Sunday, October 07, 2007


More Massachusetts arrogance

They're watching you right now. They counted every beer you drank during last night's Red Sox game. They see you sneaking out to the garage for a smoke. They know if you've got a gun, and where you keep it. They're your kids, and they're the National Security Agency of the Nanny State. I found this out after my 13-year-old daughter's annual checkup. Her pediatrician grilled her about alcohol and drug abuse. Not my daughter's boozing. Mine.

"The doctor wanted to know how much you and mom drink, and if I think it's too much," my daughter told us afterward, rolling her eyes in that exasperated 13-year-old way. "She asked if you two did drugs, or if there are drugs in the house." "What!" I yelped. "Who told her about my stasher, I mean, `It's an outrage!' " I turned to my wife. "You took her to the doctor. Why didn't you say something?" She couldn't, she told me, because she knew nothing about it. All these questions were asked in private, without my wife's knowledge or consent. "The doctor wanted to know how we get along," my daughter continued. Then she paused. "And if, well, Daddy, if you made me feel uncomfortable."

Great. I send my daughter to the pediatrician to find out if she's fit to play lacrosse, and the doctor spends her time trying to find out if her mom and I are drunk, drug-addicted sex criminals.

We're not alone, either. Thanks to guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics and supported by the commonwealth, doctors across Massachusetts are interrogating our kids about mom and dad's "bad" behavior. We used to be proud parents. Now, thanks to the AAP, we're "persons of interest." The paranoia over parents is so strong that the AAP encourages doctors to ignore "legal barriers and deference to parental involvement" and shake the children down for all the inside information they can get.

And that information doesn't stay with the doctor, either. Debbie is a mom from Uxbridge who was in the examination room when the pediatrician asked her 5-year-old, "Does Daddy own a gun?" When the little girl said yes, the doctor began grilling her and her mom about the number and type of guns, how they are stored, etc. If the incident had ended there, it would have merely been annoying. But when a friend in law enforcement let Debbie know that her doctor had filed a report with the police about her family's (entirely legal) gun ownership, she got mad. She also got a new doctor.

In fact, the problem of anti-gun advocacy in the examining room has become so widespread that some states are considering legislation to stop it. Last year, my 7-year-old was asked about my guns during his physical examination. He promptly announced to the doctor that his father is the proud owner of a laser sighted plasma rifle perfect for destroying Throggs. At least as of this writing, no police report has been filed.

"I still like my previous pediatrician," Debbie told me. "She seemed embarrassed to ask the gun questions and apologized afterward. But she didn't seem to have a choice." Of course doctors have a choice. They could choose, for example, to ask me about my drunken revels, and not my children. They could choose not to put my children in this terrible position. They could choose, even here in Massachusetts, to leave their politics out of the office.

But the doctors aren't asking us parents. They're asking our kids. Worst of all, they're asking all kids about sexual abuse without any provocation or probable cause. The American Academy of Pediatrics has declared all parents guilty until proven innocent. And then they wonder why we drink.


British firemen demoted and fined for shining torch on outdoor homosexual activity

Disrupt lawbreaking in Britain and YOU will get prosecuted, not the lawbreakers

Firemen who shone their torches at four men they found having sex in bushes have been disciplined by their bosses. The crew spotted the men engaged in illegal 'dogging' - outdoor sexual activity with strangers - on parkland known as the Downs in Bristol late one night. After embarrassing the men by pointing their torches at them, the crew continued on their way to their fire station.

But one of the 'doggers' complained to Avon Fire and Rescue, ultimately accusing the four-man crew of being homophobic. The firemen, who have 26 years of service between them, were then suspended on full pay for three months during an internal investigation. Yesterday it emerged that two have been fined œ1,000 each, another demoted to a rank which will see him forfeit a similar amount of money, while a fourth has received a stern written warning.

It is believed Avon Fire and Rescue plans to give the money raised from the fines to a gay rights charity. Among those being considered is the Jamaican Forum for Lesbians All-Sexuals and Gays. The crew have been transferred to other stations and ordered to attend an equality course. But no action has been taken against any of the men believed to have been involved in the dogging. The one who complained is said to be 'happy' at the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings in which the firemen were charged with bringing the service into disrepute and misuse of fire equipment.

The firemen, formerly members of Avon Fire Service's Blue Watch at Avonmouth station in Bristol, have been banned from discussing the incident, which took place at about 10.30pm on June 27. But one of their colleagues said yesterday: 'This is a complete farce. All four officers have been let down by their senior officers when they needed their support the most. 'They have been treated as the criminals and it has been forgotten that they witnessed criminal activity occurring in a public place.'

Another fireman said: 'There are a lot of firefighters in Avon who feel the four involved have been treated very unfairly so the service can be seen as being politically correct.' Fire chiefs were alerted to the incident by the Terrence Higgins Trust, which has supported the man allegedly seen performing the sex act. Simon Nelson, the charity's acting regional manager, said: 'The member of the public simply wanted to know why the fire service was on the Downs at that time of day. We passed on that complaint.'

Avon's chief fire officer Kevin Pearson said: 'There was no justifiable reason for that appliance to be in that location at that time. They should not have been there and there was no operational justification for their actions. 'We received a complaint about the behaviour of our staff and a full inquiry was conducted as a consequence. 'We investigated and the crew were found to be in breach of our internal policies.' He added that the investigation would have had the same outcome if the complainant had been heterosexual. The police confirmed they had not been made aware of the incident.


Phony Soldiers and Phony Senators

By John E. O'Neill

Recently, at least 41 Democratic Senators, joined by a howling mob including George Soros' Media Matters, sought to silence Rush Limbaugh because of his reference to "phony" anti war soldiers. Limbaugh's comments, taken in context, referred to Jesse Macbeth, a confessed and convicted phony, whose faked but graphic war crimes confessions received far wider media notice than his later confession. He had been discharged in boot camp after 40 days of service.

Macbeth follows a grand tradition of fake soldiers whose "war crimes" confessions have been used by the Left to slander the service of our troops. For example, Micah Ian Wright, author of the 2003 anti war best seller "You Back the Attack," was an Army Ranger and Combat veteran feted at USC's Annenberg School and in media like the Washington Post until he was finally "outed" as a complete fake. Many similar examples of phony "soldiers" used by the Left for war crimes confessions are documented in B.G. Burkett's bestseller Stolen Valor. Indeed, the problem was so endemic that a Republican Congress in 2005, at the urging of many veterans, passed "The Stolen Valor Act" finally criminalizing activities such as those of Macbeth.

There is no one more injured by phony war crimes charges lodged by phony veterans than veterans themselves whose service is dishonored by the slander. I know. In 1971, in addition to listening to John Kerry from our unit falsely compare our forces in Viet Nam to "the Army of Jhengiz Khan," I heard Al Hubbard, the president of Kerry's VVAW, appearing with Kerry in forums such as Meet the Press and Congress confess to war crimes such as bombing innocent villages. Hubbard was an Air Force pilot, who appeared on national television wearing the Distinguished Flying Cross and many other medals while confessing our guilt in Viet Nam. Except he was none of these things, having left the Air Force as a Sergeant, never serving in Viet Nam at all.

Military personnel all over the world thank God for Rush Limbaugh's stout defense of our military from these fakes. In 1971, there was no one to defend us from the John Kerrys and the Al Hubbards. Indeed, it is the U.S. Senate that is a Potemkin Village. It is a body whose failure to condemn Hubbard's and Kerry's 1971 libels is deafening. It is also a place on whose floor active duty soldiers have been compared to the assassins of the Khmer Rouge (Senator Deck Durbin); people who terrorize women and children (Senator Kerry); and (in close proximity) cold blooded murderers (Rep. John Murtha). Hypocrisy and cowardice are terms too kind for those who demean our soldiers without regard to the consequences to them. This conduct when coupled with the effort to silence Limbaugh a stout defender of the troops, can be best described with two words: What phonies.


