Tuesday, September 15, 2020


Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is among several Republican senators urging the Food and Drug Administration to remove the abortion pill from the market

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, recently tweeted a piece from National Review reporting that he and other Senate Republicans had asked the Food and Drug Administration to remove the abortion pill mifepristone (also known as RU-486 or the brand name Mifeprex) from the market.

Cruz made additional comments in his tweet that sparked outrage. Many accused the Texas senator of misinformation, misogyny, and more.

However, Cruz’s comments are accurate and persuasive, and abortion advocates should reconsider supporting not just abortion, but their effusive praise of this particular drug.

Let’s address Cruz’s brief tweet, line by line, and see if it holds up against science—and the outrage.

“Pregnancy is not a life-threatening illness.”

Critics took note of this phrase and overreacted, spouting on social media that women die every year due to pregnancy or complications from giving birth, so Cruz must be devastatingly wrong.

Some even pointed out that pregnancy mortality rates in Texas are unusually high.

To be sure, there is a pregnancy mortality rate in America. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of 2018, it was about 17.4 deaths per 100,000 births. By this statistic alone, it’s clear Cruz is correct: Pregnancy is not an illness that ends disproportionately in death.

While the number is higher than I’d like it to be, as a woman who has given birth to four children, I must say pregnancy is not an illness that needs to be treated.

As trivial as this point might sound, it’s a key aspect of the abortion debate when it comes to inducing abortion: Abortion advocates, and particularly supporters of the drug mifepristone, support the drug given to women early in pregnancy because pregnancy, to them, is inherently something to be wary of—or perhaps even despise—because it carries with it a baby who is unwanted or inconvenient.

To pro-life advocates, however, none of these things is  true.

“[T]he abortion pill does not cure or prevent any disease.”

Cruz made this point specifically because he and the other senators are asking the FDA to focus on its duty, which is recognizing and labeling safe medicines that help treat illnesses or cure diseases.

Since pregnancy is not an illness, the FDA has no business approving the use of mifepristone, which is designed to end the life of the tiny embryo growing inside mom. The FDA should not be in the business of supporting the use of drugs that can harm or kill people.

“Mifeprex is a dangerous pill.”

What most abortion advocates and supporters of the use of mifepristone don’t know is what the drug actually does to a pregnant woman. They know it can cause an abortion and often many just reflexively support that since it’s consistent with their position. But mifepristone itself is exactly what Cruz said it is, a dangerous drug that induces abortion in a messy, sometimes harmful way.

Dr. Anthony Levatino, an OB-GYN who has performed more than 1,200 abortions, explained how the “abortion pill” works. After the mother takes mifepristone at the clinic, it blocks progesterone, a natural hormone that women produce when pregnant, which breaks down the lining of the uterus. This cuts off “blood and nourishment to the baby, who then dies inside the mother’s womb,” Levatino says.

It gets worse. Mom must take a second pill, misoprostal (or Cytotec), which forces the woman into labor, causing “severe cramping, contractions, and often heavy bleeding, to force the dead baby out of the woman’s uterus,” Levatino said, adding:

The process can be very intense and painful, and the bleeding and contractions can last anywhere from a few hours to several days.

The pregnant woman then finally expels the dead baby and can bleed for at least two weeks, sometimes longer, afterward.

The abortion pill has even been known to cause maternal deaths due to infection or undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy.

Now can abortion advocates understand why so many pro-life people, including Cruz and the other senators, are against the FDA’s approval of this drug, which causes the death of an unborn life and so much pain and suffering for the baby’s mother?

In his comments, Cruz is hardly being misogynist, cruel, or indignant. In asking the FDA to reconsider its support, he’s actually being pro-woman, pro-safety, pro-life, and pro-medicine.

If abortion advocates cared about women as they insist they do, they would reconsider their support of such a harmful drug.

SOURCE






Parenting: Beware overpraising your average child

The gushing compliments and a prize-for-all attitude, regardless of a kid’s real skill level, has to stop. Parents and teachers need to help children accept that they aren’t the best at everything – and that’s OK.

I had an interesting email from a reader who was worried about her 7-year-old daughter.

