Igniting debate: School scrubs photo of professors burning book

• 

  San Jose State University's Dr. Alison Bridger holds a lit match beneath a book that claims global warming is "natural" as assistant professor Craig Clements looks on last month. The photograph has since been removed from the university's website. (SJSU.edu)

What could prompt two college professors to burn a book? Disagreement with the contents, of course.

Two San Jose State University professors took a picture as they held a match to a book that takes on the idea of global warming, and the photo landed on an official school website until some realized the idea of academics burning books is not exactly scholarly. The image depicted Alison Bridger, a professor and chairwoman of the university’s department of meteorology and climate science, holding a lit match beneath “The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania” as the 312-page paperback was held by assistant professor Craig Clements.

“This week we received a deluge of free books from the Heartland Institute,” the original caption read, according to an archived version of the webpage. “ … Shown above, Drs. Bridger and Clements test the flammability of the book.”

“The Department of Meteorology and Climate Science ... regrets what was clearly an ill-conceived attempt at satire."

- San Jose State University, Department of Meteorology and Climate Change

The picture and the accompanying caption, which was posted late last month, were later removed from the university’s servers after a popular climate change website, Watts Up With That?, noticed it and referenced Fahrenheit 451, the 1953 novel by Ray Bradbury in which books are outlawed and widely burned.

“When I first got the tip on this, I thought to myself ‘nobody can be this stupid to photograph themselves doing this’ but, here they are, right from the San Jose State University Meteorology Department web page,” blogger Anthony Watts wrote on Thursday.

Watts also included links to the university’s meteorology and climate change department, as well as phone numbers and an email address to contact school officials.

A day later, on Friday, department officials acknowledged the photograph and apologized to those who voiced their concerns.

“The Department of Meteorology and Climate Science has removed the material in question from its website, and regrets what was clearly an ill-conceived attempt at satire,” the website read. “Please be assured the university does not condone book burning for any reason.”

Messages left with Bridger and Clements early Wednesday were not immediately returned. A university spokeswoman later told FoxNews.com that the school would have no further comment on the matter.

Related Stories

US troops may face administrative punishment for Koran burnings at US base in Afghanistan

Pastor to Host Halloween Bible-Burning Event

View the original article here

Gun debate won't end until there is respect on both sides

• 

• • 

    Bipartisan gun control compromise may be too close to call

  • 

    Manchin defends gun deal co-authored with Toomey

  • 

    State police confiscate wrong man’s guns, blame county clerk

This week the Senate is debating gun control, and we’ll see whether calmer heads can prevail. As I said in Fox News Opinion once before, the gun control debate is fundamentally a culture debate, dominated by extreme voices on both sides.

Senators Joe Manchin III (D-W. Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) have compromised on an amendment that expands background checks to gun shows and online sales. The bill wisely prohibits creating a gun registry. 

Not only is a gun registry already illegal, but it would be foolish to allow the government to track every gun owner. 

Gawker illustrated this when it published a list of “all the a**holes who own guns in New York City.” Later, the upstate New York newspaper The Journal News printed a similar list.

The dramatic behavior of Gawker and The Journal News hurts the gun-control cause. Shaming gun owners will bolster resistance to all proposals, reasonable or not. As the culture debate rages on, Democrats and their supporters cannot continue to demonize and misunderstand gun owners.

As the culture debate over guns rages on, Democrats and their supporters cannot continue to demonize and misunderstand gun owners.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg laughably tried to bridge the culture gap with ads featuring a stereotyped gun enthusiast – identified by his rural setting, pickup truck, and Cabela’s-inspired wardrobe – whose finger is wrapped around the shotgun’s trigger, violating one of the fundamental tenets of gun safety.

Gun owners also feel exasperated when elected officials show their ignorance of guns. Recently, Diane DeGette (D-Co.) seemed not to know that gun magazines are reusable, echoing the famous description by Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) of a barrel shroud as the “shoulder thing that goes up.”

A few weeks ago, actor Jim Carrey released a satirical video called “Cold Dead Hand” on the website Funny or Die. Carrey places himself on the set of “Hee Haw,” resorting once again to the tired cliché that gun-rights supporters are ignorant yokels. He goes on to attack the size of gun-owners’ manhoods, and close the video with a one-finger salute.

Carrey previously established the communication baseline of this debate by taking to Twitter to call gun-rights supporters “heartless” and saying that those who purchased an “assault rifle” after Newtown have “very little left in their body and soul worth protecting.”

Carrey’s stereotyping of gun-rights supporters, and his rage at those who resist suggested reforms are perfect examples of “gun disgust,” the term I used in my previous piece to describe those who give guns the same emotional response as a dirty public restroom. Under this view, guns contaminate society, and thus deaths by guns are somehow worse than deaths by other instruments.

Swimming pools are far more lethal than “assault weapons,” yet I don’t see Jim Carrey tweeting insults at pool owners (perhaps because he is one). 

According to the FBI, all rifles killed 323 people in 2011. “Assault weapons” are a subset of rifles and thus killed less than 323 (unfortunately, the data is not deep enough to say how much less). By comparison, 137 children under the age of 15 died in swimming pools and spas in the summer of 2012 alone.

So should Mr. Carrey make a new video slamming swimming pool owners as purveyors of death? No, because that kind of rhetoric has no place in efforts to protect our children. We cannot bridge the cultural divide until a respectful tone is adopted. That goes for both sides.

Gun-rights supporters need to stop characterizing all gun-control advocates as ultimately wanting to “ban guns.” Most do not. For gun control advocates, it would help to disavow the rhetoric of people like Jim Carrey and to treat gun-rights supporters with respect rather than elitist disdain.

If both sides can do this, some common ground might be possible. Expanding background checks and allowing for better mental health record-keeping could keep guns out of the hands of some dangerous people.

Yet gun-control supporters should also acknowledge that, in many places around the country, the National Instant Background Check System is far from instant, and there are many people mistakenly prohibited or unduly delayed in purchasing firearms. Although some gun-control advocates cannot fathom why someone would want to own a firearm, they should sympathize that such problems are a real cost to those who enjoy owning and using firearms.

Those are the steps to productive gun-law reform, and none of them involve calling anyone “heartless.”

Trevor Burrus is a Research Fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies.

Related Stories

Background check plan in trouble as Dems call votes on gun bill

View the original article here

NSA data center front and center in debate over liberty, security and privacy

• 

Twenty-five miles due south of Salt Lake City, a massive construction project is nearing completion.  The heavily secured site belongs to the National Security Agency.

"The spy center" -- that's what some of the locals like Jasmine Widmer, who works at Bluffdale's sandwich shop, told our Fox News team as part of an eight month investigation into data collection and privacy rights that will be broadcast Sunday at 9 p.m. ET called "Fox News Reporting: Your Secrets Out.”

The NSA says the Utah Data Center is a facility for the intelligence community that will have a major focus on cyber security. The agency will neither confirm nor deny specifics. Some published reports suggest it could hold 5 zettabytes of data. (Just one zettabyte is the equivalent of about 62 billion stacked iPhones 5's-- that stretches past the moon.

One man we hoped would answer our questions, the current director of the NSA General Keith Alexander, declined Fox News's requests to sit down for an interview, so we stopped by the offices of a Washington think tank, where Alexander was speaking at a cyber security event last year.

Asked if the Utah Data Center would hold the data of American citizens,  Alexander said, "No...we don't hold data on U.S. citizens," adding that the NSA staff "take protecting your civil liberties and privacy as the most important thing that they do, and securing this nation."

But critics, including former NSA employees, say the data center is front and center in the debate over liberty, security and privacy.

"[It] raises the most serious questions about the vast amount of data that could be kept in one place for many, many different sources,"  Thomas Drake told Fox News.  

Drake -- who worked at the NSA from Aug. 2001 to Aug. 2008 and was unsuccessfully prosecuted on espionage charges -- says Americans should be concerned about letting the government go too far in the name of security.

"It's in secret so you don't really know," Drake explained. "It's benign, right. If I haven't -- and if I haven't done anything wrong it doesn't matter. The only way you can have perfect security is have a perfect surveillance state. That's George Orwell. That's 1984. That's what that would look like."

Fellow NSA whistleblower Bill Binney, who worked at the NSA for nearly four decades, says it's about the possibility that the government's stunning new capacity to collect, store and analyze data could be abused.

"It's really a-- turnkey situation, where it could be turned quickly and become a totalitarian state pretty quickly," he said. "The capacities to do that is being set up. Now it's a question of if we get the wrong person in office, or if certain people set up their network internally in government, they could make that happen quickly."

According to NSA's chief compliance officer John Delong, whose job is to make sure the laws and policies designed to protect the privacy of U.S. persons is being enforced, part of the frustration is that the rules are specific and secret.

"I think that's sort of the collision, is you have classified rules," DeLong explained during an hour long meeting with Fox News at the NSA. "You now have a somewhat more public data center,"  

"These aren't just, like, general policy pronouncements of 'You shall protect privacy.'" he said.  

DeLong added that another misconception is that there is only internal oversight, when he says there is "a tremendous amount of external oversight" from the Justice Department, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and others.

In an email, Vanee' Vines, a public information officer for the NSA, said that the Utah Data Center will be "a state-of-the-art facility designed to support the Intelligence Community’s efforts to further strengthen and protect the nation. NSA is the executive agent for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and will be the lead agency at the center.”

Because the Utah Data Center is a "secure facility" and you cannot go inside without the needed security clearances, Fox News rented a helicopter and took to the skies, where the depth and breadth of the Utah Center were stunning.

The aerial video footage is exclusive to the Fox News investigation and posted here.  Two weeks after our filming, the helicopter pilot reported to our Fox News team that he had been visited by the FBI on a "national security matter."

The pilot said, according to the FBI agents, that the NSA had taken photos of the helicopter once it made several flyovers.  These photos allowed the NSA to identify the make and manufacturer of the helicopter in California who, in turn, told the NSA who operates it in the Salt Lake City area.

The FBI wanted to know if we had the proper air space clearances to flyover the site, which the Fox News team did.   Satisfied that the pilot was not flying "terrorists" over the site, the questioning concluded.  While the pilot passed along the Fox News contact information, there was no further inquiries.

Binney said the helicopter incident "showed the capability of the U.S. government to use information to trace people, their relationship to others and to raise suspicions about their activities and intentions."

Related Stories

Largest gathering of offensive hackers converges on Miami

View the original article here

Senate immigration plan could be ready by Thursday, followed by weeks of debate

By Mike Emanuel

Published April 09, 2013

FoxNews.com

The immigration reform legislation could be released in the Senate as early as Thursday, followed by a weeks of debate and amendments, a congressional aide told Fox News on Tuesday.

A bipartisan group of senators has been working on the legislation since early January.

Members had a major breakthrough last month when the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce agreed on a plan for work visas for low-skilled laborers. However, the group still faces other hurdles before reaching an agreement, including determining to what extent U.S. borders must be secured before creating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. There are roughly 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

The extended process, the aide said, was intended to win support from Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, a key member of the so-called Gang of Eight senators.

Rubio has called for an extended debate and amendment process after the legislation is introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee to allow related parties to have their say.

The aide said the senators had a good discussion Tuesday with committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

“We are optimistic that we will be able to introduce legislation soon,” the aide said. “Chairman Leahy has agreed to hold a hearing as soon as possible after the legislation is introduced and has promised to have unlimited debate and amendments during the committee mark-up.”

Rubio spokesman Alex Conant said the senator “has said from the outset that we will not rush this process, and that begins at the committee level. … It’s good that senators and the public will have weeks to study this proposal.”

View the original article here

Fact vs. fiction in the gun control debate

• 

• • 

    President puts pressure on Congress over gun control

  • 

    Obama takes gun control message to CT

  • 

    Newtown parent: More gun control is not the answer

Will Senate Democrats be able to end debate on their new gun control bill Tuesday night? President Obama says that it is “not right” to continue the debate. But he might be more afraid that Senators will point out all of his false claims and reveal the gun control bill’s dangers.

Mr. Obama got it all backwards in his April 3rd speech in Colorado:

The president kept claiming this week and last week that: “as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases take place without a background check” and that But both statistics are false.

There is no real scientific evidence among criminologists and economists that background checks actually reduce crime.

Start with the 40 percent figure. That number comes from a very small study covering purchases during 1991 to 1994. Not only is that two decades-old data, but it covered sales before the federal Brady Act took effect on February 28, 1994. The act required federally licensed dealers to perform background checks.

And what's more, Mr. Obama conveniently forgets that the researchers gave this number (well, actually 36%, not his rounding up to 40%) for all transfers, not just for guns sold. Most significantly, the vast majority of these transfers involved within-family inheritances and gifts.

Counting only guns that were sold gives a very different perspective, with only 14 percent not actually going through federally licensed dealers. But even that is much too high as there were biases in the survey. For example, two-thirds of federally licensed dealers at the time were so-called “kitchen table” dealers who sold gun out of their homes and most buyers surveyed were likely unaware these individuals were indeed licensed.

By the way, that survey also found that all gun-show sales went through federally licensed dealers. If President Obama really trusts the study, he should stop raging about the “gun show loophole.”

The truth is, the databases the government uses to determine eligibility for gun purchases are rife with errors. 

This is the same problem experienced with the “No Fly” list. Remember the five times that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy was “initially denied” flights because his name was on the anti-terror “no fly” list? His name was just too similar to someone that we really did want to keep from flying. By Obama’s method of counting, that means the “no fly” list stopped five flights by terrorists.

For gun purchases, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives dropped over 94 percent of “initial denials” after just the first preliminary review. The annual National Instant Criminal Background Check System report explains that these cases were dropped either because the additional information showed that the wrong people had been stopped or because the covered offenses were so many decades old that the government decided not to prosecute. At least a fifth of the remaining 6 percent were still false positives.

All these denials mean delays for many law-abiding gun buyers. Although this is merely an inconvenience for most, initial denials cause dangerous delays for people who suddenly, legitimately need a gun for self-defense, such as a woman being stalked by an ex-boyfriend or spouse.

Beyond the crashes in the computers doing the checks and the initial denials, another 6 percent of checks fail to be completed within two hours, with most delays winding up taking three days.

President Obama ignores what happens to those who suddenly feel threatened. A gun really can make a huge difference in being able to defend against assailants. 

Indeed, my own research suggests these delays from the background check system likely increase violent crime, even if ever so slightly. Perhaps not too surprisingly, rape appears to be the crime most sensitive to these delays.

Furthermore, there is no real scientific evidence among criminologists and economists that background checks actually reduce crime. In fact, a 2004 National Academy of Sciences panel concluded that the Brady background checks didn't reduce any type of violent crime. Nor have other later studies found a beneficial effect.

The number of criminals stopped by the checks is also quite small. In 2010, there were over 76,000 initial denials, but only 44 of those were deemed worthy for prosecution and only 13 individuals were convicted. Even those 13 cases don’t tend to be the “dangerous” criminals Obama claims are being stopped.

The delays have other consequences. States that have applied background checks to sales by private individuals have seen around a 20 percent drop in the number of gun shows, eliminating for many poorer people a relatively inexpensive source of buying guns. For gun shows, which usually only last two days, even a three-day delay means that no sale will be made.

The fees in the Senate bill on those getting background checks on gun transfers are not trivial, ranging from $35 to $50 in most states and rising as high as $125 in the District of Columbia.

This effective tax will price poor blacks -- the people most likely to be victims of violent crime -- out of being able to buy a gun for self-defense. Americans might also not be ready for a national registry.

Expanded background checks might intuitively seem to make sense. But how laws work in theory is often different from how they work in the real world. Unless the databases somehow are dramatically improved, expanded background checks are likely to do more harm than good.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a  FoxNews.com contributor. An economist and former chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission, he is also a leading expert on guns. He is the author of several books, including "More Guns, Less Crime." His latest book is "At the Brink: Will Obama Push Us Over the Edge? (Regnery Publishing 2013)." Follow him on Twitter@johnrlottjr.

Related Stories

Senators work on possible breakthrough on gun background checks

View the original article here

Nebraska lawmakers debate reducing early voting days

LINCOLN, Neb. –  Nebraska lawmakers on Wednesday began whether to reduce the number of days registered voters may cast their ballots in person.

A bill sponsored by Sen. Scott Lautenbaugh would reduce how long before an election voters can cast their ballots, from 35 days to 25. Lautenbaugh said the change is necessary because election officials need more time to program specialized voting machines used by visually impaired voters. Mail-in and absentee ballots would still be accepted 35 days before an election.

The 2002 Help America Vote Act requires the Automark voting machines to be at precincts to assist voters with disabilities in casting their ballots privately.

Nebraskans for Civic Reform filed a complaint with the secretary of state on behalf of a blind woman after she was unable to vote because the machines weren't set up two days after early voting polls opened last year in Lincoln. The woman, Fatos Floyd, said Lautenbaugh's solution is not what she had in mind. She opposes the bill and said she doesn't want others to lose early voting days because of her complaint.

"For me as a blind person, it is a big deal," Floyd said. "If there is a right and we don't fight for it, our rights will be eroded."

Election officials argued in support of the bill at a committee hearing in February, saying they don't have enough time between the Sept. 15 deadline for ballot certification and the start of early voting on Oct. 1 to program the Automark machines.

Lautenbaugh said Wednesday that Automark machines have to be programed with the paper ballots, which can take a long time because every county has a different ballot. He said 25 days of early voting is still above the national average, which is 22 days.

"This is a common-sense solution to avoid an allegedly discriminatory situation," he said.

But several lawmakers said moving the date back 10 days isn't the best solution.

Sen. Russ Karpisek of Wilber suggested changing the ballot certification dates, negotiating with the company to finish programing the voting machines earlier or working with a different voting machine manufacturer. He said the senators try to get more people to vote, but then pass laws that make it harder.

"Just take away 10 days doesn't feel right to me," he said. "I think there has to be a different way to go about it."

Lawmakers are schedule to continue debating the bill Thursday afternoon.

View the original article here

South Carolina becomes battleground in immigration debate

• 

As the Senate inches closer to a deal on immigration reform legislation, South Carolina is emerging as a major battleground in the debate. 

It's not because of South Carolina's location -- after all, it's not a border state. Rather, it's because South Carolina is home to Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican champion of reform and member of the bipartisan "Gang of 8" negotiating a draft bill, and Rep. Trey Gowdy, who chairs the House Immigration Subcommittee. Both will play an integral role in any reform legislation as it makes its way through Congress. 

"It's become ground zero," Graham said of the Palmetto State. "If you can sell it here, you can sell it anywhere. And the opponents of immigration reform see this as a test case." 

Which is why opponents of immigration reform have targeted South Carolina -- and Graham specifically -- with an ad campaign that plays the "job" card. The ad stokes concern that if given legal status, immigrants will steal American jobs. 

"The consequences of breaking immigration law is, you have to go home," said Roy Beck of Numbers USA. The group played an integral role in torpedoing immigration reform in 2007. "Everything about this says 'you don't have to go home.'  You get to stay here and you get to keep the jobs that you came here to steal." 

Graham and his House colleague dismiss the notion that illegal immigrants are taking jobs from unemployed Americans. 

"I would love for them to come join me the next time I have a conversation with my farmers," said Gowdy. "Because they advertise and post jobs and they can't get anyone to come except immigrant labor." 

Gowdy told Fox News the time has come for comprehensive immigration reform. And he is optimistic South Carolinians will buy in. 

"If there is one thing we have to do in South Carolina, it is convince our fellow citizens that this is the last time they're going to hear about this issue, problem, whatever word you want to use, in their lifetime." 

The two have powerful allies in the South Carolina business community, and among evangelical leaders who have launched an ad campaign to promote reform. 

Among the group is Richard Land of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. He insists there has been a sea change among religious conservatives regarding immigration reform. 

"They have come to understand that this in an intolerable situation that we have," Land told Fox News. "We have a broken system that needs to be fixed." 

While evangelical leaders are now on the same page with reform, the more difficult task is to effectively promote that position in neighborhood churches. One argument they make is that many illegal immigrants have become evangelicals and should be welcomed into the larger fold. 

The Republican Party would also like to welcome more immigrants -- particularly Hispanics -- into their ranks. In 2004, George W. Bush embraced immigration reform and captured 44 percent of the Hispanic vote. Last year, Mitt Romney talked of "self-deportation." He ended up with just 27 percent of the Hispanic vote. 

"If the Republican Party wants to remain a national party that can win national elections, it's going to have to get a significant portion of the Hispanic vote," Land told Fox News. 

Graham agreed. "We've gone from 44 percent to 27 percent of the Hispanic vote. Not because conservatism is bad -- it's because the rhetoric around immigration has tainted the Republican brand with the Hispanic community for no good reason. We're going to fix this problem." 

Gowdy cautions anyone who thinks the Republican Party is just one immigration reform deal away from turning the tide with Hispanic voters. 

"We're not," he told Fox News. 

But he does see the potential to change perceptions of the Republican Party among Hispanics, and open the door to a broader conversation. 

"When you don't think the politician talking to you likes you or cares about you, or cares about the people that you have something in common with, it's kind of hard to hear the rest of what they have to say," he said.

View the original article here

Plan to hand out free shotguns in Tucson stirs debate

• 

  File: June 19, 2010: Assorted shotguns are displayed on a table at a gun and knife show in White Plains, N.Y.,AP

A former mayoral candidate in Tucson, Ariz., is drawing heated criticism from Democrats after he launched a program this week to hand out free shotguns in high-crime neighborhoods. 

Shaun McClusky, who kicked off the program Monday, financed it with initial donor commitments of $12,000. He told FoxNews.com that with those private donations alone, he can arm and train 36 people -- and hopes to begin that process in 60 days. 

McClusky said he's already received more than a dozen responses from residents, "none of them negative, all of them positive." 

But with McClusky launching the gun handout program in the same area where former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in 2011, he's running into stiff resistance from Arizona officials. 

State Rep. Victoria Steele, who represents Tucson, called the program "plain lunacy."  

"Arizonans in Tucson and across the state are demanding that we reduce gun violence and create safer communities. Handing out shotguns is not a solution," she said in a written statement. 

House Minority Leader Chad Campbell called it "ideological extremism at its worst" and "a political gimmick that could have dangerous consequences." 

The program, though, is actually the brainchild of a master's student at the University of Houston. The student, Kyle Coplen, launched what he calls the Armed Citizen Project, a nonprofit that is handing out "defensive shotguns" for free in certain neighborhoods of Houston and studying the effect on crime rates. 

Reached Thursday, Coplen said it's too early to tell whether there is an effect -- but he said he intends to expand the program to 15 cities by the end of the year. Right now, the program is only in Houston and Tucson, with McClusky's help. 

"His idea's great," McClusky said Thursday. "So I took his idea and I ran with it here in Tucson." 

McClusky said he's working with a gun shop that will help procure the shotguns and run the background checks and another school that will help conduct training classes. He said he's identified three high-crime neighborhoods and estimates it will cost $300 to $350 to arm each person who signs up. 

He stressed that everyone who applies for the free shotgun will have to go through the standard background check. 

"Everyone will go through a background check. There is no getting around it," he said. 

As for the criticism, he said the initiative is a product of the city council's failure to adequately fund public safety. 

"The Democrats are the ones to blame. ... They're the ones that fail to fund public safety," he said. "They are failing the citizens. The citizens are reacting." 

But others expressed concern about the unintended consequences of such a program. 

Councilwoman Regina Romero told the Arizona Daily Star that the plan to proliferate shotguns is "reckless." 

"Why doesn't he hand them out around his neighborhood?" she asked. 

The project comes amid a tense debate regarding the need for new gun laws, in the wake of mass shootings in Arizona, Colorado and most recently Connecticut. 

Nearby Colorado recently passed a package of firearms measures that continue to be fiercely debated. In Washington, the Senate is preparing to vote on a package of measures that address gun trafficking and background checks -- another proposal to renew the national assault weapons ban will likely get a vote, but faces heavy resistance.

View the original article here

Sheryl Sandberg, Marissa Mayer and the great mommy debate

• 

• • 

    Is Sheryl Sandberg ignoring maternal instinct?

  • 

    Facebook exec's advice on feminism out of touch?

  • 

    Gasparino: Facebook's Sandberg Received Advice from Fink

I've been reluctant to weigh in on the Mommy Wars, since I'm of that generation of trailblazers that didn't dwell on the career/family/fulfillment balance.

We were like explorers in the uncharted wilderness in the 1970s and 80s. There were no maps to guide us, so we just set off in the direction that made the most sense and did adjustments along the way.

Some of us went all-in for education and career, others opted out of the career path to be stay-at-home moms. Still others tried to alternate career and kids, or do the juggling act of doing it all at the same time.

Understand that from about age 25 to 50 you are going to feel guilty.

As I watch the younger generation of women wrestle with Great Mommy Debate, I think it is worth taking a step back to acknowledge the reason there are so many voices -- often attacking each other -- is because there are so many options. What do women do when they're not sure about their choices? Agonize! Feel Guilty! And, if all else fails, criticize others!

I speak to a lot of women's groups and even if I'm billed to talk about foreign policy, I end up, like Sheryl Sandberg, taking questions about that career/family/fulfillment balance.

My advice?

First, understand that from about age 25 to 50 you are going to feel guilty. If you haven't gotten married or had children, you'll feel guilty that you've missed out on the most important things of life. If you've gone from career girl to stay-at-home mom, you'll feel guilty that you've given up. If you drop your kids off at daycare on the way to work, you'll feel guilty that you're a bad mother. And if you have to leave the office early to rush a sick child to the doctor, you'll feel guilty that you're a slacker.

But guess what, ladies? Feeling guilty for 25 years isn't nearly as bad as feeling frustrated or unfilled or helpless or dependent for an entire lifetime, as so many women have for generations. Guilt is the price you pay for options.

Second, understand that every woman in America is in on the juggling act. If she's in her twenties she's thinking about how she will juggle it all when it's her turn. If she's in her thirties or forties, she's doing the juggling. And if she's in her fifties and sixties, she's watching her daughters and daughters-in-laws juggle.

Third, understand that there is no one, right way to do this. What works for Sheryl Sandberg, or Hillary Clinton, or June Cleaver doesn't necessarily work for you. You've got to find your own way, and you've got lots of options to choose from. Just don't expect to put your head on the pillow every night and think, "Wow, what a great day I've had in my well-balanced life!" Expect to feel exhausted and guilty that the day just wasn't long enough to get it all done.

What has worked for me is to live my life in chapters. I've had the education-and-career chapter, then the wife-and-stay-at-home mom chapter, and now the career-again chapter. Along the way I've been blessed with a husband I adore, children and grandchildren I treasure, a brilliant education and careers that have let me make a difference. Not every chapter in my book has had them all these elements. But when all the chapters are finished, and I close the book, I will have had them all. And when, I will lay my head down for the last time, I'll smile and say, "Wow, what a great and balanced life I've had."

Kathleen Troia "K.T." McFarland is a Fox News National Security Analyst and host of FoxNews.com's "DefCon 3." She is a Distinguished Adviser to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and served in national security posts in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. She wrote Secretary of Defense Weinberger’s November 1984 "Principles of War Speech" which laid out the Weinberger Doctrine. Be sure to watch "K.T." every Wednesday at 1 p.m. ET on FoxNews.com's "

K.T. McFarland

Related Stories

Sheryl Sandberg's 'Lean In' Philosophy Raises Eyebrows – And for Good Reason

Related Opinion

Sheryl Sandberg's misguided message

View the original article here

Anti-abortion law makes Arkansas ground zero in intensifying national debate

Arkansas has become ground zero in the battle over abortion rights and limitations in the country.

Just last week, lawmakers overrode Gov. Mike Beebe's veto of a law that will ban most abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy. Under the Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act, which is scheduled to go into effect later this summer, women seeking an abortion who are at least 12 weeks pregnant will be required to undergo an ultrasound. If a heartbeat is detected, the abortion would not be permitted. 

The law includes jail time and fines for doctors who violate the law but no penalties for women who seek or undergo an illegal abortion.

State Sen. Jason Rapert, the Republican who authored the law, says he thinks lawmakers struck the right balance. He notes the measure includes exceptions for "rape, incest, to save the life of the mother and to prevent irreparable harm to the mother's health, in addition to giving an exception for fatal fetal anomalies."

In deciding to veto the legislation, Beebe cited concerns over the constitutionality of the law, as well as the cost of defending it. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, notes that Arkansas is not alone on that front.

"There are so many battles in so many states that are very similar that I think the bulk of the law will, without question, make itself up to the [Supreme] Court," Dannenfelser said.

Pro-choice groups, citing Roe v. Wade and subsequent Supreme Court precedents, feel confident it's a fight they will win.

"The bill is clearly unconstitutional, clearly inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent," Louise Melling, the American Civil Liberties Union's deputy legal director, said. ACLU officials said they are planning to jointly file a legal challenge with the Center for Reproductive Rights before the Arkansas law is set to go into effect.

While the so-called "Heartbeat Law" is hashed out in court, Rapert also says he plans to introduce a measure that would ban state officials from allowing any state or federal funds from flowing to organizations that perform abortions, namely Planned Parenthood. 

If he succeeds, Arkansas would join a number of other states that have blocked funding to the family planning organization, including Colorado, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin.

View the original article here

Pentagon push to extend benefits to same-sex couples stirs debate

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has directed Pentagon personnel to immediately begin efforts to extend certain benefits to same-sex domestic partners of military members. But the move has sparked a heated debate, with critics arguing the policy gives special treatment to one class and winds up discriminating against others.

"I think this does qualify as discrimination against opposite sex couples who are essentially in the same position, unmarried by living together," said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow at the Family Research Council.

In its own 2010 report on the impact of repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy -- which banned gays from serving openly in the military -- the Pentagon warned against the scenario which is now playing out.  

"If ... the Department of Defense creates a new category of unmarried dependent or family member reserved only for same-sex relationships, the Department ... itself would be creating a new inequity -- between unmarried, committed same-sex couples and unmarried, committed opposite-sex couples," the report said.

The report goes on to state that the "new inequity," or even the perception of preferential treatment, would stand in stark contrast to the military's "ethic of fair and equal treatment."

But supporters of Panetta's policy move say it's all about equality -- primarily because same-sex couples have few options regarding legal marriage, while heterosexual couples have the right to marry in all U.S. states and territories.

"As long as it isn't an option for some loving, committed couples to actually get married, what the DOD is doing makes sense in trying to give those gay members of the military and their families the same benefits as other members of the military," said Elizabeth Wydra, chief counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center.

Skeptics think the issue goes much deeper.  

"This administration is using the military for social engineering," Sprigg said, adding, "I think it's significant that they're actually going beyond even what they said they'd do at the time that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' was repealed."

Panetta has noted that the looming legal fight over the Defense of Marriage Act could also lead to significant changes in Pentagon policies. The Supreme Court will hear arguments over the law's constitutionality on March 27.

View the original article here