Africans unwelcome says popular Australian politician

PAULINE Hanson has backed Kevin Andrews' views on African migrants - saying he was right to be concerned about crime and other issues. The former One Nation icon and current Queensland Senate candidate says the government needs to protect the ``Australian way of life''. Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews has cut the African migrant intake, saying there appears to be specific problems with them fitting in to Australian society. His remarks prompted passionate feedback from readers on both sides of the debate - and Premier Anna Bligh accused Mr Andrews of being racist.

Speaking at a Gold Coast Media Club function today, Ms Hanson said she welcomed Mr Andrews' move ,adding, ``It's been recorded in Victoria that there is a 25 per cent increase in HIV. ``There is TB, and a case of leprosy which has been recorded in South Australia.''

Ms Hanson said the federal government had a responsibility to ensure the safety of Australians. ``You can't bring people into the country who are incompatible with our way of life and culture,'' she said. ``They get around in gangs and there is escalating crime that is happening.'' Ms Hanson, who has formed a new political party, Pauline's United Australia Party, for this year's election, said Australia should send aid to Sudan instead of accepting refugees. ``If we want to do things for the Sudanese people, then let us send medical supplies, food, whatever they need over there - but let them stay in their own country,'' she said.

Ms Hanson said she would make an election issue of placing a moratorium on immigration into Australia. ``I receive emails and letters from people of all ages, including young people, who agree with my stance on this,'' she said.

Ms Bligh, whose own electorate of South Brisbane has a strong Sudanese community, eafrlier today said Mr Andrews' views were disturbing. "It has been a long time since I have heard such a pure form of racism out of the mouth of any Australian politician," she said. "When it comes from the immigration minister it is particularly disturbing." She said police statistics showed very low levels of crime among Sudanese people in southern Queensland. "To hear this sort of attack on these people is frankly something that belongs to the deep south of America in the 1950s," she said.

Mr Andrews last night accused Sudanese migrants of fighting each other in bars, forming gangs and congregating in parks to drink alcohol. He did not provide statistics to back up his claims. He had earlier announced that the federal government is to cut the number of African refugees it accepts from 50 per cent of the total to 30 per cent, allowing more asylum seekers from other troublespot around the world to come to Australia. "Having a more equal focus across Africa, the Middle East and Asia hardly constitutes racism," Mr Andrews said.

Most of Queensland's 6000-strong Sudanese community are located in the Brisbane suburbs of Moorooka, Annerley, Yeronga and Coorparoo, as well as in Toowoomba. Brisbane Liberal MP Gary Hardgrave said his community was "exhausted" by the influx of African refugees and needed a break.

Sudanese immigrant Jacob Gai Kuai, who settled in Brisbane with his wife and five children in 1998, yesterday accused Mr Andrews of racism. "I ask myself what integration the Minister means," Mr Kuai said. "From what he's saying, it seems that he's a racist." Mr Kuai said Sudanese migrants were thriving in their new homes and were productive members of their communities. The Sunnybank Hills father of five, who fled war-torn southern Sudan with his family more than a decade ago, said Mr Andrews was pandering to undercurrents of racism to win votes at the looming election.

Prime Minister John Howard described as "contemptible" any suggestion his party was playing race politics, despite police saying Sudanese refugees were not over-represented in crime statistics.

Also today, the Anglican Archbishop of Adelaide, Jeffrey Driver, called on the federal government to review a decision to cut the number of refugees coming from Africa. Archbishop Driver said he would be deeply saddened if there was a drastic cut in the number of Sudanese refugees. ``I do understand that Australia has a primary responsibility to its own region, and that it may be time for a reduction of numbers from Africa,'' he said. ``However, Australia made a commitment to the Sudan when it opened the way for something like 30,000 refugees to come to this country. ``I do not believe we can cut that commitment suddenly.''



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, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.


No comments: