Fear Makes Us Do Irrational Things

Fear sometimes makes us do irrational things.

Fear isn't all bad, of course. When our human brains are functioning properly, fear is a natural instinct that helps keep us safe in dangerous situations. It prepares our bodies to physically respond for fight or flight action. A healthy amount of fear is...well, it's healthy.

However, sometimes our highly-evolved hominid nervous systems malfunction and cause irrational fear responses, blowing perceived dangers completely out of proportion.

Like when we run screaming from a room because we saw a tiny spider.

Or when we gather in droves to put an end to mass shootings in public schools.

On Saturday, people took to the streets in Washington DC (and 800 other cities) to demand stricter gun control laws in the United States.

The "March for Our Lives" was organized in response to the February 14th shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. That tragic event, where 17 people lost their lives to an armed psychopath, sparked heated debate about the safety of our schools and guns in our culture. Students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas H.S., along with some major media support and the organizational skills of the Women's March, have inspired a movement.

I am impressed with how effective the voices of these young students have shaken so many voters out of complacency. Although I'm always concerned by mass marches. They tend to represent a sort of group think that probably frightens me because I've read too much dystopian teen fiction.

But they've sparked conversation. The subject of both school safety and gun violence has been the subject of social media banter, public forum discussions, and media coverage for weeks now. Voters from all over the political spectrum are expressing views and looking for solutions to the rapidly expanding epidemic of public school shootings.

From the March for Our Lives website:

...We cannot allow one more family to wait for a call or text that never comes. Our schools are unsafe. Our children and teachers are dying. We must make it our top priority to save these lives... 

...Every kid in this country now goes to school wondering if this day might be their last. We live in fear. 

Photo Credit: Mathias Wasik

How can we strap on our kids' backpacks, kiss them good-bye, and send them off to school when the threat of them being gunned down by a madman is so high?

Boarding the school bus has apparently become the equivalent of playing a dangerous game of Russian Roulette.

From the messages on the signs to the mission statement on the March's website, you can tell these kids are convinced that once they enter their schools, they are entering a war zone. With bullets flying left and right, how can we expect these kids to learn?

On their path to gun control, these kids (and the adults who are using them for political purposes) have inadvertently triggered societal panic. I have a friend whose 8 year-old son is afraid to go to school because he "might get shot." 

While it is stupid to wallow in comfortable complacency thinking, "That could never happen here," and every child lost to gun violence is a cataclysmic loss to society, the risk of experiencing a mass shooting in a local public school is a statistical anomaly.

It may be hard to believe over all of the shouting, demanding, and marching, but children do not actually "risk their lives" every day when they climb aboard those yellow school buses. They are actually at a greater risk of dying from falling down (1 in 122) or being hit by a car (1 in 611) on their way to school. They are actually three times more likely to die from choking on those disgusting school lunches (1 in 3,461) than they are of being gunned down in their classrooms (1 in 11,125).

Yet here we are...

This is what mass hysteria looks like. It's like the villagers going after the monster, only they've traded their torches and pitchforks for pithy signs with rhyming chants... and the monster, while unarguably terrifying, isn't exactly running amok.

Perhaps we are so angry and afraid because the media has been feeding the panic, stoking and fanning the flames with inappropriate enthusiasm. For them, tragedy means big ratings, especially when children are involved. The 24-hour coverage that mass shootings provoke usually leaves us glued to our screens for hours on end in a vain attempt to make sense of the horror.

The media is also guilty of feeding us inflated statistics to push an agenda and reinforce a paradigm. In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting, progressive activists and media outlets repeatedly reported there had been 18 school shootings since the beginning of the year.

Horrible, right?

Except it isn't true. When we think of school shootings we think of Columbine. We think of heavily armed, masked lunatics spraying bullets as they go, gunning down innocent, unprotected children by the dozens.

The thought that this had actually happened 18 times in just under two months is enough to strike terror in any parent, teacher, student, or basic and decent human being. 

But this figure is a gross exaggeration. In an attempt to push their anti-gun agenda, Everytown for Gun Safety  inflated its numbers by including every single incident of gunfire, even if it was only in the vicinity of a school.

For example, included in the 18-shooting figure was the very first incident of the year. On January 3, a 31-year-old man parked outside a Michigan elementary school and placed a phone call to police saying he was armed and suicidal. Several hours later, he shot himself. While his suicide is indeed tragic, this hardly counts as a "school shooting"...especially considering the school had been closed for seven months.

It was shuttered and inactive. There were no teachers or students present. Not one single innocent life was at risk.

In reality, there have only been eight mass shootings in American schools...

...since 1996. 

Go ahead and read that again.

Time magazine reports that a total of 6 adults and 35 children have been killed in school shootings since 2013. That is 41 people who tragically lost their lives.

However, there are, on average, 51 annual deaths due to lightening strikes. Since most of you probably attended questionably effective public schools, I'll do the math for you.

You are more likely to be killed in a thunderstorm than a school shooting. While the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School was definitely heartbreaking, it is not part of an epidemic and it is downright deceitful to call it such.

Our nation's schools do not resemble war zones. They are, in fact, incredibly safe considering their soft target "gun-free" status. According to new research from Northeastern University, "schools are safer than they were in the 90s, and school shootings are not more common than they used to be."

Here is a little visual perspective for you:

The truth is, there is no “school safety” crisis in this country. We have a gun violence problem that consists primarily of suicides, accidents, and single-victim homicides, most of which are committed with handguns, not the dreaded AR-15.

But it must be true. It must be true because large numbers of people are shaking their fists on national television. It must be true because there is so much media coverage, and general yelling, and so many small children afraid to go to school.

Fear, even when it isn't based in reality, is a powerful motivator. In this case, fear fueled by the media and organizations with an agenda, mobilized masses to demand tighter regulations on weapons they don't even understand.




So, like...yeah...let's all get together, and like...demand that the government ban something we like can't even define.

Shaping public policy with emotion rather than common sense,  no matter how strong the emotions, is just plain juvenile (So, I guess the teenagers doing the angry demanding are acting age-appropriately). But common sense isn't as marketable as passionate, sanctimonious teenagers shouting profanity and raising their fists. Common sense rarely inspires marches.

Here's the deal. Grief and anger are all understandable in the face of what happened in Parkland. These children have a right to mourn. They have a right to be angry. Anger is actually a healthy part of the grieving process.

However, surviving a tragic event doesn't magically make you a leader. It doesn't suddenly bestow magic policy-making talents. PTSD does not automatically instill wisdom or grant miraculous oracle-like understanding. You don't get special powers, although the media is likely to make you an instant celebrity (at least if your politics agree with their agenda. Don't believe they pick and choose their victims of tragedy? Have a conversation with Parkland survivor Kyle Kashuv. I wonder why he didn't make the cover of Time?)

Ask any parent of a teenager and they will tell you that teenagers have a limited ability to make rational decisions. Teenage brains have not fully developed. A study conducted by the McLean Hospital Brain Imaging Center in Boston, Massachusetts suggests that while adults can use rational decision making processes when facing emotional decisions, adolescent brains are simply not yet equipped to think them through.

There is a reason that adults get to do things like take out mortgages and vote and influence public policy. It's because we are less likely to be ruled by our emotions. We have fully developed frontal lobes and can usually approach decision-making from a place of rational thought rather than heated passion.

I understand the desire to DO SOMETHING. But it's important to approach major decisions, ones that could have long-lasting and wide-reaching effects, with caution and a level head, something these new celebrity children and their devotees seem to be lacking.

"Ban the guns" sounds like a great way to end gun violence, especially since it makes a catchy chant for D.C. marches. But like filing your income taxes, as well as most things in the adult world, it's actually much more complicated than that.

Most of the policy ideas that the students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas H.S. and their fan club have proposed are vague. Most would be ineffective, and in some cases, they would be downright harmful. I guess we shouldn't be surprised, though. Public schools are too busy prepping kids for standardized tests to actually teach them critical thinking skills.

For example, raising the firearm purchase age to 21 sounds like a great idea on the surface. This would keep guns out of the hands of the irrational teenagers that are currently demanding they are rational enough to influence public policy. (oh, the irony!) But maybe...just maybe...it would have kept a gun out of the hands of the Parkland shooter, who was only 19.

But let's take a quick look at some facts and statistics.

Of the 64 mass public shootings that have occurred in the United States since 1998 (not all were in public schools), ten were committed by people under age 21. Five of those shooters were already too young to legally purchase a firearm. That means only five of those 64 gunman would have been affected by raising the purchase age.

Maybe. 

Maybe they would have been affected. It is quite likely the shooters would have obtained weapons illegally, since they weren't deterred by those pesky murder laws in the first place.

But do you know who a raised purchase age would affect? The 20 year-old frightened woman being stalked by a potential rapist . The young college student dealing with an obsessed and violent ex-boyfriend. Sorry, ladies. You're too young to defend yourselves. Better luck next year. If you're still around, that is.

Disarming law-abiding citizens, leaving them with no way to protect themselves, has life-threatening consequences.

People will still die. They just might not be the same people.

I understand the need to protect our children. They are our greatest gift, our nation's most precious asset. But radically changing the founding principles of the United States over a minimal risk is drastic, and won't keep guns out of the hands of criminals and deranged psychopaths anyway.

Before we start disarming the populace, maybe we should look at other ways to keep our children safe. Maybe improve security measures at our local schools. Invest in school-based mental health services. Let's consider placing more armed law enforcement officers and security guards on campuses. Perhaps we should try enforcing the gun-control laws already in place before we pass more.

Too much is at stake to make trendy political decisions fueled by the emotions of loud-voiced teenagers. We all want to save lives, but being well-meaning isn’t enough. Plenty of mistakes are made by well-meaning individuals who rush to act without considering all of the nuanced consequences.

This subject needs careful consideration of the long-term repercussions to both the individual and society. It should be approached with caution, examination of facts, and thoughtful deliberation.

Let's not make rash decisions just because we are afraid, or else there might be bigger things to fear.

Dancing With Snakes in the Dystopian Age

"Where have you been?"

It's okay. You can call off the search party. Hold your emails. Call back the hounds.

I know I haven't posted much recently, and apparently some of you are upset about that. (Although I'm pretty sure that at least an equal number of people are excited and celebrating. You're welcome.)

I admit that I've been kind of hiding from social media. I didn't even know about the recent London attack until the bodies were already cold. I didn't witness any live streaming or hashtag campaigns about the incident. I think my sanity is in a somewhat better state because of my ignorance.

We are living in difficult times. My desire to be well-informed is in a constant battle with my desire to remain sane. Seriously, it's like an epic cage fight...terribly bloody. It would get great ratings on cable.

So, I've been kind of hiding under a rock, because every time I poke my head out, I seem to get blind-sided by some news story that leaves me feeling as if I'm trapped inside of a young adult dystopian novel.

Because now drinking milk is racist.

And the color of a teacher's skin is more important than his ability to actually teach.

Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania, a teenage boy is told by his principal to "tolerate" undressing in front of a (biologically) female student . . . to make it as "natural"as possible . . . because, you know . . .tolerance and maintaining an illusion of enlightenment and forward-thinking is far more important than our children's safety or emotional scars. But that's on them . .. I  mean . . . they should have been more enlightened and tolerant. There's nothing that won't be tolerated quite like "intolerance".

Speaking of intolerance, an Iowa high school recently had to issue an apology to an opposing basketball team because its student body wore patriotic colors to a game. The apology was issued because the opposing team had some refugee players who are somewhat delicate, and deeply offended by the sight of red, white, and blue . . . even though they are currently seeking refuge IN THE UNITED STATES.  I would tell them to "grow a pair" but that is horribly offensive and insensitive on several fronts.

"Dance? But I have two left feet."

If I were a more religious person, like the kind who yammers in tongues and dances with snakes, I would swear that we are living in the last days. Although, "the last days" of what, I'm not sure.

Because this shit is crazy.

But I don't dance with snakes, because I don't really dance unless I've had a few beers, and all of that dancing is kind of unfair to the snakes. I mean, the least that holy people could do is buy the snakes a drink before they bandy them about on the dance floor.

Or maybe it's because I really just empathize with the snakes. Because snakes are pretty quiet, and just want to be left alone.They want to crawl up under a nice rock somewhere or hide out in the grass and not be messed with. And here these people are, snatching them up, forcing them out into the public eye, making them participate in a dance that they want no part of.

I feel ya, snakes! Solidarity, bros!

That's why I'm crawling back under my rock for a bit. Maybe lay around in the grass. Y'all enjoy the crazy dance. I'll probably be back after I've had a few beers.

What Other People Think About Being Offended

It's been an emotionally charged week for me. Hot on the heels of two major political circuses (also known as conventions) both of which left me feeling demoralized, disgusted, and more than a little afraid, I landed right in the middle of some rather agonizing personal drama. I'm not one to go looking for drama, but I apparently am not particularly skilled at avoidance. Sometimes drama manages to find me in spite of my best efforts.

Interpersonal drama plus the current political abyss plus the knowledge that my son is parachuting out of airplanes has not been a great equation for inspired writing. Each time I have sat down to write this week, I've been afraid of what might come spilling out. I know that I'm going to offend someone. While you might think that offending people is one of my favorite pastimes, I'm just not feeling up to the emotional fall-out this week.

Everyone around me is offended. It's in the news, on my social media feeds, and bouncing around my circle of friends. Khizr Khan offended Donald Trump who offended Khizr Khan (and most other Americans). Hillary's face offends people. Police officers are apparently offensive. My children offended some other children at a birthday party, which caused a whole lot of other people to be offended.

 I'm offended. You're offended. Wouldn't you like to be offended, too?

The world is one great big giant ferris wheel of people being offended. This is frankly not a ride I enjoy. It makes me want to vomit, and I desperately want off. I'm still not in a great emotional space, so instead of forcing you to endure my scattered thoughts, fervent rants, or whiny complaints, I will instead leave you with the words of other, more emotionally stable individuals.

And, yes... I realize that this post is probably going to offend someone. Whatever.

Quotes on being offended:

"Apologies; our cultural obsession with them isn't actually about being offended, or simply needing to hear, 'I'm sorry.' It's not really about right or wrong. It's about wanting to throw a rock in the dark and hear something break." ~ Jim Norton

"If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for, even when it isn't there." ~ Bill Kellogg

"When people do not respect us we are sharply offended; yet in his private heart no man much respects himself." ~ Mark Twain

"Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right." ~Ricky Gervais

"To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else." ~ David A. Bednar

"If you are offended, it's your problem." ~ Salman Rushdie

"An offended heart is the breeding ground of deception." ~ John Bevere

"Being offended is part of being in the real world." ~ Courtney Love

"Don't change your mind just because people are offended; change your mind if you're wrong." ~ Criss Jami

"Anything designed to be inoffensive isn't worth your time - - life itself is pretty offensive, ending as it does with death." ~ Holly Lisle

"If you are too afraid to offend anyone, then I'm afraid you may not be able to do anything remarkable." ~ Bernard Kelvin Clive

"After all, its in the way an insult is received that makes it an insult. You can't really give offense unless someone takes it." ~ Portia De Rossi

"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.

I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down. If you don't like a book, read another book. If you start reading a book and you decide you don't like it, nobody is telling you to finish it. To read a 600-page novel and then say it has deeply offended you: well, you have done a lot of work to be offended." ~ Salman Rushdie

Why I Won't Raise My Children to be Politically Correct

Words are just words. But what if those words are offensive? Are they still just words? Does the responsibility of the offense fall with the speaker? Or with the listener?

This weekend I had a discussion with one of my children over a word he used to describe someone. He used the word "retarded". Anyone who is paying attention knows that word doesn't make the short list of politically correct adjectives. While the word was fairly acceptable just a few decades ago, its use has become basically intolerable.

I asked my son to use a different word. The logical question followed: "Why?"

"Because it's offensive."

"But why?"

"Just don't use that word. Okay?"

Not my best parenting moment. But the truth is, there isn't a good answer. Some words make the socially acceptable list and others don't. I'm not sure when the word my son used jumped from one list to the other. I'm not sure why there is even a list in the first place. Who gets to decide which words belong on which list?

I suppose in the beginning the PC movement had good intentions. Attempting to rid society of derogatory language must have been an attempt to curb racism, homophobia, sexism, ableism, and other forms of discrimination. But in its attempts to create bias-free language, things have gotten a little out of hand. Censorship is a dangerous and slippery slope.

Banning words because someone might feel offended opens a can of worms. How many people must find a word offensive before society determines it unacceptable? 1,000? 100? One? Some people may find a word offensive while others don't. Which group gets to decide the morality of the word? All words are potentially offensive. Every word, no matter how seemingly innocuous could be associated with something negative, so any word could at any time come under scrutiny.

The growing snowball of the politically correct movement is out of control. Consider the "ban bossy" campaign. Relatively successful and influential individuals like Condoleeza Rice and Jane Lynch committed to a movement to ban the word "bossy" because it could be potentially harmful to little girls. Whether or not they are right about the negative effects of a simple two-syllable word, the concept of banning a word, any word, is the stuff of which apocalyptic dystopian novels are made.

And its not just youtube videos and pithy hashtags the PC movement is using. The snowball is crashing through our institutions of higher learning, obliterating words and entire ways of thinking as it goes. Universities used to be places where paradigms were shifted and ways of thinking expanded, but rapidly they are becoming indoctrination centers with strict rules of censorship. It is impossible to openly and freely express opinions and concepts when entire ways of thinking are outlawed just because someone's delicate constitution may be offended?

Don't believe me? Here are just a few examples of ridiculous campus censorship:

• Bowdoin University has banned jokes and stories that may be "experienced by others as harassing."
• Brown University  has banned speech that "produces feelings of impotence, anger, or disenfranchisement" whether "intentional or unintentional"
• Colby College has banned words that could lead to a loss of self-esteem. 

Feeling offended is subjective. In the same way that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, perhaps feeling offended lies in the ear of the listener. To each his own. In that case, can a speaker really be held accountable for the emotional reactions of those who hear his words?

Most of us are adults, and we should take responsibility for our own reactions. When we blame someone else for our feelings of anger or embarrassment it shows a severe lack of maturity. We can choose to ignore or respond to words, but we should not be blaming others for our reaction. That is abandoning our own responsibility, our own personal power.

But the real danger of the PC movement is in the suppression of free speech. That suppression is far more dangerous than the feelings of unease that certain words seem to incite. Banning words that are often used to express homophobic or racist ideologies does not destroy the ideologies, but it does create a false sense of peace and security. We cannot challenge the bigotry we don't know exists.

Defending personal beliefs in the face of criticism used to be part of the college experience. To never have beliefs challenged or scrutinized stunts intellectual growth. It is a major disservice to our young people to allow them to walk through life wrongly believing that everyone thinks exactly like them, or even to think that everyone should.

By limiting free speech, the PC crowd is also limiting free thought. Thankfully, we don't yet live in a society with a hive mind. But as our vocabularies are rapidly constricted, as we descend into our own version of 1984 Newspeak, variations of thought become more and more difficult. And without freedom of thought there will be no one to challenge corruption and injustice and oppression.

Isn't that what we're fighting anyway?

The Olympics Have Fallen - Transgender Inclusion Kills Fairplay

Sometimes I feel like I'm living inside a South Park episode. One where there is some exaggerated politically correct conspiracy that has gotten so big it might consume all of us with its insanity.

This past Sunday, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced a change in policy regarding transgender athletes. Athletes that transition from female to male are now eligible to compete as males without restriction. However, athletes that transition from male to female must officially declare their identity as female and show that their testosterone levels measure below 10 nanomals for at least 12 months prior to competing. Basically, the changes in regulations free trans athletes from previously required genital reassignment surgeries.

Gone are the good ol' days when ancient Greek athletes competed nude. It was a simpler time with simpler ways of determining male versus female. But we are now smack dab in the middle of an era when we are so afraid of hurting people's feelings that we flush the tenets of fair play just so no one feels bullied or excluded.

It's obvious right there in the guidelines that transgender females could potentially have an athletic advantage over biological females. The fact that there is open eligibility for females who identify as men in competition kinda insinuates that the guys aren't particularly worried about their new competition. (That's because the women feeling like men are inherently disadvantaged in comparison to men who've lived their entire lives as biological men.) However, the monitoring of testosterone levels in female athletes screams of inequality. Already transgender men are being treated differently than transgender women. Where is the feminist outcry?

It seems ironic to me, that a sporting event that so strictly prohibits substances affecting athletic performance would so quickly embrace the use of substances that alter an athlete's hormone levels in such extreme ways. Perhaps the cocktail of pharmaceuticals required to inhibit trans athletes' hormones aren't "performance enhancing", but they are certainly "performance influencing". A subtle difference, but perhaps an important one. Using substances that radically change the way a competitor's body works should be suspect. Competition is only fair if athletes aren't radically altering their bodies in unnatural ways.

Feeling like a woman does not a woman make. I realize making such a statement probably proves I need some sort of sensitivity training, but the IOC admits it in their guidelines (hence the differences in requirements for trans women in comparison to those for trans men). The problem with their guidelines is that they don't at all level the female playing field. No amount of injected estrogen can make up for advantages in height, bone density, and reach. And medical data conflicts on just how long it takes to negate the testosterone advantages biological males are born with.

While it's easy to see this whole scenario as some strange ploy by South Park's women to thoroughly ruin the sport of beach volleyball for men everywhere (Imagine Jake Gibb bouncing around in a bikini. You're welcome for the visual), that can't be what's really going on here.

The IOC stated that the changes are "necessary to ensure in so far as possible that trans athletes are not excluded from the opportunity to participate in sporting competition."

I get it. They want to be fair. But by attempting to be fair to everyone. They've ended up being fair to no one.

Will this be the death of women's olympic weightlifting, boxing, wrestling? There are some sports where passing through male puberty could leave a long-lingering advantage over the more traditionally feminine competitors. There is no way to make this fair. The Olympics will never be the same.

And yet...

Maybe it won't change all that much. While it's easy to envision swarms of men switching teams (so to speak) in true South Park style for the sake of winning gold medals, that's not likely to happen. Putting your body through months of hormone therapy just to compete as a woman is extreme for everyone but the craziest of people, and statistically-speaking, "real" transgender people supposedly make up less than one percent of the population.

However, the possibility of even one unfair competition should be enough to make us protest. The spirit of the Olympics is about triumph and equity no matter a person's race, religion, or nationality. I'm just not sure where these trans athletes fit into this... or even if they should fit in at all. (Probably another sign that someone should sign me up for sensitivity training.)

Because I'm still not sure who I'm supposed to root for in a Judo match between a traditional woman and a transgender woman. Do I root for the trans woman? Because wouldn't that be the politically correct thing to do? To cheer on the minority, the historically oppressed, the poster child of progressive tolerance? Or do I support the biological woman? Because isn't that the politically correct thing? To pull for the historically oppressed, and breaking glass ceilings, and making progress toward gender equality? Because "Girl Power"!?!

The inner conflict might be enough to rip giant holes in Western Society's collective conscience.

One thing is for certain. The spirit of Olympic competition has definitely changed. I'm afraid the Olympics have fallen.

The Price of Politically Correct Army Rangers and Secret Service Agents

Last week, the White House experienced an unprecedented security breach when 42 year-old Omar Gonzales scaled the fence and sprinted across the White House lawn.

At least the Obama administration is consistent in the securing of it's borders.

Not only did the knife-wielding, Iraq war veteran fence-jumper sprint seventy yards across the lawn unstopped, he opened an unlocked door and waltzed right into the executive mansion.  He overpowered the first Secret Service Officer to confront him before he was finally tackled on the far southern side of the 80-foot-long East Room by an off-duty Secret Service agent.

While it is indeed surprising that this man managed to get through several layers that should have been secure, it may be even more surprising that the first Secret Service agent to actually confront the intruder was overpowered.  Although, the agent was female.

The word overpowered seems to be the word most of the news agencies are over-using to describe what Gonzales did to the female agent who attempted to stop him.  It's pretty vague and could mean a lot of things. But considering how much further Gonzales managed to get into the White House after the altercation. I am lead to believe she was not a significant factor in stopping him. She may have been laying incapacitated on the floor of the entryway... or Gonzales may have just shoved her and then outrun her. Either way, he dominated her physically.

I mean no disrespect to the woman's position.  It is certainly no easy task to become a member of the Secret Service.  There are stringent requirements of education and experience and background clearance and even physical fitness. This was not your run-of-the-mill soccer mom expected to guard the president and his family. I certainly admire and recognize her level of commitment and training.  She is certainly a member of an elite group of special individuals.

But she is still a woman.

There is a reason that most bars don't hire women to serve as bouncers and instead tend to rely on big burly muscular men.

Certainly the safety of the President of the United States and his family is of far greater importance than whether or not Bubba has too much to drink and smashes up the local pub.

Are we potentially sacrificing the safety and security of our highest-ranking public official for the cause of political correctness?

Last month, women were also extended an invitation to apply for U.S. Army Ranger school.  While the invitation doesn't signify the acceptance of women into the special ranks of combat Rangers, it does mean the Army is attempting to determine how it should open combat military occupational specialties to women.

Nothing is yet set in stone.  The school is still in the planning process, identifying volunteers and selecting them over the next few months.  However, the Army Ranger school has monstrously grueling physical demands.  The minimum PFT requirements are enough to keep most women from even getting in. The first of the three phases of sadistically taxing training should cull out most of the ones who do land a spot in Ranger school. 80 push-ups in 2 minutes, 12 pull-ups, a 2-mile run in less than 13 minutes, a 16 mile hike with a 65-pound pack (that's more than half my body weight!) should keep even the fittest, beastiest women from moving on to the next phases and then on to graduation.

Unless, in a fit of blind feminism and political correctness, the powers that be lower the standards for women. You know... just to make it fair.

The Army has already lowered it's minimum requirements for Basic Training PFT to even the playing field and ensure women can actually make it into the Army.  As it stands women are required to perform less than half the push-ups expected of their male peers and are given more than an extra three minutes to finish their two-mile run.

That's fine.  There are plenty of military positions for females where their weaker physical prowess is NOT an issue.  Shoot.  There are even combat positions where a woman's inferior physical strength might not be an issue. Flying planes and helicopters or operating other equipment, even serving as snipers leaves their weaker build out of the equation.

But the Army Rangers is quite a bit different and strikes a little too close to home.

My son wants, with all of his heart, to be an Army Ranger.  Chances are good that he will enlist at the beginning of the year.  While I have some major trepidation over his decision, especially considering the threat of ISIS and unrest in the Middle East, he is an adult and I fully support his pursuit of his dream, even if it isn't what I would have chosen for him.  I know he will make one hell of an Army Ranger!

But as a mother... the thought of my son being injured in a fire fight with his only chance of survival being that one of his fellow soldiers carry his injured 6'2" 185 pound body out of harm's way... that the only soldier available to perform that duty might be a 5'5" 135 pound female who only made it through Ranger school because the physical requirements were lowered for her gender in order to be more politically correct... that is something I cannot emotionally handle.

It's not about being fair.  It's not about how hard women work or train. It's not even about whether women can handle the emotional or mental strain of combat situations.

At the end of the day a woman, even a woman in top physical form, is still a woman. And most women are not capable of physically carrying out the same duties a man is capable of.  We can't afford to sacrifice the safety of our sons (or our president in the case of the overpowered female Secret Service agent) for the sake of being "fair" to women.

Because that's just not "fair" to the men who have to count on them, sometimes for their very lives.