SCHWARZ: THE ENQUIRER'S GOLDEN CALF

Enquirer: "[The reception of Schwarz] was just short of the thronging adoration of a rock star."

Paleocrat: There is a fine line between respect and hero-worship, between a love-fest and an orgy.

OH, SILLY SUZY...

Susan Demas is at it again. I am beginning to think that the only time the Enquirer uses her material is when she has put together another bundle of journalistic drivel pertaining to how much she dislikes Walberg. This would not be at all surprising given the fact that the Enquirer is about as subtle in their hero-worship of Joe Schwarz as Barry Bonds is of his steroid use.

In her recent journey in to blatherland, she went on a tirade against issues where Walberg supposedly betrayed his conservative constituency. Now, keep in mind that she is the furthest thing from an objective analyist and she is most certainly no friend to anything remotely conservative. So what did she call the Congressman out on? What did he do that was so heinous, so devious, so "liberal" that his supporters should have their underwear up in a bunch?

1. He supported various “green” policies pertaining to the environment
2. He honored a British abolitionist for Black History Month
3. He attacked No Child Left Behind
4. He voted to dismantle domestic spy tactics

As I read her list of “betrayals,” I was at a loss as to what the beef was.

A conservative Republican honored an abolitionist for Black History Month? What is the problem? Conservatives do it all the time. There is no unanimous despise among Conservatives for a month being set aside for teaching Black History. Does she think that Republicans would be at odds with abolitionism? If so, then I think she ought to read up on her history.

A conservative supports “green” policies? In case she hasn’t been keeping up with political shifts within the conservative and libertarian movement, there is quite a number of thinkers leaning in this direction. Are they comfortable with top-heavy government regulation? Not likely. But do they believe that something must be done about our environment? Yes. Many of these people identify themselves as "Crunchy-Cons." Maybe someone should grab Susan a copy of a book by the same designation next time they are at Barnes & Noble.

A conservative attacked No Child Left Behind? Heaven forbid! Here is where we see that Susan is either ignorant or a propagandist. She should know that many conservatives have been upset with NCLB. Open up to the National Review, American Conservative, Chronicles, or Reason and one could find a ton of conservative and paleolibertarians dissent on the Bush-Kennedy education plan.

Domestic spying? The same as above. While many of the talking heads may support the President and his crew on the issue, it is far from having unanimous approval from conservative pundits or from the public at large. Furthermore, such an intrusion by the government in to the actions of citizens that are neither unlawful nor immoral is repugnant to the conservative mind. Of course, Susan should know this, she is a political analyist!

Then, as a good puppet for the Schwarz 08 regime, she goes on a cry campaign about how big, bad Walberg painted a false picture of ole Joe in the last election. She wines about how he was painted as a Democrat in disguise and how he was characterized as being nothing short of the general secretary of the Communist Party USA.

When all is said and done, I think that someone must inform her that this kind of prattle won’t go half as far as she is anticipating. Reason being that her readers aren’t half as stupid as she sounds.

PS- Does anyone other than me notice that she frequently mentions McDonalds or uses a play on words involving the fast-food chain? McMansion? Abortions being performed at the rate McDonald’s sells Big Macs? If one can reason from her writings anything of value, it would be that she is craving a #1 with extra special sauce.

Oh, and lest I forget, McDonalds would only have to sell 4,000 Big Macs a day to keep up with the rate that women are having their babies murdered in America.

REFORMING HOW WE SPEAK...

... about pregnancy and abortion.

As someone who is staunchly pro-life and has a journalist's passion for communication, I have become fascinated with how people speak about pregnancy and abortion. I recall talking to my wife about this when she was pregnant with our first child. I remember telling her that I found it interesting that we refer to ourselves as being X years old when, in fact, we are X years old plus the additional amount of time we spent in the womb between conception and delivery.

Many may this as just another classic example of my nitpicking, but I think it reveals something quite profound. Many, if not most, people (including pro-life advocates) speak of the pre-delivery child in a different manner than the post-delivery child. We do this all the time. We may not realize it, but the way we speak of the pre-delivery child and those in relation to the child may cause very subtle, yet real, difficulties in how we try to speak to those who support the "right" of abortion.

Take for example the phrase “She is expecting a child.” How many times have we heard this phrase? Sure, it is innocent enough, and most of us know that people are implying nothing more than that the mother is expecting that what is currently in her womb will one day be in her arms. But the fact remains that the mother is already with child. She is not "expecting child," she is expecting one day to embrace with her arms the child that is currently within her.

Similar phrases would include “she is going to be a mother” and “she has a child on the way.” Problem is, the woman is already a mother. There is no “going to be” about it. She doesn’t have a child “on the way,” the child is very much here already.

So, Jeremiah, why all the fuss over something that most people generally understand? Simple: it all boils down to the fact that words, regardless of how subtle they may be, play a huge role in the formation of one's understanding of an issue as well as the framework of a debate. On a very subtle level, we have allowed many people to distinguish a post-delivery baby (child) from a pre-delivery baby (fetus). This has taken place gradually, and the way we speak about it reflects this fact.

It is my contention that unless we speak in a manner that better reflects the reality that what is in the womb is already a child, that the pregnant woman is already a mother, and that the baby is already here rather than on the way, the pro-abortion advocates will have a very real, yet subtle, leg to stand on. Rather than “killing a child the woman has,” they will continue to insist that abortions merely extract a fetus from a woman who "had a child on the way" and, were she not to have aborted the child, "would have become a mother."

Do I think that making radical changes like adding 9 months to what we refer to as our age is the answer? No. But I think we should seriously reflect on how we phrase things and the impact our words may have on setting the framework for the battlefield where the "culture of life" and "culture of death" come face-to-face to wage war over the lives of the unborn.

Read xanga comments regarding this post HERE.