From the libertarian Reason magazine (with links to news media stories).
Excerpt:
Richard Ahlstrand, of Auburn, Massachusetts, faces criminal charges after encountering a bear in his back yard and shooting the damned thing to avoid being mauled or eaten. Specifically, as noted at Reason 24/7, he’s charged with “illegally killing a bear, illegally baiting a bear, illegal possession of a firearm and failure to secure a firearm.” All of these charges, once translated from Massachusetts to American, seem to stack up to outrage that Ahlstrand didn’t make his yard completely inhospitable to animals that are rarely seen in the area, and then investigated a suspicious noise with a weapon in hand rather than cower under the bed. Worst of all, he actually defended himself when he encountered danger.
[...]In both the Telegram and CBS articles, “authorities” are quoted as saying they don’t think the bear was a threat to people. I suppose it’s possible that the black bears in Massachusetts are a kinder, gentler breed than the one that mauled a man near Payson, Arizona, last June. Or the one that tore up a woman in the same area in May. And then there was the bear that did a job on a woman near Pinetop …
When I see stories like this, the first thing that I think is that my role as a protector has been criminalized by the state. Suppose that I owned property and had a family and a bear wandered onto my property and threatened my family. The environmentally-friendly authorities think that I should let the bear eat my family, or at least sit still and hope that he doesn’t. Is it reasonable to have a family if you can’t protect them? What kind of incentive are these tree-hugging leftists offering men to get married when men know perfectly well that the state prefers them to watch their family be mauled by a bear rather allow that man to shoot that bear?
Under plans unveiled in the Budget on Wednesday, families will only benefit from the generous new deal, which will come into force in 2015, if ‘all parents’ have a job. If one parent works but the other stays at home looking after their young children, they will get nothing.
It is the second time in just a few months that the Government has triggered controversy with its changes to the tax and benefit systems, which appear to penalise stay-at-home mothers.
As a result of the recent child benefit changes, a couple can both earn £50,000 and keep their child benefit, worth £1,752 a year for two children.
But a couple where one parent earns £60,000 and the other earns nothing – but have a far lower joint income – do not get a penny.
Again, this week’s initiative favours those couples where both parents go out to work. It will even benefit parents who each earn a salary of £149,999.
Note that this plan is being put forward by socialist Liberal Democrat Party, as well as the “Conservative” Party.
Dina thinks that the science is pretty clear that children suffer if their mothers leave them at a young age. Take a look at the video above, and then the brain scan below.
Brain scans of 3-year old children: normal vs neglected
Here’s the article that goes with the brain scan from the UK Daily Mail.
Excerpt:
Both of these images are brain scans of a two three-year-old children, but the brain on the left is considerably larger, has fewer spots and less dark areas, compared to the one on the right.
According to neurologists this sizeable difference has one primary cause - the way each child was treated by their mothers.
The child with the larger and more fully developed brain was looked after by its mother – she was constantly responsive to her baby, reported The Sunday Telegraph.
But the child with the shrunken brain was the victim of severe neglect and abuse.
According to research reported by the newspaper, the brain on the right worryingly lacks some of the most fundamental areas present in the image on the left.
The consequences of these deficits are pronounced – the child on the left with the larger brain will be more intelligent and more likely to develop the social ability to empathise with others.
But in contrast, the child with the shrunken brain will be more likely to become addicted to drugs and involved in violent crimes, much more likely to be unemployed and to be dependent on state benefits.
The child is also more likely to develop mental and other serious health problems.
Professor Allan Schore, of UCLA, told The Sunday Telegraph that if a baby is not treated properly in the first two years of life, it can have a fundamental impact on development.
He pointed out that the genes for several aspects of brain function, including intelligence, cannot function.
[...]The study correlates with research released earlier this year that found that children who are given love and affection from their mothers early in life are smarter with a better ability to learn.
The study by child psychiatrists and neuroscientists at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, found school-aged children whose mothers nurtured them early in life have brains with a larger hippocampus, a key structure important to learning, memory and response to stress.
The research was the first to show that changes in this critical region of children’s brain anatomy are linked to a mother’s nurturing, Neurosciencenews.com reports.
The research is published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Early Edition.
Lead author Joan L. Luby, MD, professor of child psychiatry, said the study reinforces how important nurturing parents are to a child’s development.
This is why I argue that feminism, which is the ideology that demands that women work outside the home in order to be “equal” to men, is harmful to children. If we really cared about children, then we need to not be subsidizing the child abuse schemes of Liberal Democrats like Nick Clegg. We need to be clear that gender feminism (third-wave feminism) is an anti-child ideology and it should be opposed. The science is settled on this issue. Feminism harms innocent young children. And feminism isn’t just opposed to the rights of born children. They oppose the right to life of unborn children, too.
Mothers who stay at home to look after their children do not need as much financial help as those who work, according to the Treasury.
The insulting claim was inadvertently published yesterday as part of a briefing on the Government’s new childcare plans.
It fuelled accusations that the scheme will deliberately discriminate against traditional single-earner families in an attempt to force more mothers back to work.
Critics described the new policy as a ‘slap in the face for two million stay-at-home mothers’.
The Treasury briefing, designed to help press officers ‘rebut’ criticism, stated: ‘Working families who are struggling with their childcare costs, or families where parents want to go to work but can’t afford to are in greater need of state support for child care than families where one parent chooses to stay at home and look after their children full-time.’
David Cameron and Nick Clegg yesterday confirmed that working couples who each earn less than £150,000 will qualify for child care tax breaks worth up to £1,200 a year per child from 2015.
That means they could have a joint income of nearly £300,000 and still qualify.
They will receive 20 per cent – equivalent to the basic rate of tax – of their yearly childcare costs, up to a total of £6,000 per child. This will save a typical working family with two children under 12 up to £2,400 a year.
Single parents who are employed and earn less than £150,000 will also be eligible.
But, in a move that will anger Tory traditionalists, the Government confirmed that families in which only one parent works will not receive a penny.
David Cameron is also pushing gay marriage really hard, in spite of public opinion. I’m not even sure why he calls himself a conservative.
A 21-year-old man sprang into action to protect his family Thursday night when three suspects barged into their northwest Harris County home.
The young man was home with his mother and father in the 3900 block of Brook Garden when the armed men forced their way into the house around 8 p.m., according to Harris County Sheriff’s deputies.
The family was in the middle of baking a cake, when there was a knock at the door.
“I see a young boy and I think it is a friend of my son so I open it a little bit,” the father explained. “These guys push and out comes two more, they push me on the ground.”
After the father was down, the suspects went after the mother. That is when the son ran and got his dad’s gun. He opened fire and hit one of the suspects, who died in the back bedroom. The other two suspects fled the scene.
[...]Neighbors said the son was just doing what he had to do.
“People can’t go breaking into people’s homes and not expect some sort of consequence,” said Harry Moulder.
No charges were expected to be filed against the homeowner’s son.
Another day, another defensive gun use by a law abiding citizen to thwart a crime. When I read stories like this one, I ask myself this question: what’s the liberal alternative resolution to this scenario? They just want the law abiding people to submit to the criminals. The liberal alternative is to let the three people in the home die at the hands of criminals.
Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead! It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
Kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.
Don’t take time to look back; just get away.
If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
Remember, every emergency situation is different. Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.
That’s the best campus leftists can do for law-abiding victims of crime. Pee on yourself and maybe your rapist will go away. But you can’t own a gun, because guns scare criminals with their loud noises.
*** WARNING: This post is definitely for grown-ups only! ***
I was listening to a Dr. J podcast on “Why Marriage Matters”, and I heard about a woman named Dawn Stefanowicz, who was raised by her gay father in Toronto.
So, I looked around and found this interview with Dawn posted on MercatorNet. This is mature subject matter.
Intro:
Gay marriage and gay adoption are being fiercely debated in a number of countries. Usually these issues are framed as a human rights issue. But whose rights? Patrick Meagher, MercatorNet’s contributing editor in Canada, recently interviewed a woman who was raised by a homosexual father. She feels that her rights as a child were completely ignored.
Dawn Stefanowicz (www.DawnStefanowicz.com) grew up in Toronto. Now in her 40s, she has written a book, Out From Under: Getting Clear of the Wreckage of a Sexually Disordered Home, to be released later this year. Stefanowicz has now been married for 22 years, is raising a family, and also works as an accountant. She has also testified about same-sex marriage in Washington and Ottawa.
Sample:
MercatorNet: How did you feel about what was going on around you?
Stefanowicz: You become used to it and desensitised. I was told at eight years old not to talk about this but I knew that something was wrong. I was not thinking “this is right or wrong” but I was disturbed by what I was experiencing. I was unhappy, fearful, anxious and confused. I was not allowed to tell my father that his lifestyle upset me. You can be four-years-old and questioning, “Where is Daddy?” You sense women are not valued. You think Daddy doesn’t have time for you or Daddy is too busy to play a game with you. All this is hard because as a child this is the only experience you have.
MercatorNet: How did this affect your relationship with others?
Stefanowicz: I had a hard time concentrating in school on day-to-day subjects and with peers. I felt insecure. I was already stressed out by an early age. I’m now in my 40s. You’re looking at life-long issues. There is a lot of prolonged and unresolved grief in this kind of home environment and with what you witness in the subcultures.
It took me until I was into my 20s and 30s, after making major life choices, to begin to realise how being raised in this environment had affected me. Unfortunately, it was not until my father, his sexual partners and my mother had died, that I was free to speak publicly about my experiences.
And:
MercatorNet: Why do so few children speak out?
Stefanowicz: You’re terrified. Absolutely terrified. Children who open up these family secrets are dependent on parents for everything. You carry the burden that you have to keep secrets. You learn to put on an image publicly of the happy family that is not reality. With same-sex legislation, children are further silenced. They believe there is no safe adult they can go to.
Have you ever considered what effect it has on a child that they have to grow up without their mother or their father? Is that good for them? Is that something that we should be promoting so that there is more of it? It’s a sad thing to tell adults that they cannot do whatever they want, but it’s a sadder thing to harm children just so that adults can do whatever they want. We need to choose to be careful not to harm children by making poor decisions.
RT @cnsnews: Gowdy Rips Lerner: ‘You Don’t Get to Tell Your Side of the Story Then Not Be Subjected to Cross Examination’ http://t.co/4Jqkn…7 hours ago
02/11/2013 • 6:00 PM 9
Dawn Stefanowicz explains her experience being raised by a gay parent
*** WARNING: This post is definitely for grown-ups only! ***
I was listening to a Dr. J podcast on “Why Marriage Matters”, and I heard about a woman named Dawn Stefanowicz, who was raised by her gay father in Toronto.
So, I looked around and found this interview with Dawn posted on MercatorNet. This is mature subject matter.
Intro:
Sample:
And:
Have you ever considered what effect it has on a child that they have to grow up without their mother or their father? Is that good for them? Is that something that we should be promoting so that there is more of it? It’s a sad thing to tell adults that they cannot do whatever they want, but it’s a sadder thing to harm children just so that adults can do whatever they want. We need to choose to be careful not to harm children by making poor decisions.
Related posts
Share this:
Like this:
Filed under: Commentary, Activist, AIDS, Amendment, Battery, Child, Children, Commitment, Dawn Stefanowicz, Definition, Domestic, Duration, Equal, Equivalent, Female, Fidelity, Gay, GLBT, GLBTQ, Health, Healthy, HIV, Home, Household, Institution, Intact, Intimate, Last, LGBT, LGBTQ, Male, Marriage, Monogamous, Monogamy, Number, Out From Under, Parenting, Partner, Percent, Promiscuity, Raising, Rate, Relationship, Risk, Same-sex, Stability, Stable, STD, Suicide, Violence