"Women have achieved parity with men in most fields. You'd think feminists...would be celebrating but in many ways they've never been more despondent." - Christina Hoff Sommers

Quite illustrative, really, of a theory I've had. Previously I've thought of it in context of the civil rights movement. There is an activist class, the leadership of a movement. In feminism, it's NOW and the radical feminists. In the so-called civil rights movement it's Jesse Jackson and his ilk. In the past half century we can see amazing, almost unthinkable strides toward "parity" in both of these arenas. So much progress has been made...and we see an ever-increasing desperation among the radicals! It seems the closer they come to reaching the goals they set for themselves decades ago (as if they haven't already passed by those goals in many ways), the more bitter and aggressive they become. There are a number of possible reasons why. Perhaps some of the aging nags of NOW realize that their "independent" family-free life of activism was not as fulfilling as they imagined it. Perhaps they see more and more people nearing contentment with the progress made (and therefore spending their time and donations elsewhere). Perhaps the Reverend Jackson knows full well that if he declares victory against prejudice and starts speaking of the virtue of an America that has grown remarkably colourblind, especially on a relative scale, his coffers will dry up (who will need him around to play the race card then?) and no one but the history books will remember him. There is a drive towards self-preservation in all humans, and we should not be so naive to assume that these selfless activist heroes are truly dedicated to vanquishing the evils of racism or sexism. What pays the gas bill at Rev. Jackson's house? Racism. What pays for his nice suits? Racism. What pays for his luxury limo rides? You guessed it...

Likewise for feminists. As more and more women start to realize that doors are pretty much open to them (except for combat, dang it, what oppression that is!), feminism is rapidly fading into a footnote of history. And as their core issues melt away beneath them, the feminist leadership grasps for another issue (any issue!) to rally the troops and the fundraising with. Of course, you know as well as I do, that would be abortion. I'm not going to expound my views on that...an issue for another day perhaps, but that discussion is best suited to a more Socratic dialogue. But the feminist movement has become so fringey and radical, that basically they've turned into not only a pro-choice movement, but a pro-abortion movement, seeking to make abortions as common, easy, and available as possible. The enthusiasm with which they support, seek, and follow after the termination of unborn [children/tissue/foetuses/babies/sons or daughters/etc.] definately brings to mind Hitlerian parallels...they are the S.S. of the unborn.

OK, I'm going into it. It is a question of right. Right to choice...that's an interesting right!!! There is NEVER a blanket right of choice and any remotely aware thinker knows that. I don't have the right to choose to shoot you. I don't have the right to set off hand grenades in my back yard. But back up...why don't I have the right to shoot you? Clearly, because it infringes upon your rights. So why must my right be subjugated to yours? Because right to life trumps right to choice. It's a more important right, one of the fundamental rights we are granted by God (and yes, by the Constitution). You will not find the right of filicide anywhere in the Constitution.

There are so many, many ways to oppose abortion its ironic the country is so evenly split (if that indeed is the case). I mean, let's take a very humanistic societal viewpoint. When a mother decides to end her son or daughter's life before birth (for reasons of convenience, or fear, or whatever), she is not only depriving that child of life...she is depriving society that child! Her child will no longer be able to grow up and become a part of society. Think of the people most valuable in your life...realize that "choice" could have freely removed them from your life. That terminated child will no longer be able to become a good husband to a wife who now will never know him. With the millions upons millions of terminated children, think of how many of those could have grown up to become artists, musicians, scientists, teachers...or even just good friends, or hard workers, or loving parents. Sometimes I gloss over what a tragedy it is, as I tend to usually focus on the pure logic of an argument, but there is an immense sadness and tragedy about abortion. I know a lot of people like to bring up (as I think Goldberg called it) the Holy Trinity of pro-choicers: rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Those are rare cases, and I'm not adamant about those kind of things, and am not about to advocate a certain stance on them. I can empathize with both sides, allowing those rare-condition abortions, and outlawing it altogether (if a man is dying from kidney failure in a hospital, is it fair to kill another man against his will for kidneys to save him?). But the fact is those circumstances aren't in dispute. The vast, vast majority of abortions are convenience-based. Admittedly, that makes these women seem shallow, and it isn't always the case...fear is another major factor I'm sure. Life is hard, and rarely fair. But life is also sacred. It is so immensely ironic that we can have such a relaxed attitude about the dismemberment and debraining (there's probably a better word for that, but that's what happens) of children inside the womb...but as soon as they pop out, we as a nation would choke with disgust and outrage if babies were to be "put down" by their mothers.

Also ironic that the liberals who fight so hard to withhold even the most primal right from unborn children are usually the same people who fight for "animal rights". The manatee has rights but a human child does not?

I don't have any problem with freedom of choice. As pretty much a libertarian, I celebrate it and advocate it far more than most liberals I know. However, liberty has constraints, and when it infringes upon the liberty of others, especially such a core, essential right as, well, staying alive, then we cannot allow that freedom. Also, let's remember, freedom is not innately virtuous! It is a concept neither good nor bad in and of itself. Freedom to kill, freedom to steal, freedom to injure...none of those freedoms are desirable in a society.

End rant. Questions? Comments?

Still pondering, Dragunov versus HK91. The HK91 is probably better for home defense...its shorter size, powerful cartridge, and shock-action design make it the best thing short of a submachine gun. However, the Dragunov would be a great piece to take to the range...designed for sniper-like applications it is accurate. Not to mention exotic and beautiful! Hmmm. And I'm as yet unsure whether or not I would add a scope to the HK (or FN-FAL), because while I'd like a nice scoped gun to hone in some accuracy, scopes are not a good thing, again, in home defence. If I want quick and accurate shots at close to medium range, iron sights are the way to go. Perhaps if I get a big raise and a big tax refund, I can get a scoped Dragunov for the range and a bayonetted, iron-sighted HK for the bedroom, and retire the Enfield. I could also build a submachine gun (in semi-auto configuration, you federal agents, you!) with a parts kit and a reciever, but I've always had more love for the military rifles.