Summing Up Some Politically Incorrect Positions

Dinesh D’Souza, one of my heroes, is usually credited with popularizing the term, “political correctness”. He explains in his book, “Letters To A Young Conservative”, that “political correctness is about pretending, about publicly insisting that something is true, when we know privately that it isn’t, about shutting down people who won’t conform to the prevailing orthodoxy”. I have to stretch this formal definition to cover two of my three examples below, but in all three areas liberals certainly like to shut people up who disagree with them.

The politically correct positions on manmade global warming is that it is happening and is the result of man’s nefarious activities, especially those of Americans; the PC position on macroevolution (neoDarwinism) is that it explains the origin and development of all life, with no exceptions; and the PC position on boys and girls is that they are exactly the same in all important aspects.

MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING
No-one seriously disputes the fact that the world seems to be in a warming phase, even though the data on which this conclusion is based is highly suspect, given the fact that we do not really even know what the average temperature of Massachusetts is right now. The science of computer-modeling, on which the conclusion that warming is due to the production of manmade greenhouse gases, is also a science that is suspect because it is in its infancy. But even accepting the data as reliable and valid, leads to the conclusion that this warming phase is a cycle that has been repeated over and over again over history, that there were many periods when the world was much hotter than it is now, and that the long term trend line may actually be a cooling one. We are, in fact, just coming out of what many scientists refer to as the “little ice age”. As far as CO2 and methane production is concerned, recent studies from reputable sources suggest that greatly increased plant growth across the planet is the prime result of increasing levels of harmless CO2 gas and that a large portion of the methane gas we see is produced by this increased abundance of all plants.

When you put all this together with the suspicion that many or even most of the Europeans and Canadians clamoring for US compliance with their demands are the same socialists who despise us for our power, our prosperity and our independence, and who try in many ways to cut us down to their size, you end up resisting their hysteria.

DARWINISM VS. INTELLIGENT DESIGN VS. CREATIONISM
I recognize at least five main schools of thought in this area: 1. Creationists who believe the story of Genesis is literally true, and that the earth is relatively young, 2. Creationists who believe that evolution, both micro and macro, is just the unfurling of God’s plan, 3. Intelligent Design (ID) proponents who are coy about who the designer is, and want ID taught as the science they believe it is, 4. ID
proponents (like me), who believe that some undirected evolution takes place, but that God is the overall designer; who want children to be taught evolutionary biology, but told that Darwinism has some flaws, and that much of life’s workings is still a mystery, and 5. Darwinists who believe that life originated and all life forms appeared and developed through random changes that were favorable to their survival.

According to polls, most Americans belong to schools 1 and 2. Clearly the scientific establishment and scientism (the secular religion of the USA) accept no viewpoint except school 5. In fact, attempts by ID proponents to state their case are met with hostility, threats and even physical violence. What the Darwinists ought to realize is that time is against them, as each new discovery in microbiology exposes more and more of the sham of Darwinism.

BOYS AND GIRLS AND THEIR DIFFERENCES
It’s a given today that when successful conservative activists, like David Horovitz, Ann Coulter or Bernard Goldberg attempt to speak at invited college functions, they are physically attacked by leftist students and need police escorts. You just don’t see this happen on the other side (although I admit to carrying a sign that said “Murderer” at a Janet Reno appearance, and David Duke is on his own). Last year, though, marked a new low in academia when feminist faculty members (supported by subjugated male associates) castigated the president of Harvard College when he suggested that innate differences between males and females might explain their different attitudes and accomplishments in mathematics and hard sciences. The faculty organized a revolt against poor Dr. Summers, issued a statement of ‘no confidence’ and tried to get him fired. This is really a wonderful example of free speech, of the exploring of ideas, and of the way a great university is supposed to function. Dr. Summers finally bought off these leftist fascists with a series of humiliating apologies for having raised the possibility.

The real problem with all of this is that there are considerable differences between boys and girls, and the early education of boys is beginning to suffer greatly due to political correctness.

“WASHINGTON, DC -- Leading experts on research into brain differences between boys and girls, told a National Press Club luncheon crowd on Friday the 15th that biology -- not social construction -- explains sex differences. This has significant implications for both education and the workplace….

The refusal of the education system to accept what science says about boys and girls is having devastating effects on children, especially boys, the panelists warned. "The problem with [popular feminist] dogma is that it gives enormous latitude to educators who want to tamper with children’s gender identities," said Christina Hoff Sommers, W.H. Brady Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of The War Against Boys.

This dogma has inspired activist-educators to take on the challenge of resocializing little boys to be more like little girls.

Tiger concluded by echoing Sommers. "We’re now trying to solve the problem of young males by saying that they’re essentially young females," he said. "What is happening though is that boys do less well in school and they don’t go on to college as often.”