She’s concerned about her self-esteem with her peers, particularly as she’s starting to use terms such as ‘better than’ and ‘cooler than’ when discussing her friends. Aware of the impact of reduced confidence, she wanted some advice to help when her daughter’s self-comparison gives her doubt.

Great question, but to answer it, let me back up a little to explain the current landscape of building self-esteem in children.

The praise push

In the last 40 or so years, parents and educators have been much more aware of making sure children feel good about themselves, to help them be able to go out in the world with a level of confidence. As a result, adults don’t only give feedback about what children are doing badly, but also what they’re doing well. This has been shown not to overly dishearten them and give a sense of accomplishment that keeps them persisting in their efforts.

This idea has been taken on with so much gusto that praise is almost revered as the only way to build children’s confidence. And many parents and teachers have embraced it fully, taking it upon themselves to give children almost timetabled regular compliments, regardless of their actual efforts or genuine skill level.

We also provide more opportunities for children to win, with every layer of pass-the-parcel revealing a prize so no one feels like a loser. Furthermore, we give more extreme praise about their accomplishments when they are successful.

The real trouble is that these pumped up children will occasionally encounter others with better skills. So, if a child has always been told what a wonderful artist they are, to build their confidence, they will eventually get to school and likely find other children equally or more talented than they are. If the child’s self-esteem has been truly dependent on being the ‘best artist’ then it is likely to crumble at that point and they are likely to come home in tears because Riley’s artwork was chosen over them.

Self-supplied self-esteem

But does that mean that you need to tell them they’re ‘barely OK’ at things to prepare them fully? Well, no. But, over time, you need to deliberately pull back on excessive applause and start to give measured praise, and occasional constructive criticism, so they are ready for times when they are not the best, prettiest, or most talented at activities.

Ideally, give praise with thought rather than as a continual top up of their self-worth. If a child regularly asks for more compliments, then they might be too dependent on them. To help them, don’t go over the top when they request your approval, and sometimes get them to self-assess their efforts instead.

When they point out that others are better at tasks, avoid racing in to refute it, because your denial suggests that being second is unacceptable. If it’s true, then agree with them with a shrug and a head nod. You don’t even need to come in with high praise of other things they are good at. This is not to be cruel, but to help them accept that they aren’t the best at everything – and that’s OK.

Sure, giving children a life of permanent triumph as a means of supplying self-confidence will help them currently feel better about themselves. But it’s important to remember this action only prepares them for a life of perpetual success – and that’s not really possible.

Children have to be confident that they’re OK as average, acceptable despite coming fifth, adequate despite not being the coolest child in the class. A belief in their ability to cope with wherever they appear on the supposed scoreboard, will make the child’s self-esteem more ‘self-supplied’ than ‘another person’ supplied. That’s going to be a much more dependable and ongoing foundation for them.

SOURCE






Forgetting History and Misrepresenting History is America's Real Pandemic

By Rich Kozlovich

Nineteen years have passed since Islamic terrorists flew two planes into the World Trade Center Towers.  For someone my age (74), that was just yesterday.  Although it shouldn't be, it is a bit startling to realize how many adults today don’t remember that event.  While my generation knows a lot about Pearl Harbor, we have no personal memory of it.  However, when it comes to remembering Pearl Harbor for my generation, and 9/11 for the modern generation, there's a difference between my generation and the current crop of young people?  What is it?  Societal paradigms and education!  I will cover that later.

Just as those who were alive when Pearl Harbor was attacked, I vividly remember 9/11.   The west became complacent when it seemed the Cold War was over and everything was fine.  I knew that wasn’t true.  I knew the cold war wasn't the end of concerns. I knew Islamists were going to be a problem.  What I didn’t know is we would have Presidents - Clinton, Obama and supported by efforts by Jimmy Carter - who would actually help America’s enemies, such as Iran, N. Korea and China especially.

Although we all should have known.

Nixon was the key to understanding what was going on, but I wasn’t old enough, experienced enough, or knowledgeable enough to understand his foreign policy toward China was fundamentally flawed and practically treasonous.  Because of Nixon, we’ve been funding their economic and military expansionism, which is in direct conflict to the good of the United States.  And that was their intention from the beginning.

When Kissinger went to China while talking with Mao Tse Tung (Mao Zedong) and his number one henchman, Chou En- Lai (Zhou Enlai), Kissinger said to Mao, paraphrasing:

The nice thing about this is we don't want anything from each other.  Mao said to Kissinger: If I didn't want something from you I wouldn't have invited you, and if you didn't want something from me you shouldn't have come.

But all those weaknesses in my understanding changed, and I later clearly understood the reason for Mao's invitation. China was in serious internal trouble, and its economy was disastrous, and it seems to me, the Chinese communists were in deep trouble.   Nixon bailed them out and made them a world trading partner.  What Mao wanted was to save his economy, stay in power, and eventually force the west into an inferior economic and military position to China, and get the west to fund it. And it happened, and there are those who are leaders in industry, government and politics who want it to continue for their own benefit.

As a result, none of what’s happening now should surprise us, except for one thing: We finally have a President that sees the problem as it is, and not as the media and ruling classes attempt to present it.

Having had to deal with the EPA, environmentalists and other misfits for many years representing my industry, I knew the bureaucracy was corrupt, and that corruption was created by elected representatives from both parties, especially starting with - again - Nixon, who created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration  (OSHA), passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and a host of  other "green” laws.  All of which have been out of control for years.  All of which are anti-capitalist.  All of which are anti-American. All of which impose fundamentally unconstitutional regulations.  All of which the nation is struggling with today.

But here's what has taken me by surprise.   The extent and depth of treason going on within all these government agencies, and throughout every level of government in America by government officials, elected and un-elected, military and civilian.  There’s a reason the phrase “The Deep State” has been coined to explain them.

Its been known for years the government of the United States during the Roosevelt years was the most heavily infiltrated government in the history of the world.  Senator Joe McCarthy was contemptible in many ways, accusing innocent people of being communists, but he was right in his contention the federal government was filled with communists, socialists, Stalinist agents and fellow travelers.  All of which was proven by the release of the VENONA intercepts, and by the release of the Soviet Union's files after it's collapsed.   Information FDR, Truman and Eisenhower all had to know about.

Their intellectual and philosophical progeny are still there! 
The breadth and depth of that infestation is shocking!
The politicians embrace of them is stunning!
 
The media’s defense of them is the most shocking of all!

Much of our domestic problems are startling, however, all of the reactions by the world’s nations should have been predictable!  All one has to do is just take a look at the history of Islam and the West for hundreds of years.  Nothing has changed.  These “leaders” today are just as spineless and self-serving as were the rulers in Europe all during the Middle Ages, the Crusades, and during the incursions into Europe by the Ottoman Empire.  In some cases actually supporting the Ottomans against their fellow Christian kings for their own gain.

Our “leaders” in industry and government are just as spineless and self-serving as they were.  What took me by surprise is how easily America’s ruling classes became just as corrupt, conniving and treasonous as were those in Rome and Byzantium, all to the detriment of their societies, and ultimately their very existence.   If this continues, America’s existence will be in question.

Another thing that has surprised me is how easily Americans became lemmings over this coronavirus scare mongering con job.  Knowing how scare mongering molds societies intellectually from history books is one thing.   Seeing it as a living reality is entirely another.  Seeing how easily these misfits have manipulated members of our society against each other seems to be nothing short of a practice run for bigger take overs.
Quebec city will isolate 'uncooperative' citizens in secret corona facility

I have grave concerns for the continued existence of America.   George Friedman's book, The Storm Before the Calm, covers the cycles of American transformations,  and how America still remained America.  And that’s because all those generations were taught history as it should be taught.

Education in America now teaches America’s children to hate America, and that it needs to be “fundamentally transformed” into Cuba.  And these kids believe it, and they’re acting on it by burning down America’s cities, with threats to burn down the entire nation if Biden isn’t elected, and the media and elected officials enable and excuse them.

As for remembering Pearl Harbor versus remembering 9/11, this is a twofold problem:

Social Paradigms: There was a huge number of movies made about WWII and Pearl Harbor, and American's knew we were the good guys.  How many have we seen about 911, or for that matter Islamic terrorism?  Not that many! And not enough to override the constant politically correct drumbeat.  How many movies and documentaries are there telling us Islamists are our enemies?  Current posturing makes it appear we brought this on ourselves and we deserved to have these terrible things happen to us.  We're the bad guys, not the terrorists. And any commentary in conflict with that narrative is railed against as racist, xenophobic and Islamophobic.

Education:  The real number one issue in America is public education and higher education. If that’s not fixed, America will not be America in this next cycle, and if the Democrats manage to steal this election, it will happen much sooner than later.   That is the absolute number one issue that needs to be emphasized and dealt with.  The Politically Correct crowd are using our own values against us.  They're using the education system to destroy America by teaching America's children to hate America.

America is in crisis, and we need to remember 9/11 for the horrors suffered by the 2,977 who died there.  But we need to define it for what it truly was:  A symptom of a terminal political cancer eating away at the vital organs of the nation.

SOURCE






A plea for humility from America's first superstar

On Sept. 17, 1787, the federal convention in Philadelphia completed its work. Originally convened to draft improvements to the flawed Articles of Confederation, the delegates had quickly shifted gears, deciding instead to develop an entirely different system of government. Over nearly four months of grueling debate, they crafted something brand new: the Constitution of the United States. On Sept. 15, the text was engrossed on parchment. Two days later, the document was presented to the delegates for their approval.

Many Americans have heard the story of the woman who approached Benjamin Franklin as the delegates emerged from their proceedings in Independence Hall, which had been conducted in secret. "Well, doctor," she asked, "what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?" Franklin famously replied: "A republic, if you can keep it."

Far more profound than that tossed-off rejoinder, however, were the less well-known words spoken earlier that day, in Franklin's extraordinary closing address to the convention. His message of political compromise and intellectual modesty is one our society, so angrily uncompromising and immodest, badly needs to hear.

At 81, Franklin was by a considerable margin the oldest delegate to the convention. He was the only man present who had signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War. As a statesman, a scientist, and an intellectual, he was the most famous American in the world, and, with the possible exception of George Washington, the most respected member of the convention.

The Constitution incorporated provisions that Franklin had opposed. He had strongly favored a plural executive, for example. He had advocated for the direct election of judges, and argued that federal officials should serve without pay. The final document by no means represented what he considered ideal. The same was likely true for every other delegate.

Indeed, some members of the convention regarded the new system's shortcomings as so wrongheaded that they had walked out before the final vote. There were fears that the coming fight over ratification of the Constitution might be so bitter, it would end in violence. Worried "that a civil war may result from the present crisis," Elbridge Gerry described the political acrimony in his home state of Massachusetts: "In that state there are two parties — one devoted to democracy, the worst . . . of all political evils, the other as violent in the opposite extreme."

But Franklin thought nothing could be worse than for the new Constitution to make its appearance amid open dissension among its drafters. Drawing on his skill as a diplomat, he urged his colleagues to set their differences aside and accept the document in a spirit of cooperation.

"I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them," Franklin began. "For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects. . . . [T]he older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others."

People have a bad habit of falling in love with their own opinions, said Franklin, and of sneering at the unsoundness of other people's views — a phenomenon even truer in the 21st century than it was in the 18th. He implored the delegates to resist that temptation and to support the Constitution despite their misgivings.

"I agree to this Constitution with all its faults," he said. "I doubt too whether any other convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? . . . I consent, sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die."

Franklin moved that a line be added to the final document, declaring that it had been accepted "by the unanimous consent of the States present" — a formulation that would allow even the minority of delegates who had voted No to sign. It was his wish, he said, "that every member of the convention who may still have objections to it, would, with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and . . . put his name to this instrument."

They did. All but three of the men present acceded to Franklin's wish and stepped up to sign the Constitution.

The stakes in 1787 were no less grave than those Americans fight about today. Then as now, disunity and polarization threatened to tear the nation apart. The difference is that those men in Philadelphia agreed to work through their ideological differences, while our ability to do so seems to diminish by the day. More than ever, we are in need of leaders like Franklin, and of lessons like the one he conveyed so effectively 233 years ago next Thursday: that we strive to be less hostile to the views of others, and learn to doubt a little of our own infallibility.

SOURCE

********************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here.
`
************************************

No comments: