- <a href=”http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004985.htm”>Michelle Malkin’s article about Dr. Jacobsen’s destructive rampage trampling the rights of others</a>
- <a href=”http://www.nku.edu/~jacobsen/”>Dr. Jacobsen’s homepage</a>
- <a href=”mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org”>Dr. Jacobsen’s email</a>
My daughter came home from school last week with a collection of artwork she had completed during the early part of the Christmas, I mean, “holiday” season.
The collection—done in the usual media, Crayola, water color and construction paper, of second grade—was pretty typical, Christmas trees, candy canes, wreaths, presents…
And a detailed rendering of a menorah.
A menorah. Hmm….we’re not Jewish, and our kids don’t go to a Jewish school. In fact, they attend a public school that’s fairly politically correct, although certainly not to the degree of those that routinely make the headlines each “holiday season.”
I guess the correct, contemporary reaction to this would have been to be offended—or at least make such a claim—and then rage, loudly and publicly about being hurt, being excluded, yammering about separation of Church and State, contacting the ACLU, etc. Talk about power, by raising enough of a stink I could have probably gotten some sort of apology from the school district, perhaps a check (to a disturbingly large and growing number of people, that’s what it all comes down to these days…getting a check). At the very least, I could’ve probably been granted the privilege of selecting my daughter’s teacher for next year.
After all, there’s great power in being offended. Construct any case for being offended on any grounds related to race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, height, weight, hair color, religion (well, except for any form of Christian) now matter how convoluted, get an attorney, go to court or threaten to, and the world will beat a path to your door…like three kings, bearing gifts of overwrought apologies, promises of sensitivity training programs, and of course cash. The argument need not make sense, and its validity is secondary to someone having the nerve enough to advance it.
Think about it. Oppose the legalization of gay marriage and supporters of the idea of twisting the basic meaning and definition of what constitutes a marriage will be offended, and claim you hate gays. Your opposition is nearly a form of the much-dreaded “hate speech.”
Observe a holiday that is observed by about 95% of Americans and the 5% who do not observe it, for reasons involving religion, lack of religion or sheer contrariness, and you’ll be accused of being insensitive.
Try to encourage Spanish-speaking grade-schoolers to learn English, the most valuable tool any immigrant—legal or otherwise—can have in seeking success in this country, and you’ll be accused of being insensitive, and not caring about the native culture of these kids.
Well, don’t worry about this American. Tell my daughter—we’re Catholic—about Hanukah and the significance of the menorah, have her make a drawing of said menorah, and I’ll applaud it. As I see it, we probably should have taught her something about the Jewish faith. Let the NHL team from Vancouver come to town and while I may or may not go to see them play, I certainly won’t be out in front of the Savvis Center carrying a sign protesting the name “Canucks.” That name is a term applied to French-Canadians, a term many of those French-Canadians view with the same revulsion that black Americans have for the “n word.” And I have every right to be offended, as my mother’s side of the family is packed with French-Canadians.
And let’s hear it for Condoleezza Rice, who after being called an “Aunt Jemima” by a nitwit DJ in Wisconsin had no reaction, and expressed no offense. Hats off to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas who to date has not taken offense to Harry Reid’s condemnation of the judicial opinions which Thomas has written. Reid called them “poorly written” and “embarrassing.” Thomas had no reaction. And let’s have a round of applause for George W. Bush, who still has not taken offense to then-presidential candidate John Kerry’s reaction to late campaign polls showing Bush in the lead. A frustrated Kerry whined to his campaign staff “How can I be losing to this idiot?” Here’s two sets of cheers for Secretary of State Colin Powell who failed to take offense when that racist DJ in Wisconsin called him an “Uncle Tom” and who reacted to UN accusations that the U.S. is “stingy” with aid to victims of the tsunami (wait, they’re not “victims,” they’re “people living with the effects of a tsunami”), with a mere and accurate “The United States is not stingy.”
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the offense/sensitivity game is that those who seem to be in a perpetual state of being offended are constantly distraught. Those who let “offensive statements” or actions roll off their backs seem to be at peace with themselves. Or at the very least, they’re stable enough to focus on dealing with the important matters at hand.
Of course, no offense intended.
Cries of anguish can be heard throughout the land when a Nativity scene is placed on government property. Dominating the headlines, news about “gay rights suppression” when marriage definition amendments are proposed becomes the concern du jour. Human rights leaders decry the abuses by militant regimes of neighboring opposition groups. But nary a word is uttered when news of government-sponsored child killing becomes a matter of routine civil procedure. Do these act of barbarism spring forth from our struggling, third-world neighbors?
Instead, the assault against humanity originates from none other than the enlightened, freedom-embracing, Dutch members of European society. But this thinking is nothing new to Europeans. Seventy years ago this was attempted with the 1933 passage of the “Law for the Prevention of Progeny of the Genetically Unhealthy.” This historic predecessor was promulgated by none other than the soldier of human rights, stalwart hero of the downtrodden, protectorate of the disadvantaged: Adolph Hitler. Back then, it was call “eugenics.” Now, it’s called “merciful.” Call it whatever you like, it’s still the same thing. The Dutch, it would seem, have blown the dust from their copy of “Mein Kampf” and are now embracing some of the felled dictator’s core philosophies. Like the Phoenix rising from the ashes, Hitler’s brainchild resurfaces in modern, post-war Europe.
Groningen University Hospital has decided its doctors will euthanize children under the age of 12 if those doctors believe a child’s suffering intolerable or if the child has an incurable illness. Incurable? Diabetes is incurable. AIDS is incurable. Spinal Bifida is incurable. Though differing in physical severity, none of the three guarantee a life without worth. Which of the three would qualify as an affliction punishable by death and who will make this determination? Odd when you think of it—they punish the disease by killing the child. Of course, these champions of genetic excellence would have you believe their motives are pure and beyond reproach. But let’s boil it down to it’s roots. In fact, it has very little to do with the interests of the afflicted. Actually, it has nothing to do with their interests at all. If the pediatric killers were to speak the truth (and don’t hold your breath waiting for that), what you would hear them say is that it is convenient. It is cost-effective. It represents closure for the real victims: the relatives, the care givers, the government. Once eliminated, the true victims of the handicapped youngster’s affliction are freed from the tremendous burden of providing for the child’s substantial needs.
The nineteenth-century English displayed far more empathy and concern for “the Elephant Man” than do the modern Dutch for their own afflicted children. At least the Victorian Britons didn’t kill Joseph Merrick. He managed to die all on his own—a luxury not afforded to the Dutch handicapped.
But the Dutch’s penchant for murdering their ailing and handicapped children should come as no surprise to anyone. They have been unflinchingly goose-stepping their way to this point for years. Beginning with killing terminally-ill people who were deemed competent and still requesting death, this was modified to include murdering folks who weren’t even terminal—they had incurable illnesses or handicaps. Not to exclude anyone, those who were merely depressed could now be killed on request. Garnering even more power still, doctors could now kill the incompetent, such as an Alzheimer’s patient—as long as they had asked for it while they were still “competent.” But with their newfound mandate to murder children, doctor’s can now use their own discretionary principles when determining the life or death fate of a malady-ridden child—when determining the worth of a child’s life. Now, they truly are judge, jury, and executioner. Finally, they have achieved a significant milestone toward attaining the status of “God.”
Soylent green anyone?
BBC Correspondent Barbara Plett apparently had been having difficulty coming to grips with the deteriorating health of Yasser Arafat. In such a tenuous emotional state had she arrived that she began crying as he was airlifted from his compound in Ramallah. Indeed, truly a heart-wrenching experience for even the most staid political journalist. Yet she was befuddled by the lack of concern and solidarity of the local population. I’m sure she must have mused about how such a great embattled leader—a true patriot of peace and middle east cultural harmony—could be overlooked during his most trying personal times. I suppose that when one is caught up by the inescapable overwhelming emotional build-up of such a situation, it’s easy to forget that the “people’s hero” being carted off was single-handedly responsible for the violent deaths of countless numbers of his own people’s children. Compelling them to strap explosives to their person, infiltrate evil Israeli military complexes like buses, shopping malls, and schools and ignite the “bomb of peace and unity” in the name of “Allah” for the collective societal benefit of the Palestinians.
Since when do presumably rational, clear-thinking individuals accept—no, make that embrace—someone in a position of power who has focused his entire political career developing a single exportable commodity—death? It’s utterly amazing that people who are fortunate enough to enjoy a public forum—a forum with which to imbue their readership with their personal philosophical beliefs—would abandon all semblance of reason and backhandedly endorse the most heinous aberration of mankind. Hardly the noble savage to which the leftists are so fond of likening this creature. Instead, he is a murderer—plain and simple. He advanced his pointless agenda through brutal attacks on the most vulnerable and innocent members of society. He killed children. What more needs to be said? And we are expected to extend sympathy for his cause? I think not. Well, at least not all of us will. There is, however, Barbara Plett. She will take up his cause. As will Jacques Chirac, the so-called “leader” of the downward-spiraling, socialist stronghold of Europe—France. And Jesse Jackson, who extends a welcoming hand of understanding and solidarity to the verminous leader. The man orders the deaths of hundreds, and Jackson greets him with a smile and a handshake. What a flattering image for Dr. King’s protégé. The U.S. military would face ceaseless denouncements from those on the international stage for even mistakenly engaging in such action. Yasser Arafat is heralded and bestowed honors of peace and political equality.
It’s inexplicable how Arafat, whose name is synonymous with terrorism, can somehow be transformed into an embattled hero for these hapless leftists. Yes, now even a man who publicly calls for the destruction of an entire state of people can be heralded as a hero and a “peacemaker” (as affirmed by the Nobel organization). It’s odd how the term “genocide” can selectively be assigned depending on race and religious orientation. That was, after all, the goal this “peacemaker” so ardently sought.
Indeed, Arafat enjoyed the rich fruits brought forth by weak politicians and myopic “journalists” who actively rewrote history while the events were still unfolding. They turned a blind eye to the innocents lost only to embrace a man with genocidal aspirations that were thinly veiled by proclamations of peace and purported desires for sovereignty and country. Yet both were ritually rejected at every opportunity.
So, we were all supposed to sit up, take note and express our admiration and appreciation for the courageous stands taken by the “artists” that make up Hollywood in “speaking out” against George Bush, the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism? We were supposed to think Natalie Maines was a heroine when she slammed our president from across the waters? We were supposed to take heed and admire Tim Robbins when he railed against “the chill wind” he sees blowing across the U.S.? We were supposed to find inspiration in the brave “stands” taken by Alec Baldwin, Jeannine Garafolo, Susan Sarandon, Barbra Streisand, Rosie O’Donnell and co., against the Evil John Ashcroft and the PATRIOT Act.
So, we’re all to believe that the Intellectual Giants who populate Hollywood and comprise the American music industry are true lovers of artistic freedom and free speech?
Try telling that to Dutch Director Theo Van Gogh. Well, actually, it’s too late. It’s too late because he was shot by yet another fine example of what fundamentalist Islam is giving the world. Oh, and after he was blown off his bicycle by the gunfire of the Moroccan-Dutch Islamic psychopath, Van Gogh had his throat slit, was stabbed and then, just for good measure, his attacker tacked a five-page screed to Van Gogh’s chest using a large carving knife. The mini-manifesto so thoughtfully attached to Mr. Van Gogh’s lifeless body was filled with the usual vitriol from our Muslim pals, you know, “America will be punished,” “the blood of the infidels will flow in rivers,” “the screams of pain will blah, blah” and so forth. Not a particularly original bunch of writers, these Islamic fundamentalists.
Well, a couple of weeks later there are no “screams of pain” here in the U.S. In fact, it’s pretty quiet. Especially in Hollywood. Hmmm.
One has to wonder: Where are the courageous minions of the entertainment industry? When is Leonardo DiCaprio going to decry the brutal slaying of Van Gogh, whose Capital Offense was to make a 10-minute film which commented on the Dark Ages state of existence for Muslim women? When is Rosie O’Donnell going to condemn Van Gogh’s murder? Is Alec Baldwin preparing a speech condemning the lack of respect for artistic freedom on the part of fundamentalist Islam shown to us by Van Gogh’s slaying?
It doesn’t look likely. Rosie, Alec, Leonardo, Susan & Tim, Natalie, Jeannine, Barbra and the other Brave Defenders of Artistic Freedom are silent. They may play heroes on screen, and they may act like heroes during their concerts, but when the bullets start flying and the knives start slashing—even 5,000 miles from Hollywood—they prove themselves to be cowards. Unvarnished cowards.
This was an easy one too. Van Gogh wasn’t an American. Van Gogh wasn’t a Bush administration lackey, an American soldier, or a lover of things American. Heck, he probably wasn’t a big fan of our president. But he was an artist, and as the grand nephew of the famed painter who bore the same last name, one could easily argue that he was something of a poster child for artists the world over and their artistic freedom. But still, Hollywood remains silent.
Maybe they’re afraid some Islamic crackpot will paint a target on some actor’s back. Maybe they think Van Gogh got what he deserved because he failed to “show tolerance” to Muslim culture. Maybe they didn’t like Van Gogh’s films. Maybe—though they all claim to be True Artists and Students of the Arts—they didn’t even know who Van Gogh was. Or maybe they just don’t care.
But far more likely they’re not just cowards, but they’re so consumed by their hatred of George Bush and of the America he and the 60 million plus Americans who voted for him that they cannot bring themselves to condemn Van Gogh’s murderer, because doing so would align them with Bush and put them into the “terrorists are evil” camp.
So in three years, when they come out from under the blankets and start campaigning for Hilary Clinton, and when they start railing against whoever dares to run as the Republican nominee, remember their disgraceful silence when one of their own was attacked. Remember their utter failure to answer the challenge when their precious artistic freedom was assaulted. Remember them as the cowards and hypocrites they’ve shown themselves to be.
Became Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the National Security Advisor, on January 22, 2001, under President George W. Bush. She is the second African American and first woman to hold the office.
<p>Born in Birmingham, Alabama, she earned her bachelor’s degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her master’s degree from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded honorary doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, the University of Notre Dame in 1995 and the Mississippi College School of Law in 2003.
<p>At Stanford University, Rice is a tenured Professor of Political Science, Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. From 1993-1999 she served as the Stanford Provost.
<p>From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the George H. W. Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender—Integrated Training in the Military.
<p>Rice was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation (which named an oil tanker Condoleezza Rice after her, later quietly renamed Altair Voyager), the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco.</i>
But Jackson, Sharpton, Mfume, Pelosi and The Left stand silent as these exceptional people are insulted by a publicity-hungry self-described Liberal.