- The Washington Times - Monday, April 30, 2001

Unspeakable truth
"It has to rank high on the list of thoughts that cant be uttered in America — even when the evidence points to it, even when it at least should be an option considered in a wide-ranging public-policy discussion. Indeed, it is arguably the most politically incorrect statement today, certainly the most politically incorrect not having to do with race: Moms should stay at home… .
"Why is it so hard to admit that mothers are central to child-rearing, so important, in fact, that they should stay home when their kids are little? It probably has a lot to do with the problem liberals have admitting that biology sometimes is inescapable, that nature imposes certain obligations that cant be got around with clever alternate arrangements, including even family-leave policies.
"This gets to a broader point about contemporary liberalism. Its central value isnt compassion or anything noble like that, but convenience, especially when it comes to family issues. This is why abortion is so important. Why should anyone be burdened with an inconvenient child? And if liberals think awkwardly timed children can be sucked away into eternity, why would they think that mothers should have to go too far out of their way to nurture them once they are actually here?"
—Rich Lowry, writing on "Day Care PC," Thursday in National Review Online at www.nationalreview.com

Big 'Bridget'

"Ive actually dated girls like Bridget Jones and Zellweger is completely convincing in the role — or should that be rolls? Indeed, its so unusual to see a Hollywood actress bulk up to this extent that when my fiancee asked me what I thought of Zellwegers performance as we were leaving the cinema last week, I unthinkingly expressed amazement that shed put on so much weight.
"'I mean, she was really … big, I said.
"'You know, she only went up to a size 12, mused my fiancee, whod just read a piece on Zellweger in a celebrity magazine. 'Im a size 12. If it had been me up there on that screen instead of her, thats exactly what Id look like.
"'Er, yeah, I replied, a little too quickly, 'but the camera adds at least 10 pounds."
—Toby Young, writing on "Bridget Jonesing," in the April 17 issue of New York Press

College radical

"Think of Steve Forbes, Princeton Class of 70, and you dont exactly conjure up the image of a campus radical plotting to burn down the ROTC building.
Yet make no mistake about it: In supporting the fledgling James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton, Mr. Forbes has taken to the barricades to challenge the conformity on college campuses. The difference is that the aim of todays conservative radicals is to build universities up, not burn them down.
"Run by Robert George, Princetons McCormick professor of jurisprudence … the program somewhat demurely posits its mission as promoting scholarship in the areas of constitutional law and political thought. But that doesnt quite capture the flavor of the vernacular. 'We dont want to just teach the Great Books, says Prof. George. 'Were going to be aggressive about looking for debates. Our attitude is Bill Bennetts: "Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in?" …
"Mr. Forbes own experience is instructive. He withdrew donations to his alma mater after it bestowed a professorship on Peter Singer, an ethicist distinguished for his proposition that there is no moral distinction between man and animal, not to mention his frank advocacy, under certain circumstances, of infanticide. Mr. Forbes decision to pull his Princeton contributions was gutsy, given that he is also a trustee. But his is not a circle-the-wagons conservatism. To the contrary … Mr. Forbes belongs to that happy band of warriors who (like his friends at the Madison Program) believe their ideas will triumph if given even half a chnce.
—From "Question Authority," a Friday editorial in the Wall Street Journal

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide