In Which Academia Flies Over the Cuckoo’s Nest

Published by
Roxeanne de Luca
at May 2, 2008 in academia and college. 6 Comments

Blogging on somewhat old news here (as students have been lobbying for this since I was in college, i.e. the better part of a decade ago): universities are accomodating student requests for co-ed housing.  (Story here.)  This is not co-ed dorms, where guys have one floor and girls another; this isn’t where the guys are on in room and the girls in another: folks, this is co-ed by pillow. 

Now, I’m about as libertarian as they come.  That does not mean, however, that I think every exercise of a freedom is wise.  Let’s break down the arguments for co-ed housing:

“It ultimately comes down to finding someone that you feel is compatible with you,” said Jeffrey Chang, a junior at Clark in Worcester, Massachusetts, who co-founded the National Student Genderblind Campaign, a group that is pushing for gender-neutral housing. “Students aren’t doing this to make a point. They’re not doing this to upset their parents. It’s really for practical reasons.”

There are 2,100 undergraduates at Clark; 61% are female, and 39% are male.  In any class, then, there are approximately 300 girls and 210 boys.  Is Mr. Chang really saying that, among the 200 or so men in his class, he cannot find a single person with whom he can share a room?  This individual need not be his best friend, just someone who won’t spill beer on his bed.  If he cannot do so, perhaps he ought to be a bit more mature before starting college, as the problem is with him and not the sex of his classmates.

More importantly, Mr. Chang is part of a “Genderblind” group.  Now, yours truly is not advocating for traditional sex roles - after all, she changes her own oil and brakes, has an engineering degree, opens bottles without the aid of a guy or a special little bottle-opener thingie, and does the visual-rotation-of-map-in-head driving (not the girlie landmark driving).  Nevertheless, not a guy.  My body does things that male bodies will never do.  (This woman, despite her best intentions, has proven that; the very fact that she got pregnant once she stopped putting hormones into her body indicates that she is pregnant; no man can do so.)  When you live with someone - when your body shares the space that their body is in - it matters whether or not you have the same body parts.  Blindness to gender is one thing; blindness to sex, another. 

Up next in the “clearly doesn’t get it” category:

Still, Feldman said her daughter is partly in college to learn life lessons, and it’s her decision. Samantha said she assured her mom that she thinks of Caspro as a brother.

If you think that you can share close quarters with someone of the opposite sex, when neither of you are dating anyone, for a year, without sexual tension, then you’re just naive.  Teenagers, however, are allowed to be naive - people often have to see things go wrong, time and again, to understand why certain proscriptions are put into place.  Adults, however, do not have that excuse: they’ve been around the block enough times to understand that these things rarely work out.  It is the job of the university, and adults in these students’ lives, to prevent kids from making these types of mistakes.  (As for the  mother who allowed her daughter to do this - are you freaking kidding me?  Mom, it’s really simple: “Honey, that’s wonderful that you feel liberated enough to live with a man without telling me.  Now, let’s talk about finances, because I’m not contributing a cent to your college education if you do that.  Be modern and hip on your own dime.”  Anything else is simply an abdication of parental responsibilities.)

There is no reason why universities must cater to this madness.  If students want to live with their friends, they can find apartments near the school.  There can be advantages to living with someone of the oppposite sex - men, for example, might appreciate the neatness and domestic flair, while women might appreciate having a body guard - but it is utterly foolish to believe that there will not be problems.  It is not hard to imagine that a girl may not want to come home to find six guys in her room, when all she wants to do is take her Midol, crawl into her pj’s, and get some sleep.  That’s not regressive - that’s civilised.  A final thought - anyone want to guess what this will do to the rate of date rape and acquaintance rape on college campuses?  Want to guess if a girl will report that her male roommate or her male roommate’s friend raped her?

Halfway There?

Published by
Roxeanne de Luca
at April 29, 2008 in Abortion and Pro-Life. 0 Comments

Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India, criticised the practise of aborting female babies in utero.  Families who hope for a boy child will often do this once ultrasounds reveal the sex of the child.  The Lancet estimated that, over the past twenty years, Indians have aborted ten million girl babies for reasons of sex alone (here).  The good news:

“No nation, no society, no community can hold its head high and claim to be part of the civilized world if it condones the practice of discriminating against one half of humanity represented by women,” Mr. Singh said, giving an inaugural speech at a national conference dedicating to “saving the girl child,” which brought together politicians, doctors and advocates.

Describing the abortion of female fetuses as “inhuman, uncivilized and reprehensible,” he said the government should crack down on the large numbers of doctors who illegally disclosed the sex of the fetus to the parents, and then arranged abortions of unwanted girls.

The bad news: India permits abortion until twelve weeks if the practioner believes that there is a grave risk to the mother’s physical or mental health, or if the foetus is physically or mentally disabled.  Furthermore, women whose birth control failed are presumed to be so mentally harmed by a pregnancy so as to justify abortion.  (Here.) India’s abortion laws expressly permit discrimination against the physically and mentally disabled - discrimination that would be a human rights violation of the highest order if it occurred outside the womb.  The “mental health” exception is quite broad: we’ve seen in the United States that it permits abortion on  demand.  Is it any surprise, then, that a woman who would be scarred and dishonoured by bringing a female baby into the world would seek - and receive - an abortion under India’s laws?

