Sunday, July 15, 2012

The End of Moral Relativism: A Chain of Perverts

If you are not familiar with the name Alfred Kinsey, you might want to look him up, and you might want to start with Judith Reisman's, Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America.

In it, Reisman chronicles Kinsey's recognition as the America's expert on "sex education" whose studies have influenced our cultural institutions since 1948 when his book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, along with his 1953 follow-up, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female hit the higher education marketplace. In these books Kinsey pronounced untold "facts" about human sexuality that many in the culture and education have used as the standard by which the topic is addressed in academia to this day.

Here's the problem. Kinsey's studies were conducted on test cases made up of:
"... draft dodgers, violent felons, homosexuals and other aberrants ... By 1946 Kinsey added '1400 convicted sex offenders in penal institutions,' 'two hundred sexual psychopath patients' and well over 600 sexually abused boys. In sum, 86% of deviant 'subjects' [were used to define] the Libido of The Greatest Generation ... [As for women], Kinsey selected -- and paid -- prostitutes to represent American womanhood. He loosely defined a 'wife' as someone who had lived 'at least a year' with a man."*
And what about Kinsey himself? In perversions that are unrepeatable here, Kinsey began "sexual experimentation" at age 7 in the basement of his Hoboken, New Jersey home. I'll spare the details but suffice it to say that by the time he conducted the studies that became his books, Kinsey had assembled a staff where "everyone was a bisexual, homosexual, pedophile, pederast, or just wholly amoral ... [and whose studies involved] 214 children ranging in age from 1 to 14 years."**

That's not a typo. Age ONE to FOURTEEN. And, yes, that means that Kinsey's "research" involved a staff who arranged and observed "sex play" in children age 4 to 15. As Reisman puts it:
"Kinsey fed America a pack of lies, starting with his claim that sexual behavior widely accepted as wrong was, in fact, commonplace. From there, he pushed the lie that such behavior was normal, and finally, he advanced the lie that it was good, healthy, and to be encouraged. Thus, by degrees, Kinsey and his minions turned America's moral compass upside down ..."***
On Kinsey's cue, Hugh Hefner began to mainstream pornography. Segelstein:
"Hugh Hefner’s work was also kindled by Kinsey’s work, according to biographer Russell Miller. The first Playboy magazine was published in 1953, five years after Kinsey unleashed Human Male on America. In Playboy’s inaugural issue, Hefner paid tribute to Kinsey, writing that, ‘we are filling a publishing need only slightly less important that the one just taken care of by the Kinsey Report.’ … funding from Hugh Hefner, Wardell Pomeroy and other Kinsey devotees founded SIECUS."
So, it was Hugh Hefner and other Kinsey disciples who helped fund and found the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). If that acronym sounds familiar it is because SIECUS is the foremost provider of sex education in American public schools.

So what am I getting at?
Spanier and Sandusky

In 1972, a man named Graham Spanier endorsed Kinsey's research to the Midwest Sociological Society and, in 1976, under a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Development, he also validated Kinsey's data on "childhood sex play" for similar "scholars." In 2002, Spanier also approved Pat Califia, a "transgendered advocate of sado-masochism and pedophilia" as the keynote speaker for a women's health conference at his place of employment. The year before he allowed the group, Womyn's Concerns to hold a "Sex Faire" at the same location which featured activities like "orgasm bingo" and "the tent of consent." When asked if the "fair" was morally wrong, Spanier replied, "It depends on what your definition of immoral is."****

That location was a college campus. Spanier was the President of Penn State University -- the leader of the gang of cowards who knew about, covered for, and lied about the activities the child rapist, Jerry Sandusky.

There has been a lot written about the disgusting story of the Penn State football program. One of my favorites comes from Rick Reilly's self-confessed failure to not see the hagiography that was going on at PSU for so many years that allowed such a thing to occur. Many have commented on the deceit and perversion, but I haven't seen any attempt to expose the chain of perverts that leads from Kinsey to Spanier to Sandusky. Nor have I seen anyone try to explain why someone like Joe Paterno, who had no apparent fondness for the despicable actions of his defensive coach, would be willing to stay quiet about it. I believe this goes beyond his being embarrassed for, and trying to protect, the school or his football program. At its core, this is one of the many fruits of moral relativism -- the unwillingness to acknowledge that something is objectively wrong in and of itself.

In 1993, the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan put forward the thesis that:
"...over the past generation, the amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond the levels the community can 'afford to recognize' and that, accordingly, we have been redefining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the 'normal' level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard. This redefining has evoked fierce resistance from defenders of 'old' standards, and accounts for much of the present 'cultural war' ...
The American Scholar, (Winter 1993)
Our culture has surely been "defining deviancy down" for quite some time. We are willing to "exempt conduct previously stigmatized" because it has become more unacceptable to be thought an arrogant or oppressive defender of objective moral truth, than it has to become complicit in the rape of little boys.

* Marcia Segelstein, "Lie Charts," Salvo (Autumn 2011, p. 36)
** Ibid, 40-41.
*** Ibid, 36.
**** Judith Reisman, "It's Academic," Salvo (Spring 2012, p. 40-41)

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

We're In The Batter's Box

Way back when Congress passed the 2400-page monstrosity known as the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. "ObamaCare") so that we could all find out what was in it, there was a raging controversy about whether or not the "individual mandate" to buy health insurance constituted a tax. The President insisted it was not one -- that it was a "fee" -- and defended that notion publicly and boldly. See for yourself (slide to the 2:30 timeframe or so if you are only interested in the salient part of this interview with George Stephanopoulos):

On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled on the constitutionality of the law. Most Americans, even those who supported the passage of ObamaCare, were shocked when Chief Justice Judge John Roberts turned out to be the swing vote that served to uphold the law. His ruling seemed to come out of left field.

But did it?

As someone who is conservative because my worldview seems to me to demand it, I despise the very notion of ObamaCare. I oppose the political view of those (including the president) who pushed the law on us. I detest the spineless political maneuvering of "pro-life" politicians who allowed the law to pass by placing their political ideology above their supposed moral opposition to abortion. I think the politicians who defend ObamaCare and the mandate it imposes on the American people are misguided at best, but more probably disingenuous frauds. All that said, it probably seems bizarre for me to admit it but ...

I'm glad Judge Roberts voted the way he did.

Let's remember that during his confirmation hearings before the Senate, Roberts was opposed by political liberals because they believed him to be a conservative who threatened to overturn rulings like Roe-v-Wade. Conservatives defended him as being a non-activist who would interpret the law based on the real meaning of the Constitution -- that he would act the way judges should act -- and not be beholden to the latest fad or the grossly relativistic, post-modern view that the Constitution means whatever some black-robed tyrant in Washington D.C. decides it meant "to him/her." Roberts himself described his view of judicial restraint by insisting that:*
Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them ...
The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.
I have no agenda, but I do have a commitment. If I am confirmed, I will confront every case with an open mind. I will fully and fairly analyze the legal arguments that are presented. I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench. And I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. And I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.
When he said that, I applauded him. So did most conservatives who respect the Constitution and the rule of law. We were sick and tired of the activist liberal judges who were happy to twist the law and the Constitution any way they pleased as long as they were able to achieve the outcome their political allies approved of. If all judges approached their responsibilities in the way Roberts claimed he would, we would never have ended up with the disgusting and indefensible travesty of Roe-v-Wade, for instance. And this is why I still support Roberts' decision even as I oppose the law his vote upheld.

When the president denied the individual mandate was a tax, everyone who was paying attention knew it was a joke. Now that Judge Roberts insists it really is a tax, conservatives are up in arms, not because they disagree with Roberts, but because they don't like the outcome his vote has brought. Many have written scathing articles about Roberts, including Frank Turek whom I greatly respect. Frank's article, "John Roberts: The Umpire Who Homered For The Wrong Team," is a case in point.

Have we forgotten that umpires aren't supposed to be on one of the teams ... even if it's the team we're rooting for?

I don't like the outcome that we face with the prospect of ObamaCare, but I do like the idea that judges don't have any right to make up nonsense to defend the point of view they prefer. Roberts said the ObamaCare mandate is a tax, just like I and other conservatives like me have been saying since its inception. That's because it is one.

The fact is that the blame for the travesty of ObamaCare does not lie with John Roberts -- it lies in the Congress who voted it into law. Which means that ultimately it lies with you and me.

So, since we're doing baseball analogies here, it's time to step up to the plate. We can whine and complain or we can motivate those who really do believe in the American Experiment to get off their apathetic backsides and do something about it. We can elect a Congress and a president that share a love of liberty, justice and the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of our nation. We can demand our religious liberty not be ignored. We can demand that the collectivism and tyranny of an out-of-control government bureaucracy be rolled back. We can condemn the immorality of the imposing tsunami of debt that is being unleashed on our children and grandchildren, and demand that it be dammed up.

We can let John Roberts be an umpire ... and we can hit the homerun.

Enhanced by Zemanta