The Dawn Patrol

God Is My Co-Pilot

Many thanks to everyone who responded to the "Swiss Patrol" call for comments (see below). (If I accidentally left out your response, please let me know—I received several and it's possible one might have accidentally fallen through the cracks.) I enjoyed reading what everyone had to say and liked the points very much. Soon I hope to put them all on a separate page, so that anyone looking for insight on chastity and abstinence can link to them. Andreas, who asked the question which sparked the responses, has written to say he'll reply to them tomorrow.

Above, you can see me at around midnight last night, sleepy but exhilarated, having just enjoyed simulated flight. A friend of mine who programs flight simulators is in town and took me for a "ride" after I got out of work late yesterday evening. It was an amazing experience to sit in the cockpit as 3-D satellite photos combined with sound and hydraulic-powered motions to give the impression of flight. I particularly liked the wimpoid, Data-like voice which would freak out when we were perilously close to a tall building, calling out in increasingly agitated tones: "Obstacle! Obstacle! Pull up! PULL UP!

Lately I've been blessed with exciting experiences, as well as friends and family going out of their way to make me feel cared for and loved. It's especially wonderful to have such experiences this time of year, as I'm vulnerable to loneliness and self-pity around the holidays. It's almost as if God's saying that, while He's not yet sending me my beshert, He wants me to recognize and enjoy His blessings as much as possible while I'm waiting.
8:35 PM |

The Swiss Patrol—Continued

More reader responses to Andreas Gossweiler, who wrote, "I'd
really like to know why some Americans praise chastity and abstinence." (Earlier responses are in Sunday's entry "The Swiss Patrol.") Andreas plans to reply to the responses tomorrow.

Mom (see bio linked at left) writes:

Yes, I do want to answer that very sweet Swiss gentleman, who was kind enough to ask a question, instead of just hurling an insult, as do so many who disagree with our sexual mores.

Trust me, Sir. Many many of us have tried it your way. It really doesn't work. What has your "sexually emancipated" nation and others like it really learned about intimacy, partnership, commitment, fidelity, all the glorious character traits that really make a strong nation? What have children learned about parents who STAY? What have young women learned about men who honor them, cherish them, and treasure them, just because they saved their most intimate expression of love for one man? How many Swiss girls' hearts are broken every moment of the day, because they buy the idea that there is no difference between the sexes, and that they really can feel nothing but a pleasant friendship (at best) with the man with whom they were "doing the what-comes-naturally" the night before? How can they explain away the pain and mistrust that tears away a piece of their soul with every lost liaison?

Even in your movies, my Swiss friend, your people still sit with tears and the spark of a memory of beautiful love, the love of so many of their forefathers and foremothers. Sure, you can cite exceptions, but there was a main line of happy families who stayed together and who trusted that Mom, Dad, husband or wife, would be there to the end, "for better or worse". Even in Switzerland, a man or woman still becomes angry, sometimes murderous, when the beloved cheats with another partner. Why do you think that is? Because we still hold love and marriage to high standards.

What is "natural" means what is in nature means what the animals do. We humans are endowed with souls, feelings, character, visions and dreams. We are not condemned to do what is natural. We have been given the grace to be SUPER-natural. What a gift!

With sisterly love from Rachel-Rose, Dawn Eden's Mom.

Air
Force Capt. Steven Givler writes from Baghdad:

For Andreas, who considers the natural-ness of something and its reservation for higher purposes mutually exclusive:

We praise chastity and abstinence because by doing so we recognize the special nature of sex. We recognize that sex is a gift God gives us, which increases intimacy between people whose union He has ordained. (In addition to creating children, which Richard Stuart has already addressed.)

Of course sex is a "natural" act, as are murder and bowel movements. In failing to value chastity and abstinence, people devalue sex, and place it in the same category as those other acts. What a loss—to miss the special significance of this wonderful gift, and to see it as nothing more than a response to stimuli.

That's the best I can come up with between rocket attacks here. Is it cold in NYC yet? [It's getting there, but no snow yet, thankfully.—Ed.

Roman Catholic seminarian Dennis Schenkel of Vita Mea has posted his response on his blog. He makes the important point that sex between a man and a woman is not something merely animal, but something sacred—hence the need to keep it free from a profane context:

Consider this: No Christian would go into the church building thinking, "Hmm... I'm a little hungry... I'd like a snack... I'll bet the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle would be tasty with a little salsa..." That would be blasphemous even to think such a thing, much less to actually do it. In the same way, Christians hold sex to be so sacred that, far from suppressing it, they cherish it and reserve it for only the most intimate of covenant relationships, namely, marriage.

Eric Slate writes:

Not only many Europeans, but many Americans have this strange view that chastity is somehow anti-sex, when it's actually how christianity fulfills sex. Basically, this stems from a misconception about what chastity is and does.

The liberal's view of chastity seems to include self-hate, fear, guilt, or some other kind of negative emotions. None of these are the case for various reasons. Guilt is brought about by the conscience reacting to perceived sin. Chastity exists to remove this sin from the act of sex. Fear of sinning needs not worry you if you plan on having chaste sex. Self-hate probably refers to some kind of loathing caused by a sinful life. For a real Christian, there is authentic healing from this, but it requires a life-amending effort.

The problem of course, is that many such people who don't like chastity really don't want to hear out its restrictions. After all, who has the right to tell me how to have sex? Well, since God made sex (along with the rest of creation), it's fitting that those who strive to serve him have the inside scoop as to the morality.

At its core, chastity is a set of rules designed to make sure that sin is removed from that act, leaving only the pure and good parts that God intended us to enjoy. If we follow these rules, not only do we not have to worry about sin ruining our relationships, but we're free from the guilt, fear, and self-hate associated with it as well.

Tag Evers writes:

As has been mentioned, sex is procreative. Its primary purpose is perpetuating the human race by having children. Contraception, technical means for avoiding children while having sex, has become much more common in the last 50 years, ushering in the era of free sex.

But sex outside of marriage is never free. Someone always pays. This is because sex involves more than making babies. In addition to being procreative, sex is also unitive, allowing for the recreation of the marriage bonds in the deep physical and
spiritual union of husband and wife. Scripture teaches us that sex creates a union, where two become one.

This is not merely an ideal, something to be strived for, but a fact. Sex involves deep intimacy and vulnerability. Every act of sex is a giving away of a part of ourselves. A part of another person becomes a part of us, as sex involves mutuality. If we do this with strangers, or with someone whom we know only casually, we lose a part of ourselves. Pieces of us are missing, and the parts we take on from others don't fit properly.

Sex is never casual. Scripture teaches us that sex is a wonderful gift from God, and nothing God gives is casual. It's deep stuff, this gift of sex, and because it's so deep, sexual hurt is never shallow. The greatest pain many of us have ever
experienced is the pain of a broken heart. When we bond physically without the protection of a life-long commitment, we may necessarily steel ourselves against emotional bonding, resisting the desire to let that someone touch the deepest part of ourselves. We tell ourselves and each other "this doesn't mean anything." But it does. It always does. Someone invariably gets hurt. It's because we are wired to want someone to love us for who we are, someone to hold us in our nakedness and never abandon us, someone with whom we can face any eventuality, including the blessing of new life.

But our postmodern world often doesn't regard new life as a blessing. Interestingly, the early days of the abortion-rights movement had strong financial support from the Playboy Foundation. [This is true; it's also public record that Playboy financed SIECUS.—Ed.] Why? Because using a woman as an apparatus for pleasure is perfectly consonant with having her vacuumed, sucked clean of any consequence, and then discarded in favor of the next plaything. Objectification never allows for community, never allows for responsibility, never allows for anything other than the selfish pursuit of pleasure.

Apart from an unwanted pregnancy, we risk another biological possibility with a laissez-faire approach to sex, and that's disease. Twelve million people contract a venereal disease every year in America alone. AIDS is decimating Africa and Asia. Barrier methods are not foolproof. Saving sex for, and confining sex to, marriage greatly reduces the risk of having a lifelong relationship with an unwanted virus.

Sex has the potential to open us up in the most human of ways, and yet, outside of the care and commitment of marriage, we are often left empty. For many, this emptiness persists, and sex then becomes a means for trying to fill that hole. As an
anodyne, sex is more powerful than any drug, and virulent addiction can be the result. The explosion of Internet porn speaks to this epidemic.

Does sex outside of marriage lead to closeness, care and commitment? In other words, does it lead to love? What is love? To love someone is to care for that person's highest good. Loving one another honestly and selflessly is the essence of God's law regarding sex. Thomas Aquinas defined sin as "an inordinate affection for a mutable good." Sex can be a good thing, but it is a mutable good, a contingent good, one that has context. That context, "for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, as long as you both shall live," was devised for our protection.

Another definition of sin can be found in the writings of Reinhold Niebuhr. In The Nature and Destiny of Man, Vol. 1, he makes the claim that "all human life is involved in the sin of seeking security at the expense of other life." This living of life at the expense of life is at the heart of what the Bible calls sin. Marriage is the safe harbor for sexual intimacy because it places a primacy on mutuality and militates against the ripping-one-another-off that passes as love in this postmodern age.

Brett Taylor of Saint Kansas (a highly recommended site, but not for those shy of strong language) writes:

Andreas would "really like to know why some Americans praise chastity and abstinence. Most Europeans think
of sexuality as something natural, not as something that should be suppressed."

What I'd really like to know is, seeing as European marriage and birth rates are declining and Muslim immigration increasing rapidly, how long will Andreas consider his view as that of "most Europeans?"

Kevin Kane writes:

Andreas' point about sexuality being natural is true, but does anyone really claim otherwise? Many things are natural - eating, sleeping, going to the bathroom - but all societies have norms that regulate when and where these activities take place. This is not suppression, but the recognition that civilized society cannot function unless we control and regulate our natural urges. Most Americans believe that we were created by a God who has given us certain guidelines to live by. Of course if Andreas does not believe in God the moral argument in favor of chastity and abstinence may not mean anything to him, but it does resonate with most Americans.

For those who reject the moral argument, there is the utilitarian argument that a society failing to put limits on sexual behavior does itself great harm in the long run. Yes, one can argue that the freedom to sleep with who you want, when you want is loads of fun. But the greatest social disaster in the country over the past forty years has been the staggering increase in out-of-wedlock births. This problem is at the root of nearly every major social problem, and a society with no prejudice against promiscuous behavior will inevitably end up with lots of children who lack two committed parents and lots of busy abortionists.

Would Andreas like to argue in favor of this development? Maybe he'd argue that more birth control would prevent these problems. But if the Swiss birthrate is like the rest of Western Europe he doesn't have much of a case. In fact, he might want to start debating this issue with the Muslims who are populating Europe at such a staggering rate. Their views of Planned Parenthood will make Dawn's "attacks" seem quaint.

Finally, does Andreas believe that the society with a more casual attitude towards sex have a better sense of its importance than the society that restricts sexual behavior? Does a man who spends his paycheck the day he gets it understand the value of money better than the man who saves or invests it?

5:00 PM |

To everyone who responded to yesterday's "Swiss Patrol" entry: I'll be putting up all the remaining responses this afternoon. Couldn't put them up last night, as I got caught up yesterday in an exciting, unexpected visit to a flight simulator (photo to come).
3:22 AM |

Planned Parenthood Has Teens Waiting to Exhale

What would you say if I told you that Planned Parenthood has devised a means to put teenagers into an altered and ultra-receptive state of consciousness? And that they put the youths into that state as part of a seminar led by a lesbian on making sexual choices—encouraging them to "become conscious of energy throughout the body"?

Yup, Margaret Sanger's bunch is at it again, getting 'em while they're young—and this time, they're using wacky New Age mind control.

Dr. Judy Kuriansky's latest New York Daily News column describes the workshops she's pilot-tested with Planned Parenthood teen groups in metropolitan New Jersey and in Nassau County, N.Y., with two of the organization's sexuality educators, Heather Simonson and Danielle Varney. Varney, as Kuriansky has written before, is an out-and-proud lesbian.

Kuriansky writes:

One of my current efforts to help young people resist dangerous behavior is to help them learn to control their energy. I do this in a unique workshop I developed that combines Eastern and Western therapy techniques to help kids increase self-esteem and feel control over their lives. The techniques use breathing exercises to build up energy and then go into a meditative state, to become conscious of energy throughout the body and the difference between acting out and being in control.

In other words, the children are being led into a state between sleep and wakefulness, where their subconscious minds can be more easily manipulated by the good doctor and her sapphic sidekick. All in the name of teaching them how to be in "control"—whatever that means. It's positively mind-boggling to see the lengths to which Planned Parenthood will go to avoid instructing teenagers in any degree of continence, let alone abstinence.

Another exercise involves becoming aware of the ability to choose and making decisions about sex and other matters with awareness of the consequences. Other exercises include experiencing trust of others and oneself (by being led around while blindfolded) and listening techniques for more compassionate communication.

Yes, you read right: Planned Parenthood is teaching teenage girls to let teenage boys blindfold them and lead them around. I didn't have the guts to let a guy do that to me until I was 27! And it sure as heck didn't improve my sexual decision-making.

Kuriansky observes a difference between the boys' and girls' preferred activities:

The males in the groups particularly like the meditation exercises, while the females prefer the communication and interactive exercises.

Of course the teenage boys preferred the meditation—it gave them the opportunity to peek through lidded eyes at the teenage girls as they heaved their chests up and down during the breathing exercises.

The results are promising: that the teens feel better about themselves in general and more in control of making wise decisions about sex.

There's a world of difference between feeling "in control" of "making wise decisions" and being mentally equipped to make those decisions. Like the rest of Planned Parenthood's Clintonian sex-ed programs for teens, this breath-exercise program makes sense only if you inhale.
2:31 AM |

Monday, November 29, 2004

Watch the "Swiss Patrol" post below for the many great reader responses that I'll be posting today, in the wake of a European's question about why Americans care about chastity and abstinence. I have several responses waiting to go up, including ones from religion writer Mark Kellner, Air Force Captain Steven Givler, bona fide European Wolf N. Paul, and Mom.

The photo at right is by Duncan Maxwell Anderson, taken November 17 when I saw him and his wife at a party at Slainte. See, it's not just a self-imposed nickname; I really am a petite powerhouse.

3:40 PM |

Planned Parenthood's Thanksgiving Turkey

Margaret Sanger's organization used the Thanksgiving holiday to kick off its latest action campaign: "Thank You Planned Parenthood!"

Apparently, all the opposition PP receives is taking a toll on its employees. So the organization's fighting back with a blatant solicitation for gratitude:

So during this time of year as we all reflect on the things for which we are thankful, take a moment to send a thank you note to your local Planned Parenthood clinic staff. Let them know they are appreciated and tell them what Planned Parenthood means to you....They work tirelessly, in spite of adversity, to provide comprehensive health care to the community.

The plea is signed, "Happy Thanksgiving, Planned Parenthood Action Network."

So that's what Thanksgiving is all about—letting people who sexualize children and inject saline into wombs know just how much you appreciate them. I'm sure that's exactly what the Pilgrims were thinking as they bowed their heads that day in 1620.

Of course, if you are under 18 and want to thank Planned Parenthood, your parent or guardian must sign a permission slip—the rule's right there in the small print. Planned Parenthood can vacuum a live baby out of your teenage daughter's uterus without your knowledge or consent—but heaven forbid they risk a lawsuit by using her "thank you" note without your say-so.
2:09 AM |

Sunday, November 28, 2004

Thought for the Day

"[S]tatistically Catholics divorce at the same rate as the rest of the population, just with more angst..."

— Elena of My Domestic Church
8:32 PM |

For you home-schoolers out there—and I know you're out there—here's a funny and sensitive article from today's Detroit News. The title: "When 3-year-olds ask for lip gloss, home schooling sounds pretty good."
7:59 PM |

CALL FOR COMMENTS—The Swiss Patrol

Andreas Gossweiler, the Swiss man who inspired yesterday's post "EU Oughta Know," writes:

What I wanted to say was that from a European viewpoint, your attacks on Planned Parenthood are hard to understand. What they say is pretty much every European's view. In Switzerland, only members of small fundamentalist communities share your ideas. For example, my brother. He thinks homosexuals and unmarried heterosexuals who have sex are sinners. The majority of the Swiss think this is a whimsical and old fashioned, if not dangerous idea.

I'd really like to know why some Americans praise chastity and abstinence. Most Europeans think of sexuality as something natural, not as something that should be suppressed.

By the way, Switzerland is not part of the EU. You oughta know!

Andreas's question about why some Americans praise chastity and abstinence is well worth a thoughtful answer. Since I'm a bit played-out on this topic, I'd like to invite readers to respond. Please write me (dawn -at- dawneden.com) and I'll publish the best responses in this space. If you respond on your blog, please let me know so I can link to it. Thanks!

COMMENTS: Richard J. Stuart writes:

"I'd really like to know why some Americans praise chastity and abstinence." It's because we value children. Sex produces children. Children are valuable and someone has to raise them. The best people to raise children are the natural parents of the child. Now not everyone plans on having children, some people just like sex, but accidents happen. So the old deal was this: A couple wants to have sex, but the rest of the community does not want any single mothers or abandoned children. So we have this deal called "marriage."

The idea is that the young couple stands up in front of the community and promises to stay together and raise any kids that show up. If you didn't do this, society used to take a very dim view of events because the young couple is causing problems for the rest of us. If you were not married and had a kid, we expected you to GET married. Divorce was also really frowned upon, because, again, no one is raising the kids. Historically we frown very deeply on any sexual relationships out of wedlock.

Now, today we have better birth control. Big deal, accidents still happen. Moreover this isn't helping society because using birth control can torpedo society though a lack of children. Look at Japan where the birth rates are declining to the point that there is going to be a population SHORTAGE in the future.

So a lot of Americans think this whole sexual-revolution thing is a load of dingo's kidneys put out by a bunch of irresponsible jerks who can't be bothered raising children.

"Most Europeans think of sexuality as something natural, not as something that should be suppressed." We're not in favor of suppressing anything. Go find a girl (or boy). Have fun. Just before you do be willing to stand up in front of the community and be willing to take responsibility for your actions. Is that really so difficult? Over 5,000 years of human history says this is the way to handle things. If you want a different system you have the burden of proof to show that your system works. So far, looking at societies that have abandoned respect for marriage, I see every prediction for doom and disaster coming true in spades.

Mark Kellner writes:

Just because something is "natural," as Andree Seu writes in the Dec. 4, 2004 issue of WORLD magazine, doesn't mean it shouldn't be regarded as sin. Ms. Seu was talking about homosexuality, but the same argument can be extended to pre- and extra-marital escapades, irrespective of gender.

My "natural" proclivity may be to rob banks and kill bank tellers -- it isn't -- but if it were, would that make it "right" for me to express it? How about a "natural" desire to take Mr. Gossweiler's car -- or spouse? It's my desire, let's say for the sake of argument, it seems "natural" to me, so why CAN'T I then have Mr. G.'s car, wife or the money in his bank account?

Wait, I hear Mr. G. saying -- those things are "mine" and I have "rights" thereto. Fair enough, but why, if we follow Mr. G's underlying point, should his rights trump mine?

Hmmm. Let's see. Maybe it's something called civilization? And perhaps that civilzation has been influenced by, oh, I dunno, the Bible?

Mr. G. hails from Switzerland, which is the home (for better or for worse) of one Jean Calvin and Calvinism. I'm not a Calvinist theologically -- I don't even play one on TV -- and I don't like some of the things Calvin did. BUT, in bringing moral suasion and Protestant ethics to Switzerland, Calvin did a good thing, which set the Swiss up for centuries of prosperity and good living.

One argument for chastity and abstinence is that it helps preserve a civil society. By denying our "natural" urges, we avoid chaos; by waiting for marriage, we avoid the consequences of profligacy that others have discussed.

So the question then flips for Mr. Gossweiler: What is to be gained by throwing all caution to the winds? Where is the society that has been improved by such imprudence?

Wolf N. Paul writes:

As a European I would like to weigh in with some thoughts.

1. It is not just small, fundamentalist communities who think that sex should be confined to marriage. Any Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, Orthodox, etc. believer who takes seriously the teaching of his or her church would agree.

This teaching of the churches is based on the clear teaching of the Bible.

One problem of the churches in Europe seems to be that many members don't take their teaching seriously, and somehow the churches have not yet figured out what to do about that.

2. Additionally to the reasons given by Richard Stuart, the notion that it is all right to have sex with someone you're not married to leads sooner or later to the notion that it is all right to have sex with someone who's married to someone else. At that point you are contributing to the breaking of trust between the spouses, and that introduces all sorts of ethical problems.

3. Any serious Christian would say that EVERYONE is a sinner. Having sex with someone you're not married to, or with a member of the same sex, is just one way that sin expresses itself. Gossip is also a sin; so is greed (even though a major German electronics superstore advertises that "Greed is Cool"), and many other things. Christians are sinners, too; that's why they need a Saviour.

4. Actually MOST EUROPEANS would not be in favor of children under 16 being
given detailed instructions for engaging in sex. Even of those who have abandoned Christian sexual morality, the majority would be appalled if such instructions were made available to their own children at 11 or 12 years of age.

And THAT, after all, is on of the main points Dawn is making: that PP not only does not share our view of the proper place for sex, they are actually introducing children to it at a far too young age.

5. I am not up to date on the status of abortion legislation in all of Europe, but in Germany and Austria, at least, abortion "on demand" (i.e. without some clearly defined and limited reason) is legal only during the first trimester of pregnancy. I just looked it up on Wikipedia, and this is true for Switzerland as well, and with slightly different deadlines, for most other European countries.

PP, on the other hand, advocates the right to an abortion all the way up to the end of the pregnancy; indeed, "partial-birth abortion" constitutes the killing of the child at the moment of birth. Any European who does not understand why this is deplorable is out of step with the legal reality in his own country.

7:03 PM |

Sullivan Unravels

With his latest column in London's Sunday Times, Andrew Sullivan continues his game of "You're Red, I'm Blue, Whatever You Say Bounces off Me and Sticks to You." Its title encapsulates his self-righteous view of American politics: Where the Bible bashers are sinful and the liberals pure."

Sullivan is a relativist who can only elevate himself by digging a pit for others. Readers of his blog will recognize his smug litany of conservatives' downfalls—in Bill O'Reilly's case, substituting insinuation when the facts are not on his side: "Rush Limbaugh, the top conservative talk-radio host, has had three divorces and an addiction to painkillers. Bill O’Reilly, the most popular conservative television personality, just settled a sex harassment suit that indicated a highly active adulterous sex life. Bill Bennett, guru of the social right, was for many years a gambling addict..."

The actively homosexual Sullivan, who takes advantage of the fact that his professed Catholicism and erstwhile conservative status qualifies him to be a "right-wing" commentator in the mainstream media, can fake his way through character assassinations. But he can't fake knowledge of statistics—and there he digs his own hole.

Juxtaposing good, liberal, Kerry-spawning Massachusetts with evil, conservative, Bush-boosting Texas, Sullivan writes:

Ask yourself a simple question: which state has the highest divorce rate? Marriage was a key issue in the last election, with Massachusetts’ gay marriages becoming a symbol of alleged blue state decadence and moral decay. But in fact Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country at 2.4 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants. Texas, which until recently made private gay sex a crime, has a divorce rate of 4.1.

Apparently Sullivan missed Maggie Gallagher's column on the New York Times piece from which he took his statistics. If he'd read it, he would know that there are several mitigating factors for the differing divorce rates, not least of which is the sharp difference between the states' marriage rates: It was 6.4 marriages per 1,000 people in Massachusetts in 2001 (according to Gallagher's column) and 9.1 per 1,000 in Texas that year (according to the state's Web site). (Sullivan does offer marriage statistics, but he doesn't source them, and he uses a different type of measure for marriage statistics than he does for divorce statistics—comparing apples to oranges, in other words.)

But Sullivan most blatantly allows ideological bias to triumph over fact in his boast that Massachusetts has fewer teenage births than the Lone Star State:

Teenage births? Again, the contrast is striking. In a state such as Texas where the religious right is strong and the rhetoric against teenage sex is gale-force strong, teenage births as a percentage of all births are 16.1%. In liberal, secular Massachusetts they are 7.4%, less than half.

One reason for the difference is stated in Gallagher's column; Texas is a younger state. People 18 and under make up 28 percent of Texas's population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In Massachusetts, they make up only 23.6 percent, also according to census statistics.

So where does the rest of the discrepancy arise? The answer is so sadly obvious that Sullivan would have to be a pathetic hack to miss it unintentionally. Certainly, despite his Catholic status, he doesn't have life issues on the brain. Because—hello?—MASSACHUSETTS HAS 37 PERCENT MORE ABORTIONS PER 1,000 LIVE BIRTHS THAN TEXAS. It has 333 per 1,000, to Texas's 209. More abortions = fewer teenage births.

The fact that cynical, disillusioned blue-staters in the media like Sullivan and the New York Times staff are reduced to twisting figures to justify their sense of superiority shows that even they know truth is not on their side—in so far as they even believe in absolute truth.

