Blogcritics Author: Sam James

Life Issues, the Election and Obama

Sam James — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:42:57 EST

Abortion, Real Conservatism, and the "moderate" Barack Obama
Last week marked the 35th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, possibly the most divisive and harmful of all the US Supreme Court’s majority opinions. A few places gave the moment its due recognition, but most news sites and blogs skimmed right over it, instead covering the juicier and more galvanizing drama between presidential hopefuls. That is a...

Clinton vs. Obama: Who's Fighting For What?

Sam James — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:49:38 EST

Bill Clinton is making his wife's presidential campaign about him.
It must be the insult of all insults to Hillary Clinton that even in the midst of her own bid for the presidency, her husband continues to steal the spotlight. It's not working out for Bill so far, but the greater point is that it's not doing anything for Hillary.Bill has entrenched himself as the great Correction to what he insists are the...

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

A Federalist's Case for the Federal Marriage Amendment: Part I

Sam James — Thu, 8 Jun 2006 12:06:56 EDT

A recent group of articles here on BC raises the tricky topic of same-sex marriage. In one particularly well-written article, Jude Nagurney Camwell articulates what appears to be the core objection to the Federal Marriage Amendment:The majority of Americans today accept the reality of same-sex relationships without condemning or ridiculing the people who choose that lifestyle. When religious fundamentalist leaders demagogue the issue of homosexuality, it often results in a narrow public debate about “moral values.” If this narrow debate translates to a political consensus restricting the civil rights of an entire class of Americans, the political acceptance of this public denigration encourages further discrimination against gays and lesbians in our country. The feeling of just how wrong that seems is palpable in terms of the civil injustice brought about by such a narrow debate on the values that the majority of Americans share in our society. It's undemocratic.Camwell speaks for a considerable number of people in this excellent paragraph. The issue of same-sex marriage is, as Camwell states, a highly emotional one. It's also one that has threatened to forever damage the age-old debate over Federalism vs. central government dominance. This being a congressional election year, same-sex marriage will undoubtedly receive its fair share of public light, discussion, and, admittedly, misunderstanding.The issue dividing social conservatives is not whether to legalize gay marriage, but rather who should be responsible for acting on it. Traditional federalists, those supporting the autonomy of the State and local government, tell us that the proposed amendment to the US Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman will remove precious social and political rights from the states, and hand them to the far less reliable (in the conservative view) federal government. The best way to handle same-sex marriage, they say, is to allow the states to legislate against it, something that appears to be happening in a majority of states.The opposing line of thought states that the judiciary, as in the cases in Massachusetts, has already thrust gay marriage beyond the states rights debate, and into a federal matter of policy. Thus, the only way to preserve the traditional view of marriage and its purpose is to dictate constitutional law to the courts, through an amendment. In the first part of my two-part essay, I will attempt to show first of all persuasively that same-sex marriage should not be legalized. In the second part, I will give my thoughts to the support of an amendment to the US Constitution.Why Same-Sex Marriage Should Not Be LegalIn the debate over same-sex marriage, the core issue remains the definition of what marriage really is. The debate is not, as proponents often assert, regarding social and legal rights for homosexuals. That was the issue at hand in sodomy law cases. But having branched beyond the private behavior of homosexuals, we enter into the realm of social institution. And the institution of marriage has for millennia been defined as between the complementary genders. The best reason for this appears to be that marriage has fundamentally been understood to serve the purpose that scholar Stanley Kurtz elaborates: "...to encourage mothers and fathers to maintain stable families for the children they create."If this definition of marriage, as the legal and social designation (resulting in what the modern world calls "rights") of males and females as a unit to raise a family, is accepted, then the debate over same-sex marriage becomes the debate of definition. If marriage is this, then same-sex marriage, which involves couples not able to procreate simply within the home unit (and thus preserve what some would call the marriage "contract"), immediately becomes a non-entity: a marriage between two non-complementary genders simply cannot exist.I realize that several objections to this definition of marriage can be raised. But in reality, there is no serious, unbiased study of historic sociological understanding that can come to any contrary conclusion. Even in polygamous cultures, the idea of complementary genders only being able to qualify inside the marriage contract has been established. And no, infertile couples are not a threat to the definition: infertility is not an intrinsic quality in the two gender contract (it's an uncommon, mostly unpredictable phenomenon). So it's not sound logic to apply a non-intrinsic circumstance to challenge the intrinsic definition of marriage.The purpose of three paragraphs that say essentially the same thing is to establish how the majority of the world through the majority of history has viewed marriage. And it would be intellectual arrogance to assume that modern perceptions of marriage are necessarily better because of advanced notions of equality or normality. The conclusion then, is that marriage has historically, philosophically, and legally been defined as the union of male and female.But why is this important to the argument? Simply because something has been defined as something does not mean it cannot be redefined. Surely, we can consider changing times as reflecting on changing definitions. So what's the big deal? The big deal is that government has neither legal right nor advantageous case for changing the definition of marriage. Francis Beckwith, writing for the Christian Research Journal, elaborates why: “…marriage is like justice, something that is intrinsically valuable (good-in-itself), [so] then the state cannot morally define marriage in any way it sees fit and call it ‘marriage,’ just as the state cannot engage in atrocities and by legislative fiat call it ‘justice’.” The state cannot presume to hold the authority to redefine marriage because marriage is not just a social exercise of legality. It is more than that; it is an institution which has spanned thousands of years without formal support of democratic government. It has religious overtones. Marriage is historically something, and despite any desire to change it, it simply remains what it always has been. This is the key argument that liberal postmodernists cannot agree with. The reigning philosophy of higher education and even policy debate is that moral values are simply malleable preferences which change with time. But conservatives and right-minded behaviorists know this to be false. Moral codes and inherent definitions are true whether they are liked or not.A second reason not to enact gay marriage legislation is that it would undermine the family by denying gender in marriage. The lack of one gender in a child raising relationship (which is what would certainly happen if gay marriage were legalized) can pose serious problems for the well-being of the child. Consider these statistics about fatherless homes:85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the father’s visitation to punish their ex-spouse.Children from fatherless homes are five times more likely to commit suicide.If this information is taken as true, then the state would have a reasonable effort to help children have father figures in their lives. The legalization of same-sex marriage would say that not only are fathers potentially worthless inside a marriage contract, but that children do not necessarily need them. And that would be egregiously wrong. A final reason not to enact gay marriage would be the increasingly obvious effects of same-sex marriage on Scandinavia. Stanley Kurtz, a scholar who has researched and debated extensively on the subject, reports that news from the Netherlands makes a connection between gay marriage and the gradual undermining of the family rather glaring. Kurtz has shown convincingly that the Netherlands’ rapidly shrinking marriage rates, combined with accelerated radical feminism (including agendas to abolish marriage) show that gay marriage has had a devastating effect on the region. So despite the misleading talk of equal protection, same-sex marriage is actually about the effort to redefine marriage for the worse. In order to protect the real historic and intrinsic definition of marriage, and also to preserve the worth of the genders to the family, same-sex marriage should be opposed. I hope this piece shows this concisely and persuasively. In the concluding part of my case for the FMA, I will show why I am convinced an amendment to our federal constitution is necessary.

Samuel James is currently a college student in Kentucky. He acts as a managing editor for the Political Inquirer weblog.

Roe v. Wade: The Showdown

Sam James — Sat, 3 Jun 2006 12:44:33 EDT

In 1973, the then-liberal US Supreme Court revoked the rights of states all across the nation to have authority over abortion, and instead ruled that every state must accommodate it. This has rightly been called one of the most controversial decisions by the court ever. But more than thirty years later, a showdown to challenge the decision is brewing.Earlier this year, South Dakota made headlines after it effectively banned abortions, except to preserve the mother's life. The move is being contested heavily by feminists and abortion-supporters in the state who have already mounted a petition against it. Mississippi has a similiar law awaiting in legislative limbo, and now Louisiania wants to follow suit. Louisiania's Democratic governor has reputedly said she would sign the bill. All those decisions would have to be verified through another Supreme Court ruling on abortion.With justices already confirmed to the court, President Bush has perhaps provided conservative ammo in the event of a national showdown on abortion. Justice Samuel Alito is a conservative who would most likely vote to turn down Roe v. Wade, and Chief Justice John Roberts has an enviable history of strict constructionism, something on which even non-conservative critics lambasted the Roe decision.The problem with the Roe decision is that it was the move by the court to establish itself as an arbiter of moral values, something that is not in the spirit of the purpose of constituional interpretation. By pitting states' rights against a "right to privacy," the court discarded the checks and balances of the Consitution in favor of becoming the second, much more powerful legislative branch.A showdown on Roe v. Wade could most certainly end up right where it started: the Supreme Court. With growing statewide support for abortion bans, states' rights will most certainly be the key topic. One issue to watch will be whether the left, which has consistently used the principle of states' rights to disparage the Federal Marriage Amendment, will defend the right of states to define abortion laws. If not, we will most certainly see a breakdown in the leftist position -- for states' rights when it comes to marriage, against states' rights when it comes to abortion.On the other hand, it will be up to Roe opposition to provide a clear, concise case as to why abortion is a state health matter and should be legislated as such. Conservatives should not have to play defense on an issue which is seeing a subtle cultural evolution in favor of anti-abortion laws. Feminist organizations, long considered one of the most influential pro-abortion bastions, are quickly and ostensibly hyperextending themselves on political issues, including kicking out W. and far-left homosexual agendas. Thus, feminists find themselves lacking clarity and power when it comes to arguing for abortion rights. Conservatives, by contrast, are arming themselves with new scientific data and sociological understanding, and can realistically be projected to be gaining significantly in the debate.But it will all come down to the views of America's most poweful nine robes if and when the abortion debate comes full circle to the court. The fate of states (and unborn children) will hinge on whether America's highest court can see the past, learn from it, and act accordingly.

Samuel James is currently a college student in Kentucky. He acts as a managing editor for the Political Inquirer weblog.

Protecting Real Choice In Michigan

Sam James — Fri, 2 Jun 2006 02:01:16 EDT

The Michigan legislature is considering bills that would require abortion doctors to screen prospective patients to determine whether or not the desired abortions are being coerced. The legislation would stipulate that doctors:1) Inform the patient that certain actions to pressure a woman into having an abortion are illegal, but clarifying that discussions about available options, including personal or intensely emotional expressions about such options, are not necessarily coercive and illegal.2) Ask the patient if the patient's husband, parents, siblings, relatives, or employer; the father or putative father of the fetus; the parents of the father or putative father of the fetus; or any other individual in a position of authority over the patient has threatened, intimidated, or coerced her into seeking an abortion (as would be prohibited under the Michigan Penal Code).If it is discovered that any of the above descriptions are indeed true, the physician would be required to inform authorities.This is terrific legislation. In the sensitive and highly emotional subject of abortion, women deserve legal protection from manipulation. The number of coerced abortions is high, according to several indicators, including a state commissioned task force on abortion in South Dakota (largely credited with influencing the state's recent abortion ban).Astoundingly, the Planned Parenthood group in Michigan is opposed to the legislation. They told the State News that the bills would "represent another challenge to abortion." But this is a grievous deception. Coerced abortions are hardly the type that a supposed pro-woman group would favor, no? Or could this be further evidence of the feminist movement's devotion to far-left political agenda rather than the well being of females?

Samuel James is currently a college student in Kentucky. He acts as a managing editor for the Political Inquirer weblog.

Movie Review: Saving Private Ryan

Sam James — Sat, 27 May 2006 11:00:10 EDT

In the history of cinema, only a handful of pictures deserve the status of "life-changing." This, of course, will necessarily reflect individual experiences and opinions; but few movies in our time have had the univeral impact of Steven Spielberg's masterful WWII drama Saving Private Ryan.Based on the real-life story of Sgt. Frederick Niland, the film follows a group of eight troops who are commanded to inflitrate enemy lines to find a private, James Ryan, whose three brothers have been killed in combat. Moved by the plight of the boys' mother, the Army commissions Captain John Miller (Tom Hanks) to lead these men to locate the private and bring him back home. Nearly all the men are bewildered by the decision to spare manpower to save just one, and the film follows Captain Miller and the troops' efforts to perform their mission valiantly.The comparisons of this movie to Spielberg's "official" masterpiece, Schindler's List, are exhaustive, but they are nevertheless apt. Spielberg's frankly amazing ability to meld heartfelt storytelling with unadulterated realism was the key element to the Holocaust drama, and it remains so for Saving Private Ryan.Of course, the most famous (and many cases, infamous) sequence in the movie is the opening reeanctment of the D-Day invasion. The scene has gone down in filmdom as one of the most intensely graphic sequences in film history, and the roughly thirty minute battle has come to define the film, and deservedly so. The fight for Omaha Beach is indeed incredibly violent, and stomach wrenchingly prolonged. It has proven to be too much for some viewers. However, just like he did with Schindler's List, Spielberg finds the vein between overbearing and unrealistic: graphic, but not oppressive.The key element to that scene, as well as much of Saving Private Ryan, is Janusz Kaminski's cinematography. The grainy, hand-held, free-form movement of motion is superbly maniupulated to bring maximum intensity to the battles of the movie. Kaminski's work, which captured the 1998 Oscar, has also become widely imitated (see Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down).Tom Hanks as Captain Miller is the key performance throughtout the film. Hanks brings just the right amount of gallantry and humanity to the tortured Captain, always struggling with the often conflicting values of duty and reason. Part of the strength of Hanks's performance is the juxtaposing of Miller in different situations: on Omaha Beach, Miller is stoically determined, seemingly undisturbed by the carnage, and totally focused on the mission. Afterwards, in the quietness of his own mind, Miller keeps records of how many men have died under him (in one poweful scene, Miller says that the lives that must have been saved by his mens' death is the only rationale for choosing between "the mission and the men"). The rest of the cast (including Matt Damon as Private Ryan and Edward Burns as the frustrated Reiben) is fine, but the entire film hinges (and successfully so) on Hanks.The great power of Saving Private Ryan is how it simply presents war and the effect of war on the men who must bear it. Spielberg restrains from editorializing or preaching a "message" to the audience; instead, he impresses on the audience, most purely, what war really is. The intimate moments of recollection of home are just as heart-wrenching as the large scale war scenes. The simple capture of a petrified prisoner speaks just as loudly as any fighting or explosions. We see what war really means to the men who fight it, not to the politicians who order it, or to the people who critique it, but to the men who live, and often die, by it.This is the genius of Steven Spielberg. His passion and his vision are so great that they make facts and figures and pictures come alive with arresting emotion. He is telling his story, and how he tells it is why we must hear it. This is great filmmaking at every level.This Memorial Day, remember the soldiers who make war on behalf of those who can only watch. Through Spielberg's great Saving Private Ryan, let us watch a little more closely.

Samuel James is currently a college student in Kentucky. He acts as a managing editor for the Political Inquirer weblog.

Remembering, But Not Honoring

Sam James — Tue, 23 May 2006 03:33:52 EDT

This has been a hot-button issue for me lately. Just the other day I saw an old truck on the road with what I thought to be a needlessly offensive bumper sticker. It read, "American by birth, Southern by God's grace." Nothing wrong there. But the message was flanked by two images of Confederate flags.I have a problem with this. First of all, the Civil War is the only reason the Confederate Flag was created. That war remains the bloodiest and most deadly war this nation has ever fought. Why should it be remembered?Secondly, the Confederacy, regardless of your position on states' rights (by the way, I am very Federalist), was a foreign enemy of the United States. The fact is, this enemy of Americans is sad, but not justifying. A brutal war was fought because this confederacy was created. I don't see what there is to be so proud of about it.A girl in South Carolina does see something to be proud of and she (along with many others in the recent past) has protested her school's decision to ban confederate clothing. This girl says she wants to "pay tribute to ancestors who fought on the Confederate side." Maybe I'm completely crazy, but in my view, she wants to honor the memory of an enemy who waged war against her country. Having personal family heroes is fine; publicly displaying promotional material for a foreign enemy is not.Why, I ask, is this so important anyway? Why must we display confederate symbols? Is American sectionalism still that vitriolic? I sincerely hope not.

Samuel James is currently a college student in Kentucky. He acts as a managing editor for the Political Inquirer weblog.

The Evil of Moussaoui and The Left

Sam James — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:54:12 EDT

There's no logical reason why the Left should oppose the death penalty in the case of confessed terrorist and 9/11 contributor Zacarias Moussaoui. Principally, for all the humane reasons: this man has proudly confessed to orchestrating crimes against humanity; he's gleefully prided himself on his "beautiful terrorist mind;" he's thrilled to tell you he is proud of the tears and pain of his victims' loved ones; and, worst of all, he would do it again in a heartbeat. Does this sound like a man who deserves life? Or do we hold justice in such contempt that we give life to those who delight in taking it? So there are many completely non-partisan reasons why liberals can find it within themselves to give adequate punishment to this contemptible mind. Indeed, I'm sure many on the Left already have found it. But there's another reason, one not so agreeable, which may encourage the Left to end the terror of Moussaoui: this guy is evil. Wait: didn't we already address that part? Well, yes and no. This is an evil man, certainly; and with every breath he utters, the reality of his sadistic twist is more and more glaring. But that's not necessarily what galls the far Left in this case. Moussaoui reminds people of real evil. He's not the caricatured, right-wing Fred Phelps type that liberals love to hold up as the "real agenda" of conservative Christians. He is not the fake, politically driven picture of hate that Americans are now being trained to mark; he's the real thing. Liberal pundits, eschewing the "religious right," want America to stay fixated on "Evil-and-Water:" intolerance (meaning anything not embracing philosophical relativism), bigotry (meaning anything that says "You can do wrong"), and injustice (meaning the absence of social welfare). This incredibly watered down evil is a slap in the face to victims of real violence and hate. And that is obvious as long as Moussaoui is alive and reminding us of it. I worry about folks like Tony Hendra, who, instead of finding time and energy to warn the world of the reality of evil personified in terrorists like Moussaoui , decides that Christophobia hasn't yet lost its originality: Pseudo-Christians pay lip-service to Christ's forgiveness and mercy but it's only for the pseudo-Christians. It's terror that holds them in line. Fundamentalist terror. Terror of Christ's judgment, the terror Christ will wreak when he comes (which could be as soon as Tuesday) to kill billions of Falwell's and Dobson's and Robertson's enemies, starting with Barney Frank, Susan Sarandon, NPR, every Muslim on earth and all of Huffpost. Their sweetest dream is inconceivable slaughter and pain, they preach on it every Sabbath, the Left Behind books (80 million sold) wallow in oceans of human blood. Unbelievable: in the face of Iran's self-titled nuclear "gift from God," Mr. Hendra still finds time to saddle the "real" sin upon Christians. Is this not unnerving? Has the social left lost all perception of reality? Is this how liberals see the world: in shades of intense black and white, much more so than the people they decry? People like Moussaoui remind us what real perversion is. The Left wants us to believe that the only great threat facing America is not murderers looking forward to a virgin-rich afterlife, but our domestic terrorists - Christians. "No, these Christians don't do it with guns," they may say," although they would like too. They use the hideous guise of Scripture and free speech to blanket their (insert something here)-phobia. If they could, they would institute witch-burning, gay-stoning theocracy. This is the evil we fight! We don't need the quotes to prove our point!! We have Fred Phelps! We have George Wallace! Christian Gestapo rolls on!!"Pathetic. By the way, you should beware of children's movies that teach "hateful religion."Chronicles of Narnia , or Zacarias Moussaoui? Which one poses the real threat?Pretty easy question, no?

Samuel James is currently a college student in Kentucky. He acts as a managing editor for the Political Inquirer weblog.

State Educational Board Changes History Reference

Sam James — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:58:13 EDT

The Kentucky Board of Education has passed regulations introducing new terms for divisions of history in classroom curriculum. The new denotations "BCE" ("Before Common Era") and "CE" ("Common Era") are to be added in textbooks alongside the traditional "B.C" and "A.D." The Lexington Herald-Leader says that the new periods will look something like this: "500 A.D./C.E." The proposed changes will still have to be voted on though.This absurd recommendation promises to be a hotbed of controversy, especially on the wheels of some flag-banning in San Diego and other cities. What I don't understand about this idea is why this change is so necessary. Plurality and tolerance have nothing to do with the way we denote history in such a benign manner.It seems inevitable that the eventual conclusion is the striking of "B.C" and "A.D" from all public school curriculums. As far as I know, no school is required to let students know what these abbreviations actually mean. So the issue appears not to be that students and parents are complaining about indoctrination, but that an elite few see something wrong with the very hinted existence of the word "Christ" and "Lord."And that, my friends, is real intolerance.

Samuel James is currently a college student in Kentucky. He acts as a managing editor for the Political Inquirer weblog.

A Message To Feminists

Sam James — Thu, 6 Apr 2006 08:33:27 EDT

To whom it may concern:I am a male citizen of the United States. As such, I realize that this may immediately disqualify me in the eyes of some from discoursing on modern feminism. However, I would urge any such minds to remain open to what I, as a citizen, son, brother, and human, share here. Please understand that I intend to avoid any reckless generalizations while likewise observing and dissecting visible facts. I am first and foremost a reporter; facts mold opinion, not vice versa.In light of that, allow me to share some facts about modern-day American feminism. It appears, at least to this mind, that the prominent movement, which was at first concerned with the equal treatment and employment of the female sex, has now evolved into a confusing and self-deprecating left-wing smear machine. A casual listen to the leaders and captains of American feminism reveals a deep misunderstanding of what really benefits women. Worse, there is, in many instances, growing sexism on the side of these activists toward the male gender. In short, what is being revealed on a daily basis is an illogical and completely unsubstantiated vitriol towards all things not deemed "equalizing."It is worthy of note that today's prominent feminist organizations support abortion. While highly political in scope, the abortion debate has more intimate connotations. First of all, let us claim enough intellectual integrity to denounce those who say they support "choice," not actually abortion. This is a fundamentally contradicted worldview; feminists do not support the right of an employer to choose to pay less to female workers. Nor do they support the right of a male to "choose" to rape a female. They (correctly) believe both are morally wrong and, therefore, must not be tolerated. So if for nothing else but the sake of consistency, let those who identify themselves as "pro-choice" admit they are so because they see nothing wrong with it.With that established, let us observe more. According to its own statement, the Feminist Majority Foundation seeks to "improve women's lives." We can agree that this is a worthy goal. However, one can easily be a little conflicted when trying to reconcile this goal with the group's aggressive pro-choice rhetoric. I am disturbed after hearing these two statements, and then reading a state-commissioned report on the adverse affects of abortion on many women in South Dakota (which recently banned abortion, a move almost totally panned by the feminist groups). I won't recite what the report documents because it deserves to be read, not just quoted. Yet the lengthy document has received precious little attention from the FMF. Why? Wouldn't you agree that what women say hurts them should at least be considered heavily? The fact that no such attempt at consideration has (to the public, at any rate) occurred within feminist groups is more than a little confusing.But feminist groups across the USA appear to be ignorant of more than one threat to women's health. There is another slithery anti-woman culprit out there, and he's on the magazine rack at your local grocery store. And your television set. And your computer screen. Yes, I am referring to smut, or pornography; images that encourage men to view females as valuable only in their sexuality and defeats the spirit of women who don't look exactly like the paper-thin models. These widely available magazines, shows, movies, sites, and ads accomplish their mission brilliantly. Have we forgotten the admission of Ted Bundy? Porn is not trivial. In fact, we have evidence that it is brutally crucial. I am offended by the stores that tell me women are good for one thing - and whisper to my sisters that if they don't "have it," they're no good. Why aren't you feminists angered too? Not one link on NOW.com to "Stop Porn NOW!" Instead, what I find is "The Truth About George," "Equal Marriage," and "Demand Katrina Aid." What? This was supposed to be for and about women, not another moveon.org.The evidence mounts against modern feminism, but it continues on. The champions of women's rights of old were out to eliminate sexism. But what happens when today's women's rightists evolve into the very sexists that their predecessors fought? It's happening. Some frightening examples are found in a rally at New Hampshire University last year. The author, Shannon O'Neil (I assume a female), documents this stirring speech: "Hello, my name is Mary Man-Hating-Is-Fun," one participant said. "I am 23 years old, and I am what a feminist looks like. Ever since I learned to embrace my feminist nature, I found great joy in threatening men's lives, flicking off frat brothers and plotting the patriarchy's death. I hate men because they are men, because I see them for what they are: misogynistic, sexist, oppressive and absurdly pathetic beings who only serve to pollute and contaminate this world with war, abuse, oppression and rape." It gets even worse across the Atlantic. Stanley Kurtz observes some really hateful feminists in Sweden, where political parties are constructed with one overriding platform: feminism. ..the government's women's shelter network had printed excerpts from the "SCUM Manifesto" (Society for Cutting Up Men), penned by a radical feminist in the late 1960s. The SCUM Manifesto urges women to "destroy the male sex" by using modern science to insure that only female children are born. SCUM goes on to say: "To call a man an animal is to flatter him: he's a machine, a walking dildo." Asked by the film-maker if she agreed, Von Wachenfeldt said, "Yes, man is an animal. Don't you think so?"The Feminist Initiative had become "much worse" than the traditional patriarchal organizations it was meant to replace, said one. In other words, "man tax" advocate and de facto leader, Gudrun Schyman, was in control, purging the "moderates" (themselves quite radical by American standards) and siding with the radicals. The entertainment at the conference further radicalized the party's image, particularly the rapturous applause for a song that went, "F***ing man, we're going to chop you to bits."And so this is my message to feminists who confuse their priorities: we see you, and we wish you would see yourselves. Many worthy women are awaiting worthy efforts, and not receiving them. Please consider our objections, and act in the way that would best benefit those whom you consider yourselves to be serving.

Samuel James is currently a college student in Kentucky. He acts as a managing editor for the Political Inquirer weblog.