About Me

Name: Josh Todd
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

The Existential Threat: Babies

Posted by Josh Todd on Monday, November 26, 2007 10:59:49 AM
Imagine a beaver. He cuts branches from trees and bushes to dam a roaring creek. Then, in the resulting pond, makes his home.

Now imagine the beaver plagued by guilt for killing trees and preventing freedom of movement for fish and other aquatic life. Now he vows to stop building dams and reproducing. What happens? The beaver has nowhere to live and no offspring to perpetuate his line’s existence.

Most reasonable folks would say that the beaver’s actions (the former version) are natural. Thus, his guilt-laden course of action (the latter) is unnatural. Now let’s shift to another subject.

For a gal who proclaims her desire to save nature, Toni Vernelli seems hell-bent on interfering with it. Vernelli, according to the UK Daily Mail, is age 35. Ten years ago, she terminated her pregnancy in order to “save the planet.” Eight years ago she was sterilized for the same reason.

In fact, the article insists, the thought of a helpless child seeking mother makes her “shudder with horror.” Her husband sent her a congratulations card after the abortion.

Vernelli sees children as “the ultimate threat to the future.” “Having children is selfish,” she claims. “It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet.” How so? Well, children use more water, fossil fuels, etc.

As a child she became impassioned about the environment and animals. Now we see the lengths to which she is willing to travel for her zealous beliefs.

Return to the beaver: He uses water and fossil fuels and perpetuates his genetic line, as well. Human beings are selfish, but the beaver is not.

There is something to be said about being good stewards of our surroundings—I am infuriated when a passenger in a car opens the door and rolls his empty fast food soft drink cup on the ground because it makes my city dirty and look bad—but there is something disturbing about Toni Vernelli.

In the name of nature, she and Sarah Irving (also mentioned in the article) sever the natural human urge to perpetuate one’s existence. Perhaps their environmental zeal is genuine; or perhaps it is a leftist strain of green thought rooted in socialism; or maybe their sterilization is rooted in the atheist desire to be free of Judeo-Christian morals regarding sex.

It matters not—her thoughts on children still make others shudder.

Source(s): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Climate Cycles (Media, That Is)

Posted by Josh Todd on Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:50:00 PM
Yet another Independent (UK) article claims that the world is dying because of human activities that are causing climate change. It is a matter of opinion whether or not actual climate change is a bad thing, just as it is whether or not we humans are causing it. Fortunately, the hysteria we see in the media is typical and overblown.

I write today not to argue against the climate change scare on scientific terms (even though I challenge the contentions that 1) climate change is inherently bad and 2) that humans are primary cause, though I admit that the climate is changing, for it has always change since the beginning of time, with or without us). Instead, I offer information that is readily available regarding media trends as they relate to climate change.

As we read the papers, online or in print, and watch the news, we are bombarded with volley after volley of reports about the detrimental effects of climate change/global warming. Taken at face value, the news will ingrain in us an apocalyptic scenario where we as the human race are to blame for the inevitable destruction of the earth, or Earth.

Great guilt can overcome us, prompting many of us to advocate greater governmental control over economies and other “going green” measures. While conservation and living “green” are, in and of themselves, not bad ideas, they are often the result of hysteria created by the media.

The media has, in fact, evolved through several cycles of climate change hysteria. It has been warming, cooling, warming, etc. From approximately 1895 through the 1920s, journalists warned of a coming ice age. Then between the 1930s and 1950s, Americans we warned of global warming. During the 1970s, global cooling was all the rage again. Finally, for at least the past decade, the trend has turned back to warming.

Each scenario carried with it scare scenes of New York under water or under a glacier (Ohio, where I live, has been both a glacier and the bottom of a sea—a Dayton suburb, Moraine, is named after a geographic feature created by a glacier). Thus, if we are to believe the so-called arbiters of truth—the media—then we will aggravate ourselves into a frenzy that, in a few decades or so, will look rather foolish to our kids.

Source(s): http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article3172144.ece, http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/HOT%20AND%20COLD%20MEDIA%20SPIN%20CYCLE.pdf or http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=media+cycles+and+climate+change&fr=yfp-t-471&u=epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/HOT%2520AND%2520COLD%2520MEDIA%2520SPIN%2520CYCLE.pdf&w=media+cycles+cycle+cycling+climate+change+changes&d=KRPdjfL9PzGt&icp=1&.intl=us 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Joe Nuxhall, R.I.P.

Posted by Josh Todd on Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:24:08 PM
The following is not related to news or politics, etc.; however, the person discussed, Joe Nuxhall, left such a mark on a region known as Reds Country, that he deserves recognition wherever we can show it. So long, Joe. We'll see you soon, so keep that arm warmed up.

It was before a boy could know or comprehend God that two voices entered his head. Those voices entertained and put to sleep this young boy who was experiencing abnormal childhood trauma. Even after that time had passed, the grand voices continued, rousing mighty passion and endless thrills—literal background noise to life.

One of those grand voices was that of Joe Nuxhall. To me he was simply an old man talking on the radio about my baseball team. When I took solace in the game, and in the Reds, Joe reminded me of my grandfather, always loving, pithy, and an authority on matters discussed. In time, he seemed an uncle—the type everyone loves. He had practically talked me through tough times, and when later tough times presented themselves, often when I had no access to AM radio, I yearned to hear that voice. In fact, I even closed my eyes and replayed mythical plays in my head to do so.

All of us, in our own way, want to bring back parts of the past; parts that, when we think of them, make us think that those times were better. Perhaps they were, but time always marches forward, leaving cherished memories behind. Be those memories a warm Friday evening driving down the interstate with the windows down while listening to a long pause and crowd noise; a weeknight spent in bed with my ear jammed against a radio so Mom wouldn’t catch me listening to the game; or a bright day at the ballpark with an AM radio stuffed in either side of my head; we now must wish they were here again.

As sad as it is that Joe Nuxhall has passed from this world (I felt as if a close uncle had passed away), we should remember how blessed we were to have had him to narrate parts of our lives. And next season, when there is no more Marty and Joe—and Reds country has a newfound emptiness—we will all offer a heavy sigh, for God has walked to the mound and called to the bullpen for the Ol’ Lefthander
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Greatness of Sex Ed?

Posted by Josh Todd on Wednesday, November 07, 2007 9:59:44 AM
One of the major headlines on the Yahoo! News page this morning was “Report: Abstinence Not Curbing Teen Sex.” It was another in a long line of such articles and studies put forth by advocates of comprehensive sex education. And like every other such article, there are major flaws that undermine the sex ed advocates’ message.

The claim: “At present there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence or reduces the number of sexual partners.” The “non-partisan” National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy (NCPTUP) conducted the study along with Douglas Kirby of ETR Associates.

Another claim: “Abstinence-only efforts have little positive impact.” Yet another: “Two-thirds of the 48 comprehensive programs that supported both abstinence and the use of condoms and contraceptives…have positive behavior effect.”

ETR Associates also wanted to debunk mythical claims of the abstinence-only lobby, such as: sex ed promotes promiscuity. Kirby claimed that comprehensive sex ed programs give teens more confidence to say “no to unwanted sex.”

The Flaws

First, a survey of other research, mainly from the Heritage Foundation, unearthed a number of abstinence-only programs that were effective. One Heritage study focused on ten abstinence programs, one of which was Abstinence by Choice, a Little Rock, Arkansas program. The seventh-ninth graders who participated in the program engaged in sexual activity at significantly reduced rates (40% less for girls, 30% less for boys) when compared to students who did not participate. Thus, the notion that “there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex” (emphasis mine) is abjectly false.

Second, the NCPTUP and ETR Associates may be non-partisan in the political sense (Democrat-Republican), but they are hardly unbiased. In fact, ETR Associates develops and markets comprehensive sex education textbooks. Likewise, the study heavily criticizes government funding for abstinence-only education, revealing, after all, a partisan tilt, as abstinence-only is generally a GOP issue and comprehensive sex ed a Democrat position.

Third, most such studies compare “abstinence-only” to “comprehensive” or “abstinence-plus” programs. A series of Heritage studies of such curricula reveals that studies claiming to be “comprehensive” or “abstinence-plus” are nothing of the sort, with such curricula dedicating, on average, only 4% of content to abstinence. Thus, here we are comparing only apples and oranges, as both sides are drastically different. Those who claim that comprehensive sex ed emphasizes abstinence but educates youngsters about ways to protect themselves are misled or blatantly dishonest.

Finally, the “myth” (put forth by abstinence advocates) that sex education does not promote promiscuity—perhaps a hyperbolic term used for effect—or, better put, early sexual activity, is no myth at all. Comprehensive programs were found to contain very little in the way of abstinence or any message at all about when it is appropriate to begin sexual activity. In fact, recall earlier in this piece the notion that confident students can say “no to unwanted sex,” which implies that there is, or perhaps should be, wanted sex. Likewise, groups like NARAL-Pro Choice America and SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States) constantly use “if you do it” scenarios in their literature. While not overtly advocating teen sex, neither do such groups go to any great lengths to discourage it.

In conclusion, any time one reads an article on the ineffectiveness of abstinence programs and the wonder of sex ed programs, be wary at best. The severe flaws contained in both the article in question and the study cited completely undermine their message. And common sense, at least for a moment, should reign.

Source(s): http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/upload/67539_1.pdf, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/wm738.cfm, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/BG1533.cfm, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071107/ap_on_re_us/teen_sex  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Most Influential Conservatives

Posted by Josh Todd on Monday, November 05, 2007 10:04:15 AM
The UK Telegraph published a list of the most influential liberals and conservatives. Atop the conservative top 100 was GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. Naturally, I disagree and propose my own list, though I will limit my ranks to the top 5.

(Remember that the Telegraph is a British media outlet, so their view of conservatism is slightly different from ours. Furthermore, Giuliani is not a pure conservative in the American sense; in fact, he is a 2/3 conservative, using the following barometer to measure him: one part national defense, one part fiscal, and one part social. Giuliani is conservative on national defense and economics, for the most part. Likewise, there is likely a media preference for Giuliani in terms of the GOP nomination. The media may want him to win precisely because of his social liberalism.)

Digressions aside, now let us look at my list:

1) Rush Limbaugh, radio talk show host: There is no denying the influence of Limbaugh’s radio program. He constantly teaches Conservatism 101 while challenging liberals when Republicans will not. The size of his audience is evidence enough of his influence. Even Neal Boortz calls him “the Godfather.”

2) Matt Drudge, media guru: While Matt Drudge might not be an ideological conservative like Limbaugh or the other conservatives I rank here, he is nonetheless influential. Conservatives and liberals alike have drudgereport.com as their homepages. It is now common to hear, “Did you see [such and such story] on Drudge?” In a way, Matt Drudge chooses what conservative media commentators discuss by his selection of links.

3) Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House: Despite his past difficulties, Gingrich remains the most original mind for conservative ideas. A series of books on policy ideas never ceases to dominate discussion amongst conservatives. Likewise, his Winning the Future project is becoming an influential forum for policy and the grooming of conservative political candidates.

4) William F. Buckley, Jr., founder of National Review: Sure, WFB is getting old, but his magazine, National Review, and its website are conservative bibles. Buckley’s columns still provide guidance for other conservatives in matters of ideology and policy. Ten years ago he would have topped this list, but even now he still ranks high.

5) Thomas Sowell, economist: Thomas Sowell’s thought-provoking books defending the superiority of conservatism and stripping down the limitations of leftist thought never fail to dominate conservative discussion. He is quietly the right’s economist and arbiter of social thought.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/exclusions/uselection/nosplit/uscons1-20.xml
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »