the more conservative Senator from Massachusetts.

Bush

Gays--is it a choice?

Bush segues into DOMA--which Kerry opposed--his answer reflects his compassionate conservatism.

Kerry is also gay bashing--bringing up Dick Cheney's daughter "who is a lesbian." Kerry says it's not a choice--the way God made them.
Kerry says we have an "unbelievable" Constitution. He comes out as a states righter

Bush

What about the Church's opposion to Kerry? "I will not allow someoone to come in and change Roe v. Wade." Being Catholic is important to me. Like JFK, I'll be a Cathlic withoutletting it influence my vote./
Good

Kerry

Who is resp. for rising health care costs.

Bush's answer--good consumers are not nvolved in decisions. He believes in health saving accounts. He does a good job of explaining 3rd party payers and how he would reform that with health savings accounts.

Kerry's strong on this subject and he has more bills than Bush seems to know about, but his record is still thin.


Question about Kerry's health care plan--his plan is "not a government plan." People will not be forced to change plans. Feds take over medicare from the states and the states get individuals at 3 x poverty level. People can buy into the Fed health care program and people 55 to 64 can buy into medicare.

Funny retort from Bush re: Kerry's reference to leading news services that say Bush is wrong about Kerry's plans. Bush is saying that government health care is not the answer.

Kerry says he is not proposing a government program--and that Bush cut VA benefits and health care.

Bush says not so.

draw

Social security answer Where woill you get the money?

Bush --we'll honor committement to seniors, but fo kids we have t think differently--personal savings accounts.

Kerry does not like privae accounts for retirment. CBO says benfits would have to e cut...

Bush

Ok, got tired and just listened a while--now they are arguing defense and Kerry is going to add two divisions to the Army---good idea--ill Bush again ask him why he let Clinton downsize the military? Here he goes again, asking for a global approach of alliances to fight enemies.

Hush is argung that training Iraq to defend themselves.Bush is doing a good job of defending his way of working with allies and refuses to turn our security over to other natons.

Now Kerry is calling for a 'Truth" standard and asserting that he will never turn our nation's security to others.

Bush is bringing up Kerry's vote against the Irqa War I

draw

Bush is relying on his notes to help him with gun question--he wants to prosecute people who commit crimes with guns.

Kerry wasnts a ban on certain guns--he says he'll never mess with the 2nd Amendment. He is making a strong case for himself as not weak on this issue but only interested in controling crime and terror. My 14 year old just pointed out that Kerry's ex. about law enforcement walking into A-K 47s sounded like it was when the ban was in effect!

Kerry sounds good on the subject of AA--but Bush is refuting his assertion that Bush never met with the black congressional caucus. Bush is touting his efforts to help poor people go to college. Bush's defense of his policies resulting in more minority businesses and and home ownership.

draw

Bush is now explaining that he prays a lot. His faith is personal. He prays for his country and family. He says he's midful that this america and people have a right to worship as they see fit and they are equally American. He says that prayer sustains him. He recieves calmness. He says he feels that people pray for him and love s that. He stands on principles when h--he thinks God wants everyone to be free.

14 year old is accusing him of being a bad Catholic. He says we have a lot more loving to do in America. Two school systems for haves and have nots.

Bush

Question--country came together after 9/11. Will you set a priority on bringing the country together. Kerry's answer that President brought the country together then but now he is presiding over the most divided country in memory.

(Well maybe in his memory, but there have been many times when the country was more divided than it is today).

Bush's answer: He hoped to be a uniter, not a divider to help education, lower taxes. but DC is a tough town and there are a lot of special issues--and they dig in.

Bush

Bush finally has thrown McCain back at Kerry who has mentioned him a number of times. Bush finally says--"john McCain is for me for President."

Zinger, point for Bush

OOOOh, Bush is saying he's learned to listen to his wife--to stand up not scowl!

Kerry too is praising Laura Bush and Bush himself as a good father. He doesn't talk that much about Teresa Heinz-Kerry.

Draw

Closes--draw!

Bush win!

Thursday, September 30, 2004

Blogging the Debate

Realtime impressions:

Kerry looks like very model of a modern president. My friends at Powerline think he made a mistake getting a manicure on the afternoon of the first debate, but Idon't. Kerry has won the "looking" like a president award, imo.

But he looks like an actor. Bush looks like the real thing--less manicured, less coifed, less tan, less tailored--Kerry's really showing those nice nails now---whoops, he kind of looks like Dan Rather--maybe that's a Freudian conflation...

But Bush is making more sense--like a patient grandfather talking to the kids at the dinner table. Kerry is almost incoherent. He's proud of telling the truth about Vietnam, that it was the wrong war, at the wrong place, etc. Then he compares Iraq to Vietnam; then he says that it isn't the wrong war, etc. Finally, he says he can lead the troops to victory.

Bush, I'm reminded of 1992 and George I. I can almost hear Peggy Noonan saying, "I'll help you, but you have to really want to win."

I love the half-smile on Bush's face. He looks like he expects to win. That has to annoy the Democrats.

Kerry says, we shuoldn't confuse the war with the warriors, that we did that before? Huh?

"My plan has a better chance of supporting the troops." What does he mean?

Kerry says, we shuoldn't confuse the war with the warriors, that we did that before?. Huh?

"My plan has a better chance of supporting the troops." What does he mean?

BTW, when Clinton was President and I had two sons in the military, i was screaming about the under-funding of the military, the lack of practice ammo, lack of gas for airplanes, etc. I don't know why Bush doesn't mention this. It takes time to staff up, to get all the new troops armed and equiped when the old troops need to get the new equipment first.

But maybe it isn't fair to blame Clinton for the lack of money on defense--America always quits spending on defense when the threat of war passes. I have speeches from my grandfather, post-the Mexican-American war complaining about the lack of arms and equipment to fight WWI; ditto my father going off to fight WWII.

Kerry doesn't want to talk about character...interesting.

He is now justifying his flip floppinf.

Bush is advocating flexibility but not changing one's principles.

Kerry is asserting his consistency. "I've never waivered in my life." "We didn't need to go to war without a plan to win the peace."

Really? Sometimes, when you're attacked, you have to go to war, ready or not.


Whose fault is it that North Korea has nuclear weapons? Didn't the Clinton Administration let him have everything he needed to build a nuclear power plant? Didn't they "promise" not to misuse that technology?

I think it's funny that Bush, the enegizer bunny says "I'm a pretty calm guy" and Kerry, who strikes me as lacking in energy, wants to constantly be photographed doing energetic stuff, like windsurfing.



ChristinaFJeffrey

Campus Abuse Conference II

Campus Conservatives Unite: National Conference at North Carolina State
Posted Sep 29, 2004 - 06:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BY JOHN T. PLECNIK: The Conservative Voice
John.Plecnik@law.duke.edu
Wednesday, September 29, 2004

The John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, formerly affiliated with the John Locke Foundation, will be hosting its annual policy conference at North Carolina State University on Saturday, October 16, 2004. The topic: “Freedom and the American Campus.” Led by Director George Leef, Esq., the Pope Center hopes to bring “innovative thinking and critical analysis” to higher education.

The first “College Abuse Conference for Free Speech” was hosted by then-congressional candidate “Whit” Whitfield in Durham, N.C. Scholars and students from across the country assembled to discuss academia’s chronic liberal bias. The October 16 conference is highly reminiscent of Whitfield’s original. The coordinator of the first conference, Dr. Christina Jeffrey of Coastal Carolina University, will be speaking at the NCSU event. A former congressional candidate and U.S. House Historian, Dr. Jeffrey brings considerable perspective to any gathering.

Dr. Candace de Russy, a trustee of the State University of New York System, is also a veteran from the previous conference. Known for countless quotes in the ‘Sunday paper’ and her appearances on Fox News, Dr. Russy has been fighting the good fight against liberal bias for some time.

Other speakers include Dr. Michael Gillespie of Duke University, Dr. Alan C. Kors of the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. James Miller of Smith College, Dr. Norman Hurley of the University of North Carolina, and Dr. Roger E. Meiners of the University of Texas at Arlington.

David Horowitz, president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and chief editor of FrontPageMag.com, will also be making an appearance. Horowitz gained wide recognition for lobbying state legislators to adopt his ‘Academic Bill of Rights,’ a document designed to take the political bent out of university curriculum and prevent liberal indoctrination. Recently, Colorado’s system of public universities voluntarily adopted significant portions of the ‘Academic Bill of Rights.’ Granted, the system only began moving after Republican lawmakers threatened to vote on Horowitz’s proposals.

Even the guest list is noteworthy. Rachel Lea Hunter, Republican candidate for North Carolina Supreme Court, will attend the event with several of her supporters and campaign staff. “Madame Justice” has run on two issues: stopping judicial activism and ending liberal bias on campus. Hunter has offered her legal services to any student in North Carolina who is discriminated against for his or her political beliefs.

Throughout all my opinion on liberal bias against campus conservatives, I always fall to one repeated refrain: “Awareness is the first condition for real reform, and the need for reform is nationwide.”

Campus conservatives owe a great debt of gratitude to Director Leef of the Pope Center. Utilizing such venues as the Clarion Call and Carolina Journal (widely circulated conservative newsletters), Leef has argued on behalf of conservative students and faculty for years. In so doing, he has promoted awareness for years. Though Duke and UNC may be among the most blatantly biased institutions in the nation, at least parents and alumni are waking up to that reality.

Conservative columnists like Leef must never stop forcing the issue. Conservative politicians like U.S. Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) must never stop forcing the issue. College Republicans (and Libertarians) must never stop forcing the issue. Together, we are big enough to take on the ivory tower…



Related links

· More about Opinion by John Plecnik
· News by JTP


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most read story in Opinion by John Plecnik:
Peaslee and Burton Smear Duke College Republicans





Campus Conservatives Unite: National Conference at North Carolina State


ChristinaFJeffrey

Campus

ChristinaFJeffrey

Catholics for Bush?

My friend and BlogFather, Mark Kilmer, has an annotation on his rightsided.blogspot.com blog this morning about the seismic shift of Catholics from Kerry to Bush. More about that later. Mark is a fan of the EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network) under the direction of one phenomenal lady, Mother Angelica--more about her later--One of his pro-life friend says her network is just a mouthpiece for "management" and that it is not reflective of ordinary Catholics. I tried to take exception to that "managment" comment but his blog just wouldn't take my comment. Well, Idon't have to take that any more, 'cause now, thanks to Mark himself, I have my own blog so here's my comment about that:
If only your pro-life friend were right--maybe it's so in his diocese--but please, where is it, I want to move there--but then, maybe it's here? My diocese is about as good as it gets in the USA for Catholics, but it wasn't always so and it isn't so in most of the country.

Ten years ago, a mention of Mother Angelica's name in any priestly meeting in this diocese would have gotten you thrown out. Many priests are still hostile to the dear Mother, but I don't think the bishop is.

Since Mother Angelica moved from turning out tracts on her little printing press in Leeds, to the airwaves, she has been controversial in managment circles. Let's say, she was to the Catholic Church USA, what Jerry Falwell is to the liberal wing of the Baptist Church. For 30 years, the Church has been much too liberal and too passive to live in serious harmony with MA.

However, the Pope has been steadily pushing the Church to the right and especially the seminaries to the right. I mean this in the best sense of "right" in the conservative sense as well as in the sense that the Church in America has been getting more correct, more orthodox, and more evangelical. Ironically, the scandals helped to strengthen the influence of Rome and to desimate that of the left. Anyone can see now where leftism in the Church takes us.

At last, I'm not polically embarrassed to say, "I'm Catholic."

And while we're on the subject, Mark, Watch out! If Marjorie Jeffrey puts you on her prayer list, I'll get to be your godmother . She has quite a track credit in the conversions department!

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Political Tests for Jobs

Political Tests for Jobs and a Gutsy Lady who would have none of it!

Are you, dear reader, aware that there are political tests for public jobs that are supposed to be nonpolitical?

Since an example is worth a thousand words of blather, let me tell you about Dolly (not her real name), the bar owner I met last night--doing research, of course .

I'd just finished grading 160 papers and I was beat, so I decided to go to a neighborhood bar and do "research." Dolly came over and joined our research group. We were talking politics, of course, and she told us this story:

"A few years ago, when I was a single Mom trying to support my family, I applied for a job with the sheriff's office in Charlotte, N.C. I went through 3 interviews and was called in to talk about my application. After lots of hemming and hawing the guy got around to the problem, my registration. Seems I wasn't registered with the same political party (Democrat) as the rest of the office. I was independent, voted for the person, not the party, but I said:

'Isn't Voter Registration right across the street? I'll just go take care of that little problem right now." And I did. I walked back in, threw my new card at the guy and said, 'No one tells me how to vote," and walked out forever. Went to work as a waitress and never regretted it."

In a way, we conservative academics have done the same thing. Most of us aren't as smart as Dolly, we keep trying to work for the sheriffs, but we aren't employed iin jobs we are qualified for because we are not "registered in the right party," or more exactly, don't think the right way politically.

Last May, I hosted a College Abuse Conference in Raleigh, NC to discuss this problem. The John Locke Foundation is picking up the theme and hosting a similar conference with some of the same people on October 16th. It should be excellent.

If it were up to us, the public sector would be smaller, and that, said a colleague of mine, is enough of a reason to keep us out of the public sector. Not so, say I, not so. We are entitled to our place in the public square, regardless of our beliefs about the size of that square.

In truth, while it makes sense for a single Mom with no education to keep her confrontations with the "system" to a minimum, it is really a vocational calling for those of us with the ability to call conferences, write blogs, and otherwise call attention to what political correctness really means and how it impacts the lives of real people. Expect this blog to do that!