India’s PM has stated that it is a human rights violation to murder unborn children because of sex.  Would we get to the point where it would be equally reprehnensible to murder boy children, disabled children, or those so unfortunate as to be conceived to women who do not want them, as it is becoming to murder children on account of being female.  The right to life is universal: it does not evaporate when the reasons for abortion are socially acceptable and politically correct.

Smogasboard

Published by
Roxeanne de Luca
at April 26, 2008 in 2nd amendment, Abortion, Illegal Immigration, Virginia Tech and gun control. 3 Comments

A healthy (or rather, health-related) smogasboard for your reading pleasure:

Eric Thompson, a gun dealer who sold the firearms that were used in last year’s Virginia Tech massacre, spoke at Virginia Tech as a guest of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.  (Story here.)  He believes that, had other students been armed, the massacre would have been much less deadly.  (Tieki stated the same thing a few months ago.)  Thompson’s speech was not that of a zealot:

Thompson said he supports enforcing existing gun laws and mental health reform to try to prevent further tragedies. He qualified many comments by saying he didn’t believe everyone should own a gun and said the two sides in the heated debate over gun control could find common ground.

Entirely reasonable; sadly, liberals don’t see it that way. 

Tech spokesman Larry Hincker released a statement about the visit, acknowledging the importance of free speech but saying that he found Thompson’s appearance “terribly offensive.”

“The organizers appear to be incredibly insensitive to the families of the victims who lost loved ones and to the injured students still recovering from this horrendous tragedy,” he said.

Holly Adams-Sherman, mother of Leslie Sherman, one of the students killed in Norris Hall, said Thompson’s appearance at Tech was in poor taste. She heard about it late Wednesday.

Let me get this straight.  A horrible tragedy occurred.  A man who is arguably part of the chain of events comes to apologise for his role and suggest means by which such tragedies can be avoided in the future, so that other people will not have to suffer so horribly.  This is “offensive” and “insensitive.” 

——-

The MSM uses the term “unborn twins” to describe a tragedy in which a woman, who was five months pregnant, miscarried after being shot.  (Here.)  Serious applause for these words, even if their use was unintentional - those are not “fetuses” or “products of conception;” they are unborn twins.  My condolences to the young woman who suffered so horribly.

——-

A nationwide study indicated that female residents of Southwest Virginia have experienced a decrease of approximately six years in their life expectancy from 1983.  (Here.)  The study indicated that, nationwide, those in poor and rural areas were the most likely to live a shorter time than people of their parents’ generation. 

More, below the fold:

Continue reading ‘Smogasboard’

Sarah Palin’s “Angel Child”

Published by
tieki rae
at April 23, 2008 in Abortion, NRLC and Pro-Life. 2 Comments

From the Anchorage Daily News, Palins’ child diagnosed with Down Syndrome

She and her husband, Todd, showed their new baby, Trig Paxson Van Palin, to a few reporters and photographers and answered questions about his condition and the sooner-than-expected delivery.

Trig has Down syndrome, a genetic abnormality that affects a child’s intellectual and physical development, the governor confirmed.

“When we first heard, it was kind of confusing,” Palin, 44, said. She called the revelation “very, very challenging” and said she initially felt sad.

But the family has worked through that. Palin said she and Todd feel blessed and chosen by God. With a big family including four older kids, grandparents, aunts and uncles, Palin said, they will have lots of support for what’s ahead. In their eyes, she said, “he’s absolutely perfect.”

This is a very well-written article about Palin’s baby and children with Down Syndrome in general.  Instead of focusing exclusively on the challenges that come with DS, the author also emphasizes the blessings that can come from having such a special child.

It’s odd, I haven’t seen this mentioned on any of the news or blogs I follow on my reader, but rather I received it via email from Dave Andrusko, editor of the National Right to Life News, who puts out NRLC’s “Today’s News & Views” daily on their website and on an email list.  I would highly recommend subscribing to N&V.  Dave’s topics range from human interest stories to political happenings to pop culture - all relating to the pro-life movement.

What I found most interesting about this story was this:

Because of prenatal testing, most families now know beforehand, said Judy Waldron, president of the Alaska chapter of the National Down Syndrome Congress, a support and education group that delivered a parent packet to the Palins in the hospital.

“They anticipate it and they kind of relish the challenge of having a child with special needs,” said Waldron, an Anchorage teacher whose 19-year-old daughter, Lyn, has Down syndrome.

While it’s “no walk in the park,” the joys are great, she said. “Just the fact that they require such great effort to complete some simple tasks and that’s real rewarding.”

Todd Palin said the family has gotten a flood of supportive e-mail from families around the country with special-needs children. He said he’s playing it by ear as far as his North Slope job.

Some people call them “angel children,” straight from God, Waldron said. They are usually sweet-natured but can be ornery, like anyone.

Left unsaid is that because of ignorance and sometimes blatantly false or biased medical information, some 80% of families choose to abort their Down Syndrome baby because they don’t think they are up for the challenge of one of these “angel children”.  Let this serve as a reminder of the importance of S. 1810, the Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Condition Awareness Act.

Second Amendment Musings

Published by
Roxeanne de Luca
at April 22, 2008 in 2nd amendment. 2 Comments

First of all, thank you to Tieki for allowing me to guest-blog in her work-induced absence. :) 

As some of you may have heard, Florida passed a “Take Your Gun to Work” law, which would permit employees to have their guns in their locked cars in company parking lots.  There is opposition even from libertarians due to the infringement of property rights (see here).  The anti-gun lobby, however, fails to even grasp why people would want guns.  After all, if there were no guns, we wouldn’t have gun crime, right? 

This brings me to my Second Amendment quadrilemma.  (Yes, that’s a word.  C.S. Lewis developed his famous trilemma regarding the divinity of Jesus: “liar, lunatic, or Lord.”)  I’m a woman.  Sure, I’m tough and strong, but most men are stronger than I am.  Besides, wimpy guys tend to not beat up on people who can beat them up right back.  So, for the women out there, when you’re attacked by a stronger man (or several men), here are  your options:

  1. You are both unarmed.  You lose.
  2. He is armed; you are not.  You lose.
  3. He is unarmed; you are armed.  You win.
  4. He is armed; you are armed.  You may win.

Notice what happens in a “gun-free” society - either real (criminals only armed) or even ideal (no one armed); victims are still harmed.  Notice what happens in a society with people who are armed: the assailant doesn’t win.  The liberal, “gun-free” paradigm fails under its own terms.

Environmentalists Throwing Themselves Under the Bus

Published by
Roxeanne de Luca
at April 19, 2008 in Illegal Immigration, Liberals and bush derangement syndrome. 8 Comments

The Washington Post reported that the border fence between the United States and Mexico may damage the environment.  (Story here.)  Specifically, the fence may prevent various animals and plants from crossing the border and mating.  (The WaPo was unclear on how plants, which are not locomotive, would be affected by a fence.)  Some environmentalists are so incensed that the pronghorn and long-nose bat will be affected by the Bush Administration’s policies that they are threatening civil disobedience:

Some wildlife researchers have grown so concerned about the consequences of bisecting hundreds of miles of rugged habitat that they have talked of engaging in civil disobedience to block the fence’s construction.

“This wall is so asinine, and so wrong, I am one of a dozen scientists ready to lay our bodies down in front of tractors,” Healy Hamilton, who directs the Center for Biodiversity Research and Information at the California Academy of Sciences, told colleagues at a recent scientific retreat here. “This is one thing we might be able to stop.”

If you stop people from suctioning the brains out of the most vulnerable members of our own species, you have committed a federal offence.  If you impede the construction of a fence which inhibits illegal aliens from crossing the border and joining gangs in L.A., you will receive praise and adoration from the Left.  Totally sensible. 

Obviously, it isn’t hard to see why a fence would impede migratory patterns, but the environmentalists aren’t content with complaining about the border fence:

[Pronghorns] are the only remaining population on U.S. soil, and the five surveillance towers that the administration plans to build in the area will be in the middle of the pronghorns’ range, producing noise and human activity that would disturb the sensitive species.

Ironically, the people who want to throw themselves under tractors are Darwinists.  Now, I’m not advocating a complete intrusion into native habitat, but if a species can’t put up with noise and the mere presence of non-predatory animals (here, humans) - and a minimal presence at that (five towers spread out over a few hundred miles), it isn’t fit for long-term survival.  Ditto for those who would throw themselves in front of tractors. 

The Department of Homeland Security notes that the massive influx of illegal immigrants has caused its own environmental problems:

Homeland Security’s Kudwa said that agency officials tried to be sensitive to “both environmental and cultural artifacts” in the area, adding that by reducing the trash left by immigrants crossing the border, the barrier could improve the environment in some ways.

Just a guess, but the ocelet, jaugar, and long-nose bat probably aren’t helped much when they eat trash or drugs abandoned by border-crossers.  The resulting contamination of their water supply may be problematic as well. 

Now, back to the plants:

Brian P. Segee, a Defenders of Wildlife staff lawyer, said the waiver decision will affect plants and animals in areas ranging from the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in Texas to Arizona’s San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area.

“We’re going forward blindly now, and we’re going to be learning about the consequences for years to come,” Segee said in an interview.

Yes, Mr. Segee, we are “blindly” stipulating that a stationary fence will harm stationary plants.  As plants often need animals to reproduce (e.g. bees that cross-pollinate flowers), it is possible that a deleterious effect on migratory animals could also affect local plants.  Nevertheless, unless the affected species are necessary to the survival of plants, and their contribution to the survival of the plants outweighs the negative effects of eating those plants, the border fence won’t harm plant life.  Is Mr. Segee concerned about a long evening shadow?  Or guessing blindly?  You decide.