Murder victims, by sex and race

Jessica Valenti cites three anecdotal violent crimes as evidence that women are being oppressed in the United States. These stories may outrage readers, but the statistical data on murder simply does not support the argument Valenti is trying to make.

If Valenti wishes to use murder as evidence of sexist oppression, men are far more oppressed than women. After all, the FBI reports that 78 percent of murder victims in 2008 were male.

If there is an argument to be made from murder statistics about discrimination, black males are far more oppressed that women. 5,752 of the 14,180 homicide victims in 2008 were black males, far higher than the percentage of black males in the population.

Furthermore, it is well established that prison rape is an epidemic, but the FBI statistics ignore male rape victims by defining rape as “the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” Even worse, the cultural perception of prison rape is that the victims “deserve” what they get.

Equal rights for women is a worthy topic for discussion, but dishonestly using anecdotal evidence and ignoring statistics is unworthy of the Post editorial page.

Proven irresponsible?









YearDeficit
2004-412,727
2005-318,346
2006-248,181
2007-160,701
2008-458,555
2009-1,412,686
2010-1,555,582
2011-1,266,680
2012-828,452
I’ve made no secret of my frustration with the big-government policies of the Republican Party under George W. Bush. Congressional candidate Todd Young has taken to pointing out this irresponsibility, telling the Herald-Times that the “Republican Congress was the most fiscally irresponsible Congress in American history – until this present Congress.” While it’s good to see a Republican not be shackled by partisanship and willing to criticize his own party for bad policy, it is important to add the perspective that was missing in Young’s remarks about the Republican Congress.

According to White House figures, the budget deficit’s history for the last few years is in a table to the right. The deficit is in millions of dollars.

Clearly, the deficit exploded during Bush’s first term. However, things were improving significantly before the Democrats won control of Congress in the 2006 elections, taking power in January of 2007. The 2006 and 2007 budgets were passed in 2005 and 2006, respectively. Mike Sodrel was elected in 2004, so he was part of the Congress that was charting a course toward fiscal responsibility.

The 2008 budget was the first budget that was passed by the Democratic Congress, with the support of Barack Obama. The 2009 budget was passed in 2008, and the deficit ballooned significantly with the bailout of the banks (TARP) and the failed “economic stimulus” package. Obama supported the former and was the architect of the latter. It should be clear that Obama owns the deficit.

We should not dismiss the fiscal irresponsibility that Republicans displayed in Bush’s first term, but it would be a mistake to equate the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush Administration with the wild-eyed spending spree that Barack Obama has rammed through the Congress. Republicans may have had a glass of deficit wine, but the Democrats are blasted drunk and the country is passing out as a result. Whining about President Bush and blaming everything on him will not erase the rampant fiscal irresponsibility of Barack Obama.

"Party Unity" cannot exist with a "big tent"

At the Monroe County Republican Party’s Lincoln Day Dinner last Saturday, it was obvious local Republicans were energized. Barack Obama has fallen out of favor with the American people and it looks like 2010 will be a big Republican year. Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts gave us hope that we could defeat Evan Bayh, and with Bayh’s departure from the race the odds are actually in favor of the Republicans. We cannot sit back on our laurels and do nothing, because no election is won without a great deal of hard work and campaigning. We cannot expect the American people to just reflexively vote Republican.

I did see a disturbing trend that could indicate future problems for the party, both nationally and locally. The keynote speaker said we need to support the Republican candidates because the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat, while another speaker called for us all to be unified. This sounds nice on paper, but the reality much more complicated. We are sowing the seeds for an eventual rejection by the American people.

This attitude of hyper partisanship and “party unity” is exactly what caused us to lose big in 2006 and 2008. Republicans had pushed one big-government policy after another. Republicans passed a significant expansion of the federal government’s role in our public school system. That Ted Kennedy had a huge role in this should have been the first sign it was a bad idea. The Republicans also passed a brand new federal entitlement program with the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Conservatives were told to shut up, because the Democrats would be worse.

