Also in today's USA Today, a new study tells us that masculine features are threatening. The war on all things male continues.

According to the academic journal Personal Relationships, masculine features include "exaggerated brow ridges, a strong chin, or slightly thinner lips." When 854 undergraduates were asked questions about composite faces, they apparently made some amazing leaps in judgment. Masculine faces are more likely to:

• Get into fights
• Cheat on their partners
• Be poor husbands
• Be poor fathers

One of the funniest sections of the article discusses which tasks men with feminine faces would be selected to do (by 854 undergraduates):

• As a date for my hypothetical 25 year old daughter
• Escort my girlfriend out of town

Well, duh. Do I want a manly man to take out my daughter? Not if my goal is for that man to respect my daughter and to not have sex with her. Do I want a manly man to escort my girlfriend out of town? Not if my goal is for that man to not have sex with her. If possible, I would choose a Eunuch or gay man (in that order) before a masculine man.

On the other hand, I would want a real man to actually marry my daughter because a real man is masculine, knows how to treat a woman, is educated and gainfully employed, and will protect my daughter and his future family.

I guess the results of the study really do depend on the questions you ask. If you want a study to confirm your belief that men are a destructive force in society, you'll ask the questions to get the necessary responses. Nothing like liberal bias in academia.

-tsc

Today's USA Today announces nine predictions for 2007, originally published in Trends Journal. Credit Gerald Celente with these interesting and often flawed predictions (I'm quoting from USA Today):

#1 "Chinamerica. China is invigorated with a sense of entrepreneurship... while in the USA, such a spirit is in decline. 'America owned the 20th century,' he writes, 'but it won't own the 21st.'"

TSC: So much for making predictions about 2007; doesn't Mr. Celente know that the 21st century extends through the year 2099? Narrow your scope a bit. That's my first issue with this prediction. Second, who's to say that entrepreneurship is in decline in the U.S.? This is a made up statistic being used to extrapolate a trend for the next 93 years. Give me a break.

#2 "Medical Tourism. American consumers will be 'globetrotting'... seeking overseas doctors to perform procedures not readily available or not covered by insurance."

TSC: I buy this one. There are some countries specializing in medical industries that target Americans.

#3 "Recession. Celente says the USA is 'sliding into a long-term economic downtrend,' influenced by high consumer debt and low incomes."

TSC: Really? How many times have we heard this prediction? Still no recession. Consumer debt hits a new all time high every year, and still no recession. Perhaps because there are other financial assets financing this debt, like 401ks, home equity, and stock and bond investments. Consumer debt is not a predictor of recessions. As for "low incomes," this is just another jab at Republicans. Incomes are still rising, Mr. Celente.

#4 "Shrinking middle class. The rich are getting super-rich..." yada yada yada.

TSC: We've heard this all before. I could be convinced that the middle class is shrinking with enough data, but isn't that a sign that our economy is dynamic and heavily influenced by entrepreneurship (see #1)? But wait a minute -- if the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, aren't the two ends of the spectrum spreading out, pulling away, thereby widening the middle class?

#5 "Old-school cool. There is a discontent with the values of politics and pop culture, and the level of entertainment, fashion and food will make the good old days look even better. Consumers of all ages will demand higher quality."

TSC: So what's the prediction here: people want higher quality goods? Basic economic principle: consumers act in their own best interests by seeking the highest quality goods at the lowest possible price. In addition, quality per dollar improves every single year (think automobiles), so I wouldn't call this a very risky prediction.

#6 "Internet politics. 'The Internet candidate who motivates some 50% of the Internet generation to go to the polls could win the White House.'"

TSC: Another technicality here, but this is a 2008 prediction, not 2007. Second, who is the Internet generation? If it's people born after or coming of age after 1995, they don't vote. If it's anyone on the Internet, 50% is an awfully big number to motivate. Finally, read his bold prediction one more time: "could win the White House." Could? Wow, really taking a risk with that one aren't you Mr. Celente?

#7 "Technotribalism. Thanks to the Internet, people who share ideals and values will form associations and bonds that transcend borders, religons, and political ideologies."

TSC: What are "ideals and values" if not religion and political ideology? I actually agree with this prediction except for the nonsense at the end of the sentence.

#8 "Reunited States. Americans are tired of political rhetoric and will go for civility and healing in political discussions. Unless there is another terrorist attack, in which case 'fear will again dominate the nation's psyche, sides will be taken and polarization will intensify.'"

TSC: I guess this prediction says we'll all become moderates. I'm amazed that Mr. Celente thinks political polarization was caused by terrorism -- perhaps he's forgotten the lawsuits and chaos following the 2000 election.

#9 "The not-so-ugly American. After a period in which Americans have been considered rude, arrogant, overweight and not all that bright, there will be a 'global warming' trend toward the USA..."

TSC: I don't travel much internationally so all I hear is the media and Democrats decrying the dimunition of America's reputation, so I'll trust Mr. Celente on this one -- he may know better. But news flash: we're still rude, arrogant, overweight, and not very bright (at least relative to enlightened Europeans). We won't miraculously change in 2007, so why should the perception change? Oh, maybe because the Democrats are now in charge of Congress. World peace must be on the way...

I don't know about you, but 2007 sounds like a great year ;-)

-tsc

We all know that liberals are not critical thinkers. They hold positions because they feel good, not because they are proven effective or make logical sense based on some foundational principles. Often the position they take on one issue contradicts the stand they take on another. Today, I came up with a new example: equality and representation of the minority doesn’t apply to religious speech.

Let me explain: When we balance multiculturalism, equality of outcome, and representation of the minority, liberals give us answers based on pure statistics. For example, if a school’s population of white children is disproportionately high, liberals cry foul and demand that more blacks, Hispanics, and Asians be bused in to “balance” the schools ethnic mix. According to this report, the U.S. population is made up of 80.3% white, 12.1% black, and 2.8% Asian. The most recent real-world example, pointed out by USA Today and highlighted by Michael Medved, notes that only 13% of astronauts are minority, while the minority population in the U.S. is 30%. The obvious implication is that NASA is not giving minorities enough of an opportunity.  Clearly a sign of discrimination, if you believe liberals.

So here’s the point: liberals contradict this basic “representation” principle when it comes to religious speech. According to this poll, 96% of Americans celebrate Christmas, 5% celebrate Hanukkah, and 2% celebrate Kwanzaa. According to liberals who are fighting the unofficial war on Christmas, other religions should be given equal representation in “holiday” displays, because some may be offended by a display that only uses Christmas decorations.

But, using the precendent based on race, shouldn't all religions be given ONLY proportional representation?  In other words, for every 10 Christmas decorations, 5 Hanukkah decorations and 2 Kwanzaa decorations should also be displayed. If liberals were at all consistent with their principles, they would either drop their repeated citation of racial statistics in everything from schools to astronauts, or they would apply the same principle to the display of religious decorations at Christmas time.

-tsc

Today’s conservative believes in certain fundamental ideas, which in turn drive policy and voting decisions. Liberalism and Conservatism have both evolved over the centuries, and as the culture has evolved, both philosophies have adjusted to include questions that their originators could not have foreseen. Here are the principles of conservatism that I would cite.

#1 Equality of opportunity
Civil liberties must be upheld to the degree that equal opportunity is provided to everyone

In a free society, equality for all is difficult to achieve except in the sense of equality of opportunity; equality of outcome cannot be achieved. The best that we can hope for is a just and free society where some evils and suffering will inevitably exist. Equality of opportunity does not guarantee success; individuals must accept responsibility for their own success and failure.

It is wrong to restrict the freedom of some to provide equality of outcome to others. The principle of equality should not impinge on freedom; freedom is more important than equality. Interference by government will limit the potential of the individual; rational individuals know their own best interests. The government’s role is to create equality of opportunity by eliminating restrictions, not by creating new restrictions that favor those deemed to have less opportunity.

#2 Individual responsibility
Liberty demands self-restraint and individual responsibility

In an open and free society, individuals possess the means and the opportunity to accomplish anything. Likewise, individuals have the means and opportunity to fail. Individuals must accept responsibility for their own prosperity; one must not rely on the government to level the playing field through wealth redistribution, or to provide that which cannot be obtained individually.

#3 Private property rights
Private property rights encourage prosperity, responsibility, and general cultural advance

The institution of private property has been a powerful instrument for teaching men and women responsibility, for providing motives to integrity, for supporting general culture, for raising mankind above the level of mere drudgery, and for affording leisure to think and freedom to act.

The possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor, who must accept the associated moral and legal obligations. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a society.

Private ownership is not an entitlement; the opportunity for ownership is an individual right that must be maintained. The opportunity of ownership should be protected, but the price of ownership is determined by the free market. In support of individual property rights, the government must not infringe on these rights through the use of confiscation without due process.

#4 Free market
Economic prosperity is best created through free markets with minimal government interference

When markets dictate prices through the mechanism of supply and demand, individual consumers are better served. The customer always acts to satisfy his or her interests by seeking the very most and best at the lowest possible price. The free market exemplifies the concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest.

By definition a free market is free from government regulation; the role of the government is one of oversight. In a free marketplace, all individuals are free to participate and all individuals are provided with equality of opportunity. Protectionist trade policies are damaging to the marketplace; market institutions should be protected only to the degree that a clear national or economic interest is at stake. Obsolete industries and poorly run businesses should succeed or fail as determined by the marketplace and not as a result of government interference.

#5 Fair taxation
Economic leveling, a progressive tax system, and the redistribution of wealth only serve to inhibit economic progress and restrict societal prosperity

Individuals are best left to manage their own affairs as far as wealth creation is concerned. Taxation is a means to encourage some types of behavior while discouraging others; it is best used as an economic tool and not as a tool to engineer society. A progressive tax system inhibits the opportunity of some in order to provide an equal outcome to others.

A reasonable tax rate should be set that allows the government to collect enough taxes to cover its expenditures. When tax revenues exceed expenditures, taxpayers should be refunded the difference; when expenditures exceed revenues, the government should reduce spending. Because of the dynamic nature of taxation, increases in tax rates do not necessarily correlate to higher tax revenues, and lower tax rates do not necessarily correlate to lower tax revenues.

Cigarette taxes discourage smoking; income taxes discourage income; capital gains taxes discourage profitable investment. Consumption taxes discourage consumer spending while encouraging savings. The fairest tax system is one that taxes consumption at a flat rate. In the absence of a flat consumption tax, every effort should be made to flatten tax rates and eliminate deductions and loopholes. A simpler tax code increases tax revenues while reducing the cost of tax collection.

#6 Limited government
Government must be limited in its power and responsibility. The role of the federal government is to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for a strong national defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.

Our Constitution is an instrument of delegated powers thus, our federal government only wields power as provided by the Constitution. Government must not do for individuals what individuals can do for themselves. Government is to be a servant of the people as represented by the majority.

Corollary A: Checks and Balances The power of the government must be limited or checked

A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism – even if it’s called a democracy

Corollary B: Local Government Decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens should be made locally

If the functions of community are transferred to distant political direction, real government by the consent of the governed gives way to a standardizing process hostile to freedom and human dignity

Corollary C: Long-Term Decision-Making Public policy should emphasize long-term effects over immediate political gain

Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Tax policy should reflect the long-term consequences (both positive and negative) of changes to the tax code.

#7 Strong national defense

Our officials must always act to preserve the sovereignty of these United States, protect the integrity and self-determination of the state, and not concede power to some other authority. Government officials must show the determination to resist every encroachment that can curtail the just rights and settled privileges of the state as well as its institutions.

Protection of U.S. sovereignty requires a strong military presence throughout the world in order to protect our interests and our allies. A weak military or deference to international organizations risks the encroachment of U.S. sovereignty.

Officials must attempt to expose and refute anti-American sentiment both inside and outside our borders.

Source Material
Sir Robert Peel
National Federation of Republican Assemblies
The Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal

I'd love to hear your input.

-tsc

Previously Hidden Right to Not be Offended Trumps All Other Rights

Apparently there is a new hidden “right” found in the Constitution to go along with the right to privacy and the separation of church and state. Like the first two, the right to not be offended has permeated the culture, and this right trumps all other rights. The most common right to fall is the freedom of speech because, after all, if you offend someone with your speech, the person who is offended has the right to stifle your freedom of speech so that they don’t have to be offended.

Need some examples? Let’s start with Kramer.

Does Michael Richards have the right to say “the n-word?” [ed note: Townhall won't allow me to actually use the n-word in that sentence]  Only until someone finds it offensive. If he offends, he’s forced to go through the ritual known as the public apology. First, identify someone who represents the group of people that have been offended (Jesse Jackson), then apologize and offer some excuse like alcohol or some childhood trauma. If the victim group is not satisfied, find other broadcast television shows (Letterman, Leno) and bring out friends to offer testimonials (Jerry Seinfeld). Still not enough? Meet privately with the actual “victims.”

I have always wondered what gets said in a meeting like that? “I’m sorry I said the n-word (because he wouldn’t be stupid enough to say it again in their presence). Now that I have been publicly shamed enough to have this meeting, what would make you make this all go away? After all, I could tell you that I’m not a racist, that words are arbitrary, and I just happened to use the most inflammatory word I could think of to get you to stop heckling me because everyone knows my career has peaked. But you won’t believe that I’m not a racist no matter what I tell you, so what exactly is the point of this meeting?” We all know that there’s nothing that can be said to defend against the racist label – just one of the many reasons liberals find it to be such an effective debating tactic.

Second example: Dennis Prager thinks public officials should be sworn in on the Bible instead of other books like the Koran, Dianetics, Mein Kampf, or the works of Voltaire. After all, the Bible is the traditional book used for the ceremonial swearing-in. Why does he have to be so viciously attacked? Because someone was offended by his statements (actually misstatements of what he said, but what does that matter?), naturally. If someone is offended, Dennis’s freedom of speech is temporarily revoked.

From the voicemails, blog comments, and reports of emails Dennis has received, he is apparently racist, bigoted, and ignorant. Because a new right has been found in the Constitution, the right of one person to not be offended trumps Dennis’s right to speak, so he has to be muzzled. The ignorance of those attacking Prager is astounding, but they have a single objective: take away his freedom to speak.

I’ll limit myself to two examples today, but as other sensational news stories come up, I’ll document additional examples. So for those who are counting, a running list of previously hidden rights found in the U.S. Constitution:

1. Right to privacy
2. Separation of church and state
3. Right to not be offended

I love our narcissistic culture!

-tsc