Commentary

How Obama’s opposition to free trade raises unemployment

Leave a comment

From Investors Business Daily.

Excerpt:

…the president said all the right things Wednesday about boosting exports, opening markets and getting Congress to approve free-trade deals with Colombia, South Korea and Panama.

[…]But as good as the speech sounded, it was no more than a reiteration of statements Obama has already made, always promising to get on it, soon. If he wants these treaties passed, he should submit the deals already negotiated and let Congress vote, up or down.

[…]Thirty-nine House Democrats and virtually all the Republicans have indicated their support, and a host of others intend to vote “yes,” though they won’t say so.

That’s why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refuses to permit any vote on the Colombian pact, which was submitted to Congress two years ago. She doesn’t fear it’ll fail; she fears it’ll pass.

[…]Overall joblessness of 9.4% is bad enough. But among blacks, male unemployment is averaging 19.5%, and the 13.2% rate for Latinos is double what it had been most of the decade. Then there’s the 52% of young people who can’t find work.The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warns that if Congress fails to act on the three pending trade pacts, 585,000 U.S. jobs will be snatched away by rivals such as Canada. That would be a big chunk of the 3.5 million jobs Obama promised to create by year-end.

American businesses do better when they can pay less to buy the things they need to make their products from trading partners who have signed free trade deals signed with us. More efficiency means they can sell the products and services for less. That means that people buy more of those products. And then they hire more people.The number of jobs gained by improving the efficiency of businesses is higher than the union jobs saved by not signing the free trade deals. And who cares about unions anyway – unions make consumers and businesses pay too much! And they’re Democrats! So they’re crap on social issues and foreign policy anyway.

Among economists, being opposed to free trade is the equivalent of being opposed to a round Earth. But Democrats have to believe in protectionist nonsense – they are beholden to the unions that elected them who oppose choice and competition. Unions don’t want consumers to have a choice, and they don’t want to have to compete with anyone. They want to screw consumers into paying higher prices – and Obama has to cater to their delusions.

Commentary

A former lesbian reflects on her past lesbian relationships

28 Comments

Story from Life Site News.

Excerpt:

Despite the closeness of her relationships, Clune admitted that the hyper-emotional world of a female-to-female sexual bond was “exhausting.” “The women I went out with were by and large more inclined to be insecure and to need reassurance and I found myself in the male role of endlessly reassuring my girlfriends,” she wrote. “The subtle mood changes of everyday life would be picked over inexhaustibly.”

Clune describes how one lover was so jealous and insecure that “every single time we enjoyed a night out … we would have a row and have to leave.” “Back home, we would then spend the next four hours arguing about our relationship and my feelings of loyalty, fidelity and so on,” she wrote. “It was never-ending.”

“Can you imagine waking up beside a woman when you’ve both got raging PMT (premenstrual tension)?” she added.

Ultimately, she said, the emotional rollercoaster forced her to reconsider her lesbian plunge – something she clearly says she “chose,” and was not born into. “Unlike most men, women, of course, offer each other endless support and there’s hardly ever any lack of communication,” she said. “But – bizarre as it may seem – I found myself longing for exactly the opposite.”

Following “a calculated decision to try men again,” Clune says that she found in her future husband Richard a “quiet kindness” and “lack of neediness” that appealed to her. “I felt we were walking alongside each other rather than spending life locked in face-to-face intimacy or combat,” she wrote. “It felt natural and not at all scary. He was sanguine about my past and never suffered the insecurities I had come to expect.”

I learned a lot from reading this. I was surprised that women are this emotional. Is this true? I remember Dr. Morse said in that Acton Institute interview I posted that lesbian couples have a lot more domestic violence. Now I see why!

I actually think that it is a lot easier for Christians to make a coherent argument in favor of opposite-sex relationships and traditional marriage when they have read case studies and statistics on same-sex relationships. You need to understand the differences to say whether one is better than the other, and to include the needs of children in the comparison.

I noticed that Lex Communis linked to a Mercator Net article that summarizes some fairly recent research on same-sex couples. The author of the post is a professor, and the research he cites is published and peer-reviewed.

Related posts

News

France passes law to jail men who criticize their wife’s appearance

3 Comments
Feminist Nadine Morano

Story here in the UK Telegraph.

Excerpt:

Couples who insult each other over their physical appearance or make false accusations about infidelity face jail, under a new French law making “psychological violence” a criminal offence.

The law – the first of its kind – means that partners who make such insults or threats of physical violence faces up to three years in prison and a €75,000 (£60,000) fine.

[…]Nadine Morano, the junior family minister, told the National Assembly that “we have introduced an important measure here, which recognises psychological violence, because it isn’t just blows (that hurt), but also words.”

Miss Morano said the primary abuse help line for French women got 90,000 calls a year, with 84 per cent concerning psychological violence.

[…]The bill, which has been unanimously approved by French MPs, defines mental violence as “repeated acts that could be constituted by words,” including insults or repeated text messages that “degrade one’s quality of life and cause a change to one’s mental or physical state.”

[…]Miss Morano said witnesses could be called on to testify in such cases and doctors’ certificates charting a patient’s descent into nervous depression as a result of such insults could be used as evidence.

“The judge could (also) take into consideration letters, SMSs or repetitive messages, because one knows that psychological violence is made up of insults,” she added.

The law technically applies to women, but I doubt it will be enforced equally – just consider the lighter sentences for women who murder their husbands. For example, Mary Winkler murdered her husband and got 67 days in jail. No abuse by her husband was ever proved in court – her husband just questioned her when she lost tons of money through the Nigerian internet hoax. She later shot him while he was sleeping and left him, so he bled to death. 67 days in jail is not a fair punishment for murder, and she got full custody of the children, too.

So, I think that this French law is not going to encourage men in France to marry. The risks are too great. To get men to marry, you have to lower the risks, and help women to be extra careful when choosing men.