Worst of all, Republicans passed an unconscionable, inexcusable and brazenly unconstitutional campaign finance “reform” plan that went to the extreme of regulating the content of political speech. Then Republicans nominated the architect of that anti-American legislation to be their candidate for President, running on a laughable platform of “country first” after spending years trying to destroy the very freedoms this country was founded to protect.

Republicans like to talk a lot about being a “big tent” party, and we are. We have Republicans who favor gun control, favor keeping abortion legal and favor homosexual marriage. We have Republicans who support tax increases, more spending and bigger government. Most Republicans do not believe in those things, but we have many in our party who are not conservatives. This is exactly why party unity is a fraud.

Simply put, you cannot have party unity in a “big tent” party. If we are going to have a wide range of ideological perspectives in the GOP, then we have to expect there will be heated disagreements and debates about public policy. Sometimes, these debates will become bitter arguments. It is not realistic to expect people who have wide differences on public policy will not criticize each other and sometimes refuse to support candidates who have wildly different perspectives on public policy.

Look at the Libertarian Party, which has always touted itself as the “party of principle.” This is admirable. Libertarians are not a “big tent” party. I cannot imagine Libertarians nominating a U.S. Senate candidate who favors strict limits on Second Amendment rights, as the Republicans did in 1998. Libertarians also rarely reach 5% of the vote. There are a number of reasons for this, one of which is the large number of philosophical libertarians in the Republican Party and also due to the nature of our system that makes it very difficult for third parties to break through.

Standing firm on principle is something Republicans would do well to emulate. Does this mean we should only support candidates who are perfectly aligned with our own views? No. If that were the case, the only person I would be able to vote for is Scott Tibbs. For example, we have a number of good candidates for the U.S. Senate. John Hostettler is my choice, a consistent philosophical libertarian who refused his Congressional pension and has consistently stood for low taxes and limited government. Hostettler can be depended on to always fight for our civil liberties.

Hostettler is not alone. Marlin Stutzman is a solid conservative who would make an excellent U.S. Senator. If John Hostettler was not in the race, I would be supporting Stutzman. I was critical of Don Bates Jr. back in October. To be fair to Bates, however, I would enthusiastically vote for him if he wins the primary. Whatever disagreements we may have on legislative strategy, Bates is a good man and a solid conservative. I have complete confidence that he would be a reliable pro-life vote if he is elected to the Senate.

But there are candidates who I cannot support. John McCain, who dedicated his Senate career to attacking American values, was one of those candidates. What we have to realize as a party is that most people do not give a rip about the Republican Party. Party insiders and candidates can appeal to party unity all they want. It is generally true that the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat, and even I have to admit that McCain would have been a better President than Barack Obama. But the American people are not interested in party labels. They want candidates who share their values, will protect their civil liberties and push for responsible fiscal policy.

If we are going to have long-term success as a party, the Republican Party must be a party of principle. Does this mean that every single Republican must be a conservative on every issue? Absolutely not. I have some views that are inconsistent with most Republicans, especially regarding decriminalizing drugs. But the basic orientation of the Republican Party must be limited government, low taxes, sound fiscal policy and a strong national defense. Most importantly, Republicans must advocate protection of the unborn. Principle is the key to political success.

Monroe County Primary Ballot, 2010

Here are the candidates who have registered with the Monroe County Clerk to be on the Monroe County ballot for the May 4, 2010 primary. This does not include federal or state offices.



Democrats

Clerk of the Circuit Court

Ronald “Craig” Harvey

Jenn Marcum

Linda Robbins



County Recorder

Mike Szakaly



County Sheriff


James L. (Jim) Kennedy



County Assessor

Judith A. Sharp



County Commissioner, District 1

Charles F. Newmann

Patrick Stoffers



County Council, District 1

Vic Kelson



County Council, District 2


Cheryl Munson



County Council, District 3

Larry Barker (pending chair cert.)



County Council, District 4

Sam Allison



Bloomington Twp Trustee

Linda Sievers



Bloomington Twp Board

Dawn Allen


Barbara McKinney

Bill Sturbaum



Perry Twp Trustee

Dan Combs



Perry Twp Board

Jack E. Davis

Susie Hamilton

Barbara Sturbaum



Richland Twp Trustee

Robert (Sparky) Johnson


Richland Twp Board



Van Buren Twp Trustee

Terry Robbins

Cameron Smith



Van Buren Twp Board

Sandy Newmann

Harold J. Ooley



Bean Blossom Twp Trustee

Vera E. Figg


Bean Blossom Twp Board

Benny B. Walden



Benton Twp Trustee

Heather Cohee



Benton Twp Board

Eric Schmitz

Lynn Stevens

Diane Street



Clear Creek Twp Trustee


Clear Creek Twp Board

Lucretia S. Cregar



Indian Creek Twp Trustee

Linda Hollingsworth

Vicky Sorensen



Indian Creek Twp Board

Andy Alexander

Cora Sue Clayton

George (Doug) Davis

Timothy R. Prince I

Marietta Reinhold

Amy Swain




Polk Twp Trustee



Polk Twp Board



Salt Creek Twp Trustee

Rosemary Hawkins-Welch

David Joe Lane

Jerry Reed



Salt Creek Twp Board

Donald F. (Donn) Hall


Washington Twp Trustee



Washington Twp Board



Ellettsville Town Council, Ward 4

Ed Bitner



Ellettsville Town Council, Ward 5

Joseph Kerr

State Convention Delegates, District 1

Donn Scott Abler

Anthony T. Armstrong


Byron C. Bangert

Robert E. Brown

David Hart

Ruth E. Hickman

Brian Kanowsky

Iris Kiesling

Kathleen E. Paul

Randy Paul

Donna Purdom

Paul Purdom

Fred Schultz

Mike Szakaly



State Convention Delegates, District 2

Cassie L. Bennett

Daniel K. Blackwell


Dellsie Boddie

Lucretia S. Cregar

Trent Deckard

Steve Hanson

Craig Harvey

Cheryl Munson

Charles F. Newmann

Sandy Newmann

Sarita Overton

Dee S. Owens

Linda K. Robbins

Terry Robbins

Cathy Smith

Larry Smith



State Convention Delegates, District 3


Ed Bitner

Richard W. Denning

Arthur Hayes

Sherry Hayes

Dr. John Kardynalczyk

Geoff McKim

Pam Warren



State Convention Delegates, District 4

Rick Birch Dietz

Janet S. Ellis

Wadell Hamer, Jr

Chaim Julian

Vic Kelson

Jenn Marcum

Kyle Marcum


Mallory L. Minier

Regina Moore

Barbara Purdom Phipps

Edward L. Robertson

Troy Thomas

Mary Werden

Abby Wickens



Precinct Committeemen

Julie Thomas, BL1

Rick Birch Dietz, BL2

Chaim Julian, BL3

Barbara Purdom Phipps, BL4

Troy Thomas, BL4

Charlotte Zietlow, BL5

Jerry R. Burton, BL8


Martin Spechler, BL10

Jillian Kinzie, BL13

Hans Huffman, P1

Trent Deckard, P5

Jack Baker, P6

Edward L. Robertson, P7

Janet S. Ellis, P8

Craig Harvey, P10

David Hart, P12

Regina Moore, P15

Jack E. Davis, P16

Iris Kiesling, P18

Frances C. Moore, P20

Dan Combs, P24

Sandy Newmann, VB5

Ed Bitner, R1

Jackie Yenna, R2


JoAnn M. Vernon, R3

Arthur Hayes, R8

Vera E. Figg, BB1

Charles F. (Fred) Risinger, BEN1

Eric Schmitz, BEN2

Steve Hanson, CC1

Mark Hazelbaker, CC1

Lucretia S. Cregar, CC2

Linda Hollingsworth, IC

Clark Soresen, IC

Evelyn Crowe, WASH

Republicans

Clerk of the Circuit Court

Jacob Franklin

Candi Haley



County Recorder

Jim Fielder



County Sheriff

Steve Hinds



County Assessor



County Commissioner, District 1


Michael Hill



County Council, District 1



County Council, District 2

Ryan J. Langley



County Council, District 3

Martha “Marty” Hawk



County Council, District 4

Benedict E. Hesen III

Jeffrey C. Shemmer




Bloomington Twp Trustee

John Bradly Freeman



Bloomington Twp Board

David Shuee



Perry Twp Trustee



Perry Twp Board



Richland Twp Trustee


William H. Evans

Jay “Marty” Stephens



Richland Twp Board

L. Eileen Goss

Richard Landgrebe

Ranee “Brown” Love

Jay M. Thrasher

Mike J. Richardson



Van Buren Twp Trustee

Rita M. Barrow

Ronnie G. Pursell



Van Buren Twp Board


Ryan N. Fipps

Robert W. Hudson

Toby Liff

Kenny Parrish

Mary Rice

John Wilson



Bean Blossom Twp Trustee



Bean Blossom Twp Board

Vicki L. McGlocklin



Benton Twp Trustee


Benton Twp Board

Michael R. Collins



Clear Creek Twp Trustee

Thelma Kelley Jeffries



Clear Creek Twp Board

Tommy J. Bartlett

Tony A. Jeffries

Randy May

John A. Thrasher



Indian Creek Twp Trustee


Sandra (Sandi) L. Cooper

Georgia Nichols



Indian Creek Twp Board

Fontaine “Bud” Rodman

James H. Edney



Polk Twp Trustee

Christopher Spiek



Polk Twp Board

David L. Hollars



Salt Creek Twp Trustee


Charles Hawkins



Salt Creek Twp Board



Washington Twp Trustee

Barbara Ooley



Washington Twp Board

Nina K. Musgrave-Walls

Jay D. Sears



Ellettsville Town Council, Ward 4

Matthew Smith


Daniel (Dan) R. Swafford

Marco Matavuli



Ellettsville Town Council, Ward 5

Dianna S. Bastin



State Convention Delegates, District 1

Andrew D. Greene

Steven R. Hogan



State Convention Delegates, District 2

Randy May



State Convention Delegates, District 3


Mary Rice

John Wilson



State Convention Delegates, District 4

Dan Aiken

Lori Aiken

Steven Douglas

Jim Fielder

John Bradly Freeman

L. Eileen Goss

Martha “Marty” Hawk



State Convention Delegates, District 5

John M. Arnold

Joshua P. Kelley


Carl Lamb

Nathan Smith

Samuel Spaiser

Scott C. Tibbs

Allen Gilmore Woodhouse



State Convention Delegates, District 6

Barbara Clark

Kate Frank

Marjorie Gouwens (Hudgins)

Patrick Hastings

Doug Horn

Nicholas Andrew Perrino

Jeffrey Shemmer

Danny Shields


David Shuee

Jay M. Stephens

Christine Talley-Haseman



The "middle of the road" fallacy

“The extremes of both parties have to be willing to accept compromises.” Congress should make changes “so that sensible people can get the job done.” Those were two of the statements that Evan Bayh made when he announced he will not run for another term in 2010. It is all bunk.

I could blog about the political ramifications of Bayh dropping out and the timing of his announcement, but that has been beaten to death. I’m not going to say anything that has not already been said hundreds of times all over the blogosphere. What is worth addressing, though, is the content-free populist rhetoric Bayh used to justify his decision not to defend his endangered seat.

Arguably the most intensely partisan battle over public policy has been on health care. What, exactly, does Bayh view as a “compromise” that Republicans should accept? As usual, populist rhetoric about “getting things done” is long on generalities and short on specifics.

For conservatives who believe that one of the problems (if not the problem) with health care is too much government, “compromising” with Democrats on the issue serves as a victory for Democrats. We may not increase government’s role as much as Democrats would like, but we still increase the government’s role in health care. Conservatives get absolutely nothing out of such a “compromise” solution, while Democrats get a step closer to what they want.

Despite all the flowery talk about reaching across the aisle and working with the other party in the interest of the American people, there are people who have strong ideological leanings about the role of government and the priorities government should have. A solution that expands government less than what statists want is not a compromise – it is a surrender by conservatives. Similarly, a solution that cuts government less than what conservatives want is also not a compromise. It is a surrender by statists.

Evan Bayh’s attempt to set himself above the fray and damn both sides is the worst of cynical political gamesmanship. If Evan Bayh was serious about advocating for the American people, he would be proposing specific solutions that he believes would be beneficial and would not whine about those who oppose that solution on philosophical grounds. The thing is, Evan Bayh is not serious at all. He is a born politician, the son of a politician, trying to set himself up to run for office again in the future when the political climate is more favorable.

Abortion, racism and civil rights







Abortions in
Monroe County
YearNumber
2005676
2004775
2003784
2002753
2001825
2000784

“What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of person and what kind of a society will we have twenty years hence if life can be taken so casually? It is that question, the question of our attitude, our value system and our mind set with regard to the nature and worth of life itself that is the central question confronting mankind. Failure to answer that question affirmatively may leave us with a hell right here on earth” – Jesse Jackson

When Bloomington celebrated Martin Luther King Day, we honored a man who gave his life to defending the oppressed against the injustice of racial discrimination. Dr. King dedicated his life to opposing injustice, and his courage changed the course of history and inspired many to carry on his torch. In the 1970’s, Jesse Jackson understood that defending the oppressed meant defending the life of the unborn, before he sold his soul for political expediency.

How ironic is it, then, that Jesse Jackson gave the keynote speech for the King Day celebrations in Bloomington, having long since abandoned standing up for the oppressed, and the 50 million unborn babies who have been slaughtered under the protection of federal law since 1973? While we pat ourselves on the back for being an evolved and enlightened city that embraces racial diversity and opposes racial intolerance, we ignore the fact that we have an abortion mill operating just a few blocks from the county courthouse.

According to Planned Parenthood of Indiana, 28.9% of abortions in Indiana in 2005 were performed on black women. It is worth noting that in 2008, blacks represented 9.1% of Indiana’s population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. This means that the black population of Indiana is being decimated by the abortion industry.

The hypocrisy is obvious. How can we pretend to be enlightened on racial issues when black children are being aborted at such a high rate? How can we claim to stand against oppression when an average of more than 14 murders are taking place every week on South College Avenue, and the people committing the murders are protected by law and funded by our tax dollars through handouts from city and county government?

If we are serious about standing for the oppressed, the first and primary goal should be driving the abortuary on South College Avenue out of business, and holding our elected representatives accountable when they give our tax dollars to a “clinic” where children are murdered each week.

The H-T is responsible for what the H-T publishes.

In an article about Marty Hawk’s announcement that she is running for re-election this year, the Herald-Times reported that “Hawk, who first began serving on the council in 1988, serves in District 3.”

This is a classic example of something that is factually correct, and yet not true.

Hawk did serve on the county council starting in 1988, but she was not re-elected in 1992. She did not run again until 1998, when she was elected in District 3. She was re-elected in 2002 and 2006. The statement that Hawk “began serving on the council in 1988” would lead any reasonable person to believe she has served continuously since 1988. That is not true. She has served (admirably, by the way) 16 years, not 22 years.

This error should never have been published, especially since it is so easily fact-checked. The statement, while factually correct, was sloppily written and would have been much better had the reporter wrote “Hawk served from 1988 to 1993 and from 1999 to present,” or something to that effect.

Predictably, Leftists attacked me when I pointed this out in the comments, whining that Hawk’s 2006 campaign site contains the statement that “since 1988 Marty has served on the Monroe County Council.” Of course, Hawk’s site also states that she had served for 13 years, making it obvious that she did not serve continually from 1988 to 2006.

Ultimately, the H-T is responsible for what the H-T publishes.

If I told a reporter it is 100 degrees outside today and the H-T published that in tomorrow’s paper, the H-T is at fault for printing the factual error. It is my error too, of course, but that does not absolve the Herald-Times of the responsibility to engage in basic fact-checking. You know – the basic job of a journalist. If the “reporters” at 1900 South Walnut were actually doing their job, this misleading statement would never have been published no matter what Hawk said.

ACC serves as advocate, resource for students

Note: I am taking a journalism class this semester. This is my first article for that class. Any articles I publish on ConservaTibbs will not be timely, as I will not post them until after I turn them in and get my grade.

Created as a result of a protest by the Student Coalition in 1997, the Asian Culture Center serves as a means to educate the community about Asian and Asian-American culture as well as advocating for Asians and Asian-Americans on campus. So said Melanie Castillo-Cullather, director of the ACC, in a meeting with J200 students on Thursday, January 28.

When about 400 students protested at the Sample Gates in January of 1997, one item on their list of demands was for an Asian Culture Center. Castillo-Cullather said that the center was still getting established when white supremacist Benjamin “August” Smith murdered IU student Won-Joon Yoon in a drive-by shooting in front of the United Methodist Church on Third Street, according to the July 6, 1999 Herald-Times. Castillo-Cullather said that the murder made it clear that the center had to engage in the community.

Approximately 40 percent of her time is spent doing community outreach, Castillo-Cullather said. The ACC serves as a way to help people understand Asian and Asian-American culture and deal with cultural conflicts. Castillo-Cullather explained that after an Asian immigrant couple left their child in their automobile at Kroger, the ACC provided a translator and helped foster communication between the police and the family and help the family understand that is not allowed in the United States.

Part of the center’s educational efforts is to help people understand that difference and deal with the cultural bias that people of Asian descent are often assumed to be from Asia even if they were born in the United States, Castillo-Cullather said. The two groups are “markedly different” in many ways and the ACC helps people understand the difference between the two groups, she said.

“It is very important to be able to distinguish between the experiences of an Asian-American and an Asian international student,” she said.

The ACC also provides educational programs throughout the year.

“We try to come up with programs that will enlighten and bring a sense of awareness about people of Asian descent,” Castillo-Cullather said.

These programs include the ACC Film Series, which “brings films showcasing Asian themes, subjects, and issues,” according to the ACC web site at www.indiana.edu/~acc. Other programs include “Asian Cultures Around Campus” and a monthly discussion called “Monday Table Topics,” according to the ACC Web site.

The ACC is attempting to convince Indiana University to treat Asian and Asian-American students as other minorities for purposes such as outreach and scholarships, Castillo-Cullather said. Because there are more Asian and Asian-American students at Indiana University than their percentage of the population, they are not considered an underrepresented minority group, Castillo-Cullather said.

A dangerously foolish view

A February 9 letter to the editor makes the following statement:

Imagine how the past might have changed our present circumstances if we had “bombed” Afghans with loaves of bread after 9/11

The author said several good things in her letter about the need to forgive those who have sinned against us and how central forgiveness is to Christian doctrine. She used that to lead into her main point, which was about Afghanistan.

Needless to say, her statement is foolishness, showing she is completely ignorant of history.

Turning the other cheek and forgiving does not, has never, and will never work with murderous tyrants. This is a lesson that the world should have learned thousands of years ago, but should really be burned into our collective minds by the disastrous policies that led to World War II.

England and France tried to achieve “peace in our time” after Nazi Germany invaded the Sudetenland. That failed, because Adolf Hitler was not interested in peace. He was interested in conquest and building an empire. Wishing to avoid conflict, the allies allowed Hitler to build his military strength and to become stronger. By the time the Nazis invaded Poland, it was too late. Hitler’s Germany was far too powerful and it took an enormous effort and cost many more lives than would have been required had the Allies drew a line in the sand years earlier.

Much like Hitler, Osama bin Laden is not interested in peace. Muslim terrorists are not interested in peace. They are interested in a global jihad to build a Muslim empire, and in slaughtering anyone who gets in their way. If they accomplish this goal, one of the first people to be killed will be the author of that LTTE, who will most likely be shocked when gestures of “compassion” are met with a sword. The only thing Muslim terrorists understand is violence and death. You cannot negotiate with these people. You can only defeat them and deter them from attacking you.

“Peace” activists love to lump the Iraq and Afghan wars together. It is a terrible comparison.

The invasion of Iraq was a pre-emptive war. We were concerned about credible evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ties to terrorist groups, so we attacked Iraq before they could attack us. I supported the war, and came to realize two years ago that I was wrong.

We made a huge blunder with the preemptive invasion of a sovereign nation which had not attacked us. Saddam Hussein may have been evil, but he was not stupid or suicidal. Our nuclear deterrent would have been enough to contain Hussein and prevent him from attacking us with WMD, just like it had been for the previous 12 years. If the logic behind the Iraq war was sound, Should we invade and replace the government of every country that has WMD and could potentially use them against us, including China or North Korea?

The war in Afghanistan is nowhere near the same thing. We were attacked on our own soil on September 11 by war criminals determined to kill as many innocent people as possible. The people behind these war crimes were sheltered and protected by the government of Afghanistan, which makes the Taliban as guilty as al Qaida. Our invasion of Afghanistan was in direct retaliation for the attack on us by Muslim terrorists. We did not ask for this war, but we owe it to the victims of 9/11, and to freedom around the world, to win it.

Tim Tebow ad "controversy" – much ado about nothing

In the weeks leading up to the Super Bowl, feminist groups became increasingly hysterical with a planned advertisement by Focus on the Family, which featured Pam Tebow and her son Tim. Mrs. Tebow was advised to abort her pregnancy due to health complications, but decided to proceed and her son became a Heisman trophy winner. The Feminist Majority urged their e-mail list to contact CBS and demand the ad be pulled, with hysterical claims such as:


This is an opportunity to bring people together and should not be used to tear them apart. Especially at this time, with the trial of Dr. George Tiller’s murderer fresh in everyone’s mind, airing an anti-abortion advertisement to a massive audience is both unwise and potentially dangerous.

Think about that for a minute. The FM is actually claiming that the Tebow ad could encourage anti-abortion terrorism and invokes the murder of infamous abortionist George Tiller last summer.

It turns out that the “controversial” advertisement does not even mention abortion, as Mrs. Tebow speaks very generically about hardships, how she still worries about her son and how special he is to her. The Feminist Majority managed to make themselves look like fools with their increasingly hysterical screeching about this commercial, given that it turned out to be little more than video glurge.

In the early days of his radio program, Rush Limbaugh used the term “feminazis” to describe feminists who wanted to see as many abortions take place as possible and become enraged when women were talked out of having an abortion. Many people laughed at Limbaugh and said no one is pro-abortion. But the temper tantrums from the Feminist Majority and the National Organization for Women about a commercial featuring a women who made a choice of her own free will to have her baby demonstrate that there are people who are actively pro-abortion.

Clearly, CBS has the legal right to run or refuse any advertisement that is proposed. Had CBS decided not to air the Tebow ad, I would have supported their right to do so. it is telling that feminazis were obsessed with getting the ad censored. What exactly is threatening about a woman sharing her story about how she decided not to have an abortion? What is divisive about Pam Tebow telling her story, either in a commercial or on a Web site? How does this ad fuel hatred or encourage terrorism?

Focus on the family scored big with their commercial. The hysterical reaction from FM and NOW, as well as the Leftist blogosphere and news media coverage, brought the Tebow ad much more notoriety than would have been the case had the Left not been whining about it for weeks. NOW attempted to declare victory in a message to their e-mail list this week, but they lost and lost big.