TRACKBACK: Thinkling Shrode responds thoughtfully with "Does Morality Equal Hypocrisy?" There are also a couple of related posts on the Texan group blog Lone Star Times.
1:31 AM |

Saturday, November 27, 2004

Just got a message from the producer of WABC Radio's "Religion on the Line" that my appearance on tomorrow's show has been canceled. He said they might want to reschedule it, so I'll let you know if there's any word.
9:39 PM |

EU Oughta Know

A European music fan writing to thank me for yesterday's link to Alan Price's home page added a line that made me smile:

I still don't understand why you are so furious about Planned Parenthood, but then I'm Swiss.

7:32 PM |

Yahoo's Strip Search

An ad for Yahoo atop a subway entrance on Sixth Avenue near 42nd Street is an area map showing locations of two kinds of landmarks: ATMs and strip clubs.

What's more, it's part of a national campaign; a San Francisco blogger has spotted it there as well.

Apparently Yahoo's management still resents the fact that public pressure forced it to remove pornography from its online shopping and auction sites.
2:08 AM |

A Planned Parenthood Christmas

[Warning: Explicit sexual language and heavy sarcasm ahead.]

Remember when Planned Parenthood introduced its "Choice on Earth" Christmas cards? ("'Tis the season," its catalogue chirps.) This year, its Boise, Idaho, branch has gone even farther—advertising for people to buy their favorite women and girls a trip to their local Planned Parenthood for Christmas.

Sounds like a pro-lifer's paranoid fantasy, doesn't it? Sadly, no.

The Boise Weekly "Holiday Gift Guide," a "special advertising section" of the paper, recommends two Planned Parenthood "gifts":

They don’t offer the most conventional gifts, but Planned Parenthood has some great services that are an essential part of health, wellness and sexual responsibility. For the thoughtful boyfriend who doesn’t know what to get his girlfriend for Christmas, why not purchase a year’s supply of birth control?

You can't make this stuff up.

Men should be more involved in contraception anyway, and a supportive financial and social partner is something every woman appreciates.

How about a supportive husband who treats her like a human being and not just a sex object he can squirt into at will without fearing a paternity suit?

From pills to patches to injections, Planned Parenthood has every kind of birth control available for about half the cost of prescriptions through an individual doctor’s office,

Those half-price prescriptions are subsidized by the federal, state, and—in all probability—local government, and Planned Parenthood is spending additional taxpayer funds advertising them.

and they provide education and counseling to ensure that users understand the risks and benefits.
Planned Parenthood, 6111 Clinton Street,...

Planned Parenthood sure didn't make the late Holly Patterson "understand the risks and benefits" when they prescribed her RU 486.

There are a few things women need to keep on their yearly checklists, and right above sending Christmas cards and losing five pounds is getting an annual exam. Doctors recommend that women 18 and older should have a full pelvic exam once a year to make sure that everything is functioning properly and free of disease. So if you have a teenage daughter who is nervous or may not feel she has the money to get her first exam, offer a free trip to the OBGYN at Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood just loves those nervous teenage daughters. The more nervous and teenage, the better. Bring in the pliable for Planned Parenthood's pliers.

The staff is excellently trained and very understanding of individual needs, making their services one of the best ways to introduce young women to the responsibility of gynecological health.
Planned Parenthood, 6111 Clinton St.,...

Translation: "Moloch wants babies. Feed me!" All in the spirit of Christmas giving, of course.
1:37 AM |

Just discovered the official home page of Alan Price, the singer/songwriter and former Animals organist I interviewed a while back. The biography is particularly well-written; I love its description of Price sitting on the tour bus reading Kafka while his fellow Animals were "out chatting up the birds."
1:17 AM |

Friday, November 26, 2004

UPDATED—The Gay Pride Movement Loses Its Patron Saint

"20/20" reveals tonight that the motive for the murder of Matthew Shepard was robbery—not hatred of the youth's homosexuality.

Needless to say, the gay community—which holds up Shepard's brutalized corpse as proof that every straight person, deep down inside, hates homosexuals just for being homosexual—is furious.

The murder of Matthew Shepard remains a horrible crime. But while the thugs who killed Shepard are in prison, the public-relations flacks at GLAAD are still roaming the streets, using a man's purported "death by homophobia" to push through the organization's agenda: one that would ultimately ban Bible verses as "hate speech." Such restrictions have already been instituted in Canada.

John Kerry on the campaign trail spoke of Shepard's "crucifixion." Gay leaders realize the strong symbolism of the youth's murder, and they use it mercilessly to compel guilt from heterosexuals—the idea that we all killed him.

But there is no redemptive nature in such guilt. Matthew Shepard did not die for my sins.

In life, he may have been a beautiful, if sadly misguided, soul, one who was tragically and criminally robbed of his future. In death, Matthew Shepard is a false god.

I was sorry to hear that the real Matthew Shepard was murdered. But I'm glad the false image has been destroyed.

UPDATE: A fellow Christian blogger who strongly objects to "20/20"'s Shepard report is preparing a response to this entry, which will appear in this space [see trackback below]. Regardless of whether his murder was a hate crime, I stand by my position that the gay-rights movement's turning Shepard into a martyr is exploitative and wrong. A recent WorldNetDaily piece provides a reminder of how gay-rights organizations, with the acquiescence of the mainstream media, shamelessly used the youth's slaying to demonize Christians and anyone opposed to the homosexual agenda:

Shepard's death and the trials of McKinney and Henderson galvanized homosexuals and their supporters across the country, fueling the call for state and federal "hate-crime" legislation. Conservative Christians were singled out as having created a "climate of anti-gay hate" where such a brutal act could happen.

NBC's Today Show took the lead, focusing on a Christian ad campaign running at the time that said homosexuals could change their orientation.

David Gregory narrated: "The ads were controversial for portraying gays and lesbians as sinners who had made poor choices, despite the growing belief that homosexuality may be genetic ... Have the ads fostered a climate of anti-gay hate that leads to incidents like the killing of Matthew Shepard?"

TRACKBACK: Nathan Nelson, a Catholic who experiences same-sex attraction, responds with a cry of the heart: "Is Matthew Shepard an Icon?" Although I disagree with him about the need for hate-crime legislation—I don't believe hate crimes should be prosecuted differently from crimes not motivated by prejudice—he gives some good food for thought, particularly in describing what Shepard means to him:

I think he is an icon, but not just an icon for those experiencing same-sex attraction. That's too narrow. He isn't an icon to promote gay marriage. He isn't an icon to encroach upon people's free speech. He isn't an icon to ban passages from the Bible that aren't well-liked. Rather, Matthew Shepard is an icon reminding us of what exactly evil can do, what exactly disrespect for the dignity of human life can do. He is an icon like the picture of an aborted unborn baby is an icon; he is an icon like Terri Schindler-Schiavo is an icon. He reminds us what can happen when human beings reach the height of evil. He reminds us what can happen in a culture of death in which people no longer pay attention to the dignity of human life. He reminds us what happens when we forget that all the people walking the earth, regardless of who they are or what sins they've committed, are made in the image and likeness of God. He is an icon that humanity must look at and say: Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. He is an icon of sadness, but he can also be an icon of hope. The hope that this icon evokes is the hope that human beings will look upon what was done to him and never want to do something like that to another human being again -- for any reason, any reason at all.

8:01 PM |

Pink Fraud

The kids who sang on Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall," long past their school days, are now suing the band for royalties.

Twenty-five years since that song was Number One around the world, and now they're suing?

Seems to me that those kids could have used some education after all.
6:39 PM |

Necked to Godliness

This one's for the enigmatic, homeschooling librarian Sherry, who loves education-related humor: Professor Curt Niccum lists some of the funnier typos in papers students submitted for his classes. Here's my favorite, along with Niccum's own commentary:

“The Bible tells us that all sinners are necked before God” - Proof that Hooked on Phonics doesn’t work in Texas.

Speaking of Sherry, she has the best review of "Finding Neverland" that I've seen anywhere. It encapsulates why I refuse to see the film, even though I'm a tremendous fan of J.M. Barrie's work and would love to see a true-to-life film about him.
1:33 AM |

I had a beautiful Thanksgiving visiting my father and stepmother, with many things for which to be thankful—including one that was completely unexpected.

My father is a scientist, and as far back as I can remember, he has been working towards cures. Before I was born, he co-discovered a hormone that he has always believed would lead to important advances in the field of immunity.

On Wednesday, the news came out that a protein derived from the hormone my father discovered has been shown in animals to repair and restore heart muscle after an attack.

As if that weren't news enough, I was surprised to learn that another angle of the story related to an issue close to my heart. Up to now. some scientists have been touting embryonic stem cells as a possible treatment for damaged heart muscle. But this new protein-derived treatment, which does not use any embryo-derived substances, is actually more promising, as the Associated Press reports: "Scientists who did not contribute to the experiment said the protein might work better and more easily than trying to isolate and implant stem cells to repair the heart and restore its function."

It's very exciting, and I am so proud of my dad.
12:09 AM |

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Sex Marks the Spot

I just saw a commercial for Seasonale, the creepy contraceptive I described yesterday in "Unnatural Woman" (below).

It opens with a shot of a model in a strapless, billowy, Fifties-style gown that's white with large fuchsia polka dots.

As a female voice-over tells how the pill reduces a woman's periods to only four per year, the model swirls around in a joyous dance, magically peeling off the dots—"periods"—and casting them away, until her dress is completely white.

The brazen symbolism reminded me of nothing so much as a modern-day Lady Macbeth. There's the feeling that the narrator is there to drown out the sound of the frenzied model's cries: "Out, out, damned spot!"

Likewise, you know, watching this buoyantly barren woman, that no matter how hard she tries, she will never wash away the feeling that there is something less than human about willfully altering her body so that her cycles no longer parallel those of the nearest heavenly body.
11:57 PM |

Unnatural Women

[Be advised: Graphic anatomical language ahead.]

A "CBS Evening News" story yesterday on pharmacists who refuse to prescribe oral contraceptives delivered what was, for the news team, the shocking revelation that a pharmacist in Louisiana doesn't believe in any contraceptives.

The story, "The Drugstore War," appeared designed to make the druggist seem a wacko—make that Christian wacko, one of the mainstream media's favorite stereotypes. In the online version of it, the editors even call NFP "'natural' family planning," with scare quotes around "natural," as if there's something bizarre and unnatural about it, unlike good old healthy, organic, get-a-wire-IUD-shoved-up-your-uterus contraception.

Newsday columnist Marie Cocco tackled the same topic yesterday, from a similarly "Who are these crazy anti-Pill people?" perspective—and unwittingly revealed much more about the topic than she or other pro-abortion activists realize. (I say "pro-abortion" because she is pro-abortion, and because those who would disallow pharmacists the option of denying contraceptives would also disallow them the option of denying the morning-after pill.)

Cocco describes what she calls the "anti-abortion right"'s claim that oral contraceptives are abortifacients—that they can kill an embryo by preventing it from implanting in the uterus. Then she makes her odd admission:

Women taking the pill never know whether conception has or has not occurred before they menstruate.

That's a remarkable statement, because it encapsulates what is perverted about contraception. It separates a woman from knowledge of her own menstrual and reproductive cycle. By contrast, the woman using natural family planning knows exactly when and if conception has been achieved.

I had a shock recently, when I thought that, at 36, I was undergoing early menopause. For two years, I had been on Lo-Ovral, one of the low-hormone oral contraceptives, which a gynecologist prescribed for me after I had abnormal bleeding. That had appeared to normalize my periods—until last summer, when they dwindled down to almost nothing.

So I made an appointment with a gynecologist and told him that I feared I was menopausal. He responded that it was normal for women on the Pill to not have periods.

Normal, I thought. What is normal? It is normal for my childbearing-age body to stop displaying a key biological proof that it is female? If I started to grow a mustache and a beard, would that be normal?

Planned Parenthood touts a new oral contraceptive, Seasonale, which limits a woman's periods to four per year. Its slogan: "Fewer periods, more possibilities." I suppose those possibilities include having the physical experience of menopause before actually being menopausal, and getting more venereal diseases by having more days of the month available for sex.

Talk about a Brave New World. Take away all that yucky stuff from women's bodies and make them supercybersextoys.

Think about it. Suppose there were an oral contraceptive that had the side effect of making a woman's heart beat exactly 59 times a minute. So women on the Pill would all be perfectly "natural," except they'd have a weirdly robotic ticker. Would that be worth it, to make all contracepting women's hearts beat in Stepford symmetry, just so they couldn't have kids? Wouldn't it remove an essential part of what made them women? So why are they still "natural" women if they willfully deprive themselves of the one thing that really marks the femininine identity of a pre-menopausal woman—her fertility?

Or suppose there were an oral contraceptive with the side effect of giving its users platinum-blond hair and creepy, staring eyes like those kids in the classic British horror flick "Village of the Damned."

Of course, it would become fashionable for models and celebrities to have platinum-blond hair and creepy, staring eyes, to demonstrate that they were willfully infertile—oh, wait, that's already happened.

As cartoonist John Pritchett has noted of one of the Senate's strongest proponents of abortion rights, it takes a village...of the damned.
3:30 AM |

In the wake of an e-mail from Dennis Schenkel detailing the Missouri Compromise, I have decided to remove my post making fun of the Communist Party USA for comparing their Missouri campaign for Kerry to the "Mississipi Summer." Apparently the CPUSA's ignorance of the Show Me State and the Magnolia State is matched only by my own. But the article I cited by the real-life Communists for Kerry (as opposed to the parody one) is still a hoot, especially for its description of the head of New York's NOW saying she wants to see lots of "red flags" at the abortion-rights March for Women's Lives. That alone raises my red flag.
2:39 AM |

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

I wrote the headline in tomorrow's paper for the story about Martha Stewart's Thanksgiving in jail: FEAST OF BURDEN.
11:28 PM |

Just put up more photos from my sister's wedding. I wanted to keep "Daze of Our Wives" (below) uptop, so the photos are just under that entry.
3:24 PM |

Daze of Our 'Wives'

Pop Quiz: What TV show inspired a Newsweek writer to gush, "Considering how quickly [this show] has become a sensation, you do have to wonder: what took so long? Why haven't the networks put together a decent show about women and their real lives?"

That's right. Newsweek's Mark Peyser is raving about that remarkably true-to-life program, "Desperate Housewives."

If you're not familiar with that sex-filled show, where adultery is a key component of every plot, and no show passes without at least one female lead parading in her underwear, here's a sample plot as described in Peyser's article, "Sex and the Suburbs":

"Will any show be able to top the scene last week where Gabrielle's suspicious mother-in-law snaps a picture of her and her lawn boy toy in the sack, only to be run over in the middle of Wisteria Lane by Bree's drunken son?"

You know, I just knew my life was missing something. I'm not normal. In fact, according to Hollywood, I don't even exist. Otherwise I'd be spying on someone, having adulterous sex, or raising a son who drives drunk. Because we all know that's what real women do.

You can laugh off a show like this and say it's a comedy. But "Sex and the City" was a comedy, and many single women took it upon themselves to mirror its characters' consumeristic lifestyle—blowing money on designer fashions, and putting themselves on the meat market.

Likewise, the fantasy of the glamorous so-called "real" women on "Desperate Housewives" appeals to cynical women who think that materialism and casual sex will boost their low self-esteem.

Feminist commentators like Ellen Goodman claim the show upholds a "post-feminine mystique," a relativist triumph showing that motherhood has room for ambivalence—and that, she says, is a good thing. "Yes, you can be dedicated to doing the right thing and not at all sure you're doing it."

This is what Newsweek's Peyser means by "a decent show about women and their real lives"—the idea that women can wake up some days and wish they weren't a mother.

Except that, on this show, they're waking up next to the gardener. Not particularly decent if you ask me.

What was that Jesus said—"If you so much as look at your gardener with lust in your heart, cut your own grass"?

Or, in the immortal words of a truly decent desperate housewife, Erma Bombeck: "The grass is always greener over the septic tank."
2:54 AM |

More Photos from My Sister's Wedding

These just in from Jennifer's Nov. 7 wedding in Cincinnati, taken by my stepfather Ron (whose biography is linked at left):

Jennifer, me, and my mom, Rachel, about to enter the temple. I love this photo.

Jen and Len cut the exquisite cake—note the kiddush cup on top!

Here I am, about to enter the reception. I liked my new face—somewhere between kewpie doll and '50s bad girl. (No plastic surgery—just lots of makeup from the bridal-party stylist.)
2:05 AM |

Monday, November 22, 2004

Joel Belz has a great piece in World magazine on single-issue voters. It got under the skin of the editors at Christianity Today—which, given the magazine's recent coverage of abortion issues, is a good thing.
8:20 PM |

Just added a trackback to the post I made earlier today about "abstinence-plus education", as Shock and Blog's Jinx McHue has put up an informative entry on the same subject. Also, sorry I forgot to put an explicit-language warning on today's post. I'd thought the headline would be a sufficient tip-off, but I was wrong. Unfortunately, when writing about the Planned Parenthood/SIECUS approach to sex ed, it's impossible to counter it effectively without exposing what it is in the organizations' own words.
5:42 PM |

Life Imitates 'I'm Just a Bill-ding'

"This building is like my husband: It's paid off by wealthy Saudis."
3:32 PM |

What's Wrong With Teaching Kids to Masturbate

[SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL WARNING: This is a Planned Parenthood Teenwire-related post; expect the worst.]

In the wake of Bush's re-election, which they spent millions to prevent, Planned Parenthood is now putting its efforts to destroy what the president would like to be a major part of his legacy: abstinence-only educational programs. Search news Web sites for stories on Planned Parenthood and abstinence, and you'll see that the fight against abstinence-only education is being fought around the country—with Planned Parenthood always at the fore.

Margaret Sanger's organization lobbies for what it calls "comprehensive sexual education," a k a "abstinence plus." It bases its campaigns on the assertion that children need to learn to use condoms and other contraceptives.

Suppose for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that Planned Parenthood is right on this count. Suppose that teaching children about contraceptives is a good thing. Does that mean that the proponents of "abstinence plus" should be allowed to take all that nice federal money which would otherwise go to abstinence-only programs?

To answer that, you have to look at just what's in that "plus" in "abstinence plus." I can assure you that when you do, you will be nonplussed.

Both Planned Parenthood and SIECUS, the large nonprofit devoted to promoting comprehensive sex education, have a broad definition of abstinence. A foundational component of "abstinence plus" is masturbation. It's based on the hypothesis that children will be less likely to have sex if they masturbate.

As Cal State professor Barbara Flannery, an avid proponent of the PP philosophy, puts it, "The definition of abstinence has changed. It can include cybersex, anal sex, oral sex and masturbation."

On Planned Parenthood's Teenwire, where children age 6 and up are invited to register, that ultra-broad definition of abstinence is reflected in articles like "All About the Anus," which asserts, "Some straight couples use anal sex as a way to preserve the woman's virginity."

Teenwire also boasts dozens of articles propounding self-gratification, including "Masturbation Myths," which invites teens to "use masturbation as a kind of 'dress rehearsal,' to learn more about what they find pleasurable.

"People can learn about their bodies through masturbating," the Teenwire piece claims, "and this can help them communicate better with their partners about what they enjoy sexually."

But the core of Teenwire's message comes through in "Outercourse: Abstinence for Experts," where the writer advises teens on what "abstinence plus" really means in Planned Parenthood's language: "Hours of kissing sounds nice, huh? How about a little mutual masturbation that ends with orgasm? Get creative — talk to each other (before, during, and after you fool around)! Things can get pretty steamy even without having sex, as long as you keep in mind that you will not, no matter how tempted you are, have intercourse."

OK. Stop. Enough.

Am I the only one who thinks it's crazy to tell teenagers that masturbating will make them not want to have sex?

I'm trying to imagine a father talking to his 14-year-old son.

"What's that, Johnny? You want to do what with your classmate? Well, you know you can't—she's only 13. Go to your room and masturbate—then you won't be tempted."

Really, I can't get over how Planned Parenthood advises, "Things can get pretty steamy even without having sex, as long as you keep in mind that you will not, no matter how tempted you are, have intercourse." And these people think real abstinence is hard? Which is harder—never beginning that "Bolero" dance, or getting all the way to the fourth movement before suddenly turning on the red lights?

Come on: When it comes to halting a sex act, once we get to actually touching below the belt, we're all as hopeless as Ray Milland trying to beat the bottle in "The Lost Weekend." So why should "abstinence plus" advocates assume teenagers are any better?

The answer is, of course, they don't. Groups like Planned Parenthood, which received a quarter-billion dollars in taxpayer money in fiscal 2003, and SIECUS don't actually want to delay teenagers' sexual activity—so they give them a prescription for promiscuity.

TRACKBACK: Jinx McHue of Shock and Blog does some Dumpster-diving of his own in a highly recommended post. He writes: "[Teenwire's] 'advice' is so completely and unbelievably dangerous that I am just stunned. 'Watch it with direct genital contact.' 'Watch it?' 'Watch it?' Is that supposed to be PP's idea of a warning to teens? Or how about this: 'so be careful?' Please, spare me. In general, teens aren't known for consistantly being careful. This becomes even more true when they are having (non-sexual) fun. When it comes to sexual activity, the last thing on teens' minds in the heat of passion is going to be the words 'watch it' and 'be careful.'"

1:42 AM |

Sunday, November 21, 2004

Contest Results: I'm Just a Bill-ding

We have a winner! At 11 p.m. Eastern time, I reread all the entries in The Dawn Patrol's first-ever contest, "I'm Just a Bill-ding. The entries (printed a few posts down) were all witty—some laugh-out-loud and some "hmmmm," but all aptly completing Hillary Clinton's sentence on why William J. Clinton Presidential Center library is like her husband.

The winner is Devin W. Rice, for this gem:

"This building is like my husband: It contains a lot of good information that will never be put to good use."

More of a "hmmm," I know, but I thought about it and it works the analogy very well. Devin wins a $25 gift certificate to Amazon.com.

If I were giving a second prize, it would go to Cathy Bukowski for this zinger:

"This building is like my husband: It has no soul."

Thanks very much to all the entrants, who also include Jerry Nora Jane Lebak, and Dawn B., plus friends and blog pals of mine who were ineligible for the prize but sent in some good lines anyway: Jeff Miller, Joel Helbling, Scott Sala, Kevin McCullough, Dave Munger, Stephen Spicer. and Mark Kellner.
11:39 PM |

Saturday, November 20, 2004

Congratulations to Dawn Patrol cartoonist David Chelsea, who now has a new addition to his long list of credits: He's the artist for the New York Times' Sunday Styles section's "Modern Love" series.
4:28 PM |

I just suggested this headline for the story about the parking-garage attendant who bought the winning lottery ticket, but the copy chief didn't go for it: HOW GREEN WAS MY VALET.
3:27 PM |

I'm Just a Bill-ding: A Contest

This week, Hillary Clinton said at the opening of the William J. Clinton Presidential Center library:

The building is like my husband: It's open, it's expansive, it's welcoming, it's filled with light.

Surely the new library is like our former president in other ways as well.

So here's the contest: Fill in the blank and finish Hillary's thought a different way—"The building is like my husband: it's ___________."

As encouragement, I am offering a real prize for the wittiest entry: a $25 Amazon gift certificate. It is worth it to me, because I'm trusting you'll provide me with some fun items to cut-and-paste into today's and tomorrow's Dawn Patrol, thereby saving me hours of late-night Web-scouring for newsworthy items (and I do want to go to bed early tonight, as I haven't made it to church in a while).

The fine print: To keep this fair, only entries from readers who have never before had contact with me are eligible for the prize. I realize that rules out a lot of faithful readers, but I don't want to be accused of favoritism. However, I'll publish all entries that I judge to be funny, and link to entrants' blogs if they have one. Please remember that this is a family blog, so nothing too explicit, though I'll allow some leeway given the subject material.

E-mail entries to dawn -at- dawneden.com. Deadline for submissions is 11 p.m. tomorrow (Sunday), but I'll start posting them as they come in. The winner will be announced in the wee small hours of Monday morning. Good luck!

ENTRIES: "The building is like my husband: it's totally focused on Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton, and yet more Bill Clinton." — Jerry Nora

"This building is like my husband:

"Since it also did not have sex with that woman."
"In that it has many interacting exhibits and BIll the exhibitionist allowed many women to interact."
"Since in a library you can't judge a book by their cover and with my husband - cover ups to keep judges from getting him booked."
"At 20,000 square feet it closely matches his ego."
"The exhibits within are just as accurate and truthful as anything he has said."

— All the bulleted entries above are by Jeff Miller* a k a The Curt Jester. The entries also appear on his blog, along with commentary.

"The building is like my husband...depending on what your definition of 'is' is." — Joel Helbling*

"The building is like my husband: It's big, but it's open to the public. Of course, I don't have to pay." — Scott Sala* of Slant Point

"The building is like my husband: It will proudly leave its mark on the
'blue-dress capital of this honorable red state..." — Kevin McCullough*

"The building is like my husband:

"It's dependent on foreign donors."
"Its idea of supporting Israel is photo ops, shaking hands with terrorists, portraying signing a piece of paper as a significant act of good will in and of itself, and using young Jewesses the way my roommate uses an old sweat sock."
"It's full of euphemisms like 'ask' for 'mandate,' 'contribution' for 'tax,' and assorted other lawyer words."
"A long, hard, white thing, hehehehehehehe!"
"It's popular with tourists from Red China and Old Europe."
"White-looking, but actually black, and somehow able to make this claim based on an assumption that acting pimpy equals being black without alienating blacks as much as you would think."
"It's symbolically very useful for Republicans."
"Its appeal to single women is inexplicable."
"It's a hollow, inert mass, ready to contain whatever its patrons want it to contain."

—The set of bulleted entries above by Dave Munger*

"This building is like my husband:

"It's firmly anchored in midair."
"It looks like it belongs in a trailer park but for unfathomable reasons it got propelled to national significance."
"With 76 million pages of paper documents , it goes on for far too long."

—The set of bulleted entries above by Jane Lebak. (Read her Web page "Emily Rose's Story" when you have some tissues handy—it's a beautiful, very poignant story, and as pro-life as they come.)

"This building is like my husband, in that it shows that private part of Bill that much of the public still hasn't seen and it was paid for by, ahem, pardon me, Marc Rich." — Stephen Spicer*

"This building is like my husband:

"Contains a lot of good information that will never be put to good use."
"In the long run, just something else that nation will have to pay for."
"It takes up a disproportional amount of space."
"I will be around it as little as possible."
"Soon to be forgotten, hopefully."

—The set of bulleted entries above by Devin W. Rice

"This building is like my husband: full of surprises, like the walk-in humidor you'll find in the gift shop." — Mark A. Kellner*

"This building is like my husband: It has no soul." — Cathy Bukowski (who notes that she "[does] not as a rule try to judge others or their souls"—I think a little rhetoric now and then is excused)

"This building is like my husband: It cost as much as the defense cost for the lawsuits against him." — Dawn B.

*Entries marked with an asterisk are from people I know, and so are not eligible for the prize.
2:13 PM |

Had a busy day yesterday, so blogging will have to wait 'til later today (though I have added numerous trackbacks and comments to the posts below, especially yesterday's "From Handel to Scandal"). In the meantime, check out this piece from the Dawn Patrol archives: "Getting Blunt With Carrie" (she of "Sex and the City"). It's about how casual sex makes you wake up in strange apartments looking horsey.
2:34 AM |

Friday, November 19, 2004

From Handel to Scandal

I have some very happy news to share today: After nearly 20 years as a professional freelance writer*, I have published my first-ever op-ed column, in today's New York Post: "The Grinch Who Stole Messiah."

The column criticizes the decision made by a New Jersey school district—the one where I attended high school—to ban all religious music at holiday concerts.

It's not just religious people who believe this decision is foolish and detrimental to students' education. The Anti-Defamation League has added its voice:

School-sponsored singing of religious music poses slightly different concerns because so much choral music is religious. Due to the dominance of religious music in serious choral music and the legitimate secular reasons for having public school students sing choral music, courts have been more lenient about allowing public school choirs to sing religious music.

Additionally, forbidding choirs to sing any music that is religious has been found to be hostile, not neutral, toward religion.

Therefore, it is usually permissible to allow public school groups to sing some religious music as part of a choral performance.

However, to avoid First Amendment violations, school choirs should not sing only religious music and should not focus on a particular holiday or denomination. Also, similar to school assemblies and other activities, school officials should allow public school children to be excused from singing religious music without fear of embarrassment or peer pressure.

For instance, at a winter public school choral concert, it is permissible to include some songs based on holidays such as Christmas or Chanukah. However, it would not be appropriate for a public school choir to perform a concert dominated by the songs of a single religious tradition.

The American School Board Journal puts the case for allowing holiday music even more strongly:

Schools that are worried about violating the separation of church and state sometimes run into legal trouble from the other direction by being too restrictive of students or noncurricular clubs that seek to engage in their own religious expression.

That's because the U.S. Constitution and other laws also keep church and state separate by protecting private religious beliefs and practices from government interference. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits government -- in this case, public schools -- not only from encouraging religion, but also from inhibitingreligion. One federal court went so far as to suggest that a school's complete failure to acknowledge Christmas and Hanukkah in any way, at a time when holiday imagery is so pervasive outside school, actually might be seen by students as conveying a message of hostility to religion.

Here's the position of the National Association for Music Education:

It is the position of MENC: The National Association for Music Education that the study and performance of religious music within an educational context is a vital and appropriate part of a comprehensive music education. The omission of sacred music from the school curriculum would result in an incomplete educational experience.

Even the First Amendment Center, not known for advocating religion in schools, appreciates the educational value of holiday music:

Does this mean that all seasonal activities must be banned from the schools? Probably not, and in any event, such an effort would be unrealistic. The resolution would seem to lie in devising holiday programs that serve an educational purpose for all students -- programs that make no students feel excluded or forcibly identified with a religion not their own.

Holiday concerts in December may appropriately include music related to Christmas, Hanukkah, and other religious traditions, but religious music should not dominate.

I hope that my former school district will see the light while there's still time for the kids to learn their songs. I remember the annual holiday concerts the choir performed at the town hall. There's such pride in standing before an audience of townspeople and parents and singing the challenging music of Handel. Aside from the educational value—which I describe in my op-ed—it means so much more to a teenager's self-esteem to able to sing that, than it does to sing "Frosty the Snowman."

*I actually started freelancing in the summer of 1985, when I was 16, writing for Jersey Beat, but I didn't start getting paid for it until the following spring, when I began writing for Goldmine and others. That began my long career as a music and arts journalist, writing for Salon,New York Press, Mojo, The Village Voice, Billboard, People, Kerrang!, Record Collector, Good Housekeeping, and others—as well as liner notes for 80 CD reissues. In recent years, as I became less interested in keeping up with contemporary music, I stopped pitching arts editors and instead directed my efforts into writing about faith and politics on this blog. But I never stopped wanting to write for other outlets, which is why this Post piece is such a boon.

TRACKBACK: Michele Catalano of A Small Victory has a must-read post, "Come, All Ye Grinches," from the standpoint of a Catholic-turned-atheist. She writes of those who would ban holiday images and music, "It upsets me that so many of you are making a bad name for all atheists, agnostics and non-Jesus believers."

Ace of Spades writes of the anti-religious-music faction: "You know you've screwed up big-time when even Ron Kuby tells you so." His entry's spurred a lively dialogue in its comments section.

Dustbury's Charles G. Hill asks what have we gained from enforced secularism in the schools: "When did we become the (Sort Of) United Solipsists of America?"

Seems like every atheist I've heard from on this issue is "on the side of the angels," as I wrote of Ron Kuby in my op-ed. Now Elric of The Asylum chimes in with a confession: "For those going basketcase over the whole subject, let me tell you something. I went to a Catholic high school for 4 years and I'm here to tell you I survived just fine with my own opinions intact. They expressed their views committedly and often and yet they never wanted to shove anything down my or anyone else's throats. I enjoyed it about as much as anyone can enjoy high school, even if that's not saying much. Lighten. Up."

James Kushiner, who is not an atheist, makes a dare to secularists in Touchstone's Mere Comments: "Go ahead, remove all the world's literature, art, poetry, music, songs, architecture—every single scrap of cultural expression rooted even remotely in 'cult' or inspired in any way by belief in the transcendent—and see what you have left."

The Curt Jester reveals his own experiences with religion and music in high school (he was an atheist and played the rabbi in his school's production of "Fiddler on the Roof"). He notes: "You know you're getting old when you can remember singing Christmas music in a public school without the appearance of ACLU storm troopers."
3:35 AM |

Thursday, November 18, 2004

Rockin' for Condoleezza

New York City indiepop duo Tan Sleeve has officially come out of the stifling closet of blue-state bohemia to show their true color—red. That's right—a conservative—or, at least, conservative-friendly—underground rock act.

Last night, at a top-secret conservative cocktail hour on the Bowery (I kid you not), Tan Sleeve member Lane Steinberg slipped me their latest CD single: "Condoleezza Will Lead Us" plus "American Blood." "Condoleezza" is a bouncy, upbeat number bearing a Pet Shop Boys feel, but stuffed with ear candy—I can even hear a wayward banjo in the background that seems to have escaped from the Beach Boys' Smile. At the end, it devolves into a witty "My Sweet Lord" mantra-style coda: "Condo-leezza, Leezza Leezza, Condi Condi..."

"American Blood" is what you've been waiting to hear if you're sick of Neil Young's anti-U.S. rants—a Neil Young soundalike vocalist over roots-rocking guitars and harmonica, singing about...well, I can't quite tell what it's about. But it sounds patriotic, and I think it has something to do with that Americans have to realize the terrorists don't just hate our country's policies—they hate our way of life. At any rate, it's the best Young parody I've heard (all right, the only one I've heard) since Brett Taylor of Saint Kansas's "Bomb a Rock Star."

Both Tan Sleeve tunes can be heard for free or downloaded cheaply from their Zuzula Web site.
3:44 PM |

Joel Helbling of Chez Joel is spicing up the blog world (literally) with his "Kitchen Quiz." It's a funny, creative concept, and, best of all, he's offering real prizes.
3:54 AM |

Planned Parenthood Tells How to
Abort Your Baby At Home—No Prescription Necessary

The top story right now on Planned Parenthood'a Web site, "Women on Waves Sets Sail for Cyberspace," tells women how they can learn to abort their babies at home.

The article describes the efforts of Women on Waves, a group whose mobile abortion clinic operates on a boat off the shores of countries where abortion is illegal. While battles with European authorities have temporarily grounded their ship, the group has found a way to enable even the women it can't reach to have illegal abortions, via online instructions on how to get and use the abortion-pill misoprostol without a prescription:

In September, Gomperts appeared on a popular Portuguese daytime talk show and explained to hundreds of thousands of listeners how to safely induce early abortion using the drug misoprostol, an ulcer medication, which in many countries is available over the counter under the brand name Cytotec. The information, in addition to a list of Internet pharmacies that dispense misoprostol without prescription, has now been posted on the Women on Waves Web site, and WOW vows to launch its own campaign to dispense misoprostol online in 2005.

The article links directily to the Women on Waves Web site, which in turn gives detailed instructions on using misoprostol for the off-label purpose of abortion—a practice that the drug's own manufacturer shuns, warning it can lead to ""uterine hyperstimulation, rupture, and perforation."

Meanwhile, the Planned Parenthood article ends with typical unintended irony, praising Women on Waves for "doing its lifesaving work."

I can't discuss this further because it is so unbelievably repulsive to tell women that killing their baby by taking a dangerous drug outside a doctor's supervision is safer than bringing the child to term—and that Planned Parenthood has the nerve to even call it "lifesaving." Your comments, please.

COMMENTS: Joel Helbling writes:

What a "bizarro world" situation. You normally see drug companies move heaven and earth to make sure their drug doesn't end up with bad press. You normally see the medical community and consumers in general being extremely sensitive to problems with a drug, and the occurance of serious complications usually spells commercial disaster. But here is a dangerous drug which the drug maker does not want used for abortions, and the pro-abortion sector of the medical community and pro-abortion consumers at large are clamoring for it. It's absolutely bizarre.

I can't seem to find, at the moment, the scriptural basis for the notion that the wicked become more wicked and the righteous become more righteous, but I believe it's true. I believe all of history is moving toward a point at which there will be no middle ground left. Jesus Christ has always been a stumbling block, a watershed: after you encounter him you simply cannot remain the same, for better or for worse. The surreal situation with Cytotec makes me think of that stumbling block.

TRACKBACK: Dennis Schenkel of Vita Mea wants to knowhow such at-home abortions are better than coat hangers.

Jinx McHue of Shock and Blog notes Planned Parenthood's lame attempt to cover itself:

Oh, and this is cute. If you click the link to WoW [Women on Waves] from PP, you get this message:

Planned Parenthood has not necessarily reviewed and does not endorse the material you are about to view.

Pardon my language, but like hell they don't!

Dustbury's Charles G. Hill has the actual user warning for misoprostol, which is pretty scary. He also has a hilarious look at Planned Parenthood's thought process in advocating the drug's unprescribed, at-home use for abortions.
2:29 AM |

"You're crazy to make a film about me. What did I ever do?"
—Pope John Paul II, to actor Piotr Adamczyk, who is playing him in a biopic for Italian TV
1:57 AM |

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

AP: PETA Campaign Pitches Fish As Smart

Well, if they're so smart, how come they get caught?

COMMENTS: Mark R. reminds me: "I think the old saw is, 'If fish are so smart, why are they always in school?'"
2:30 AM |

I've Got a Little List

This week, I've been thinking more about the ol' lists of "Can't Stands" and "Must-Haves" that husband-seekers are supposed to have in their mind to separate the wheat from the chaff. I just checked my old lists and the Can't Stands seemed too cruel ("poor hygiene" was at the top of the list), so rather than write up new caveats, I'll just proffer the latest, streamlined list of Must Haves. On the face of it, they're kind of dull—just the thinnest pencil outline of Mr. Right—but they represent qualities that I have been unable to find so far in any meaningful combination:

1. Strong, active, and hungry Christian faith.

2. A strong sense of vocation in his chosen career, taking pride in what he does.

3. A creative hobby or interest.

4. A love of books—reading them, not just hoarding them (though what's a little hoarding between friends).

5. Traditional moral values, including a deep understanding of and respect for the institution of marriage.

6. A sharp wit, with both the ability to make me laugh—and to laugh at my jokes as well.

7. A strong love of music—the older, the better.

8. The ability to happily go for days, if not weeks, without watching television.

9. The desire to be faithful to one woman for the rest of his life.

10. A heart for giving of his money or abilities for charity.

COMMENTS Michael Bates observes something I hadn't noticed: "I clicked on the title of your post about the qualities you're looking for in a husband, and here's the first line I read: 'As someday it may happen that a victim must be found....'"

Jeff Geerling writes: "My sister seems to have practically the same dilemma as you. She's found plenty of 'Mr. Rights'—problem is, they are all guys who end up being priests! D'oh!"

He just had to rub it in. Need I add that Jeff is a Roman Catholic seminarian?
1:03 AM |

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

L'Air du Tramps

Once your eyes are opened, you start to see the connections. In the world of contraceptives, nothing is as it seems. The goods are disguised to appear as food or fashion accessories:

Oral-contraceptive cases are in fashion colors...

...or molded in chocolate.

Condoms are sold in flavors like strawberry, raspberry, or honeydew...

...or as "lollipops."

Olympic athletes are paid to wear the contraceptive patch as "product placement."

And now, scientists are testing a new contraceptive for a woman to spray on her arm—"as easy as putting on perfume."

What are they going to call it?

Here are my suggestions:

Eau de Baron
L'emté Woeum
Feuille Tu Conceive
Sans Fruites
Madame Noövary
Sterile Été
Spéede

Suggestions, Curt Jester, Saint Kansas, Dustbury, Media Culpa, anyone?

COMMENTS: Mom and Ron (see bios at left) suggest:
Arrivederci Bébé
Ovo Revoir
Son Block

The Curt Jester picks up the gauntlet on his own blog with a line of perfumes by Un-Christian Dior. My favorites from his selection:
All About Moi
Enfant Terrible

Charles at Dustbury reminds us that George Carlin came up with a name for this product some years ago.

Steve Spicer suggests targeted brands—
For the southern gal: Spay spray [note "Spéede" above—Ed.]
For the East Village girl: L'eau morals
For the Upper East Side woman: Chic sans oeuf
1:34 AM |

Monday, November 15, 2004

Channel-ing Resentment

"People are saying, 'Should I go work for Planned Parenthood or write my feature film?'"

—Vanessa Taylor, co-creator and co-executive producer of the WB's "Jack & Bobby," on how the election has affected the Hollywood community
"TV fears GOP suppression and media consolidation," screams the headline to Joanne Ostrow column in today's Denver Post.

I love the use of "TV" as a general term, as though television were some amorphous being capable of having feelings of its own. It reminds me of the slogan for the pulp-film fanzine Vex: "Movies Hate You."

After telling how the character of Grace, the "liberal feminist pot-smoking mom" on the WB's "Jack & Bobby," is depressed over President Bush's re-election, Ostrow segues into real Hollywood life:

Grace's devastation reflects that of nearly half the nation, including the show's writers.

"The Hollywood community is incredibly distraught about the election results," said Vanessa Taylor, co-creator and co-executive producer of the WB's "Jack & Bobby."

"I'd say we're in a state of shocked disappointment."

I am reminded of another television production—"The Rutles," where the ersatz Beatle characters are "shocked...and stunned" by the departure of their manager.

You get shocked from sticking a bobby pin into an electric socket. You do not get shocked from witnessing election results that reflect the prevailing tone of the country—unless, of course, you live in complete ideological seclusion, as is the case in the Hollywood that Ostrow describes:

Fearing fines or license challenges, networks may shy from controversial subjects; gay themes may be discouraged; writers may self-censor when pitching ideas.

"Writers may self-censor"? Horrors! Such a claim implies that writers, left to their own devices, would never suggest patently offensive ideas.

The "Friends" lawsuit earlier this year gave the lie to that. A young woman hired as a writer's assistant for the show sued its producers, claiming that the writers had created a "hostile environment" by their obscene and offensive words, drawings, and gestures.

The show's writers did not deny the woman's account of their behavior, but "argued that the conduct was justified by "creative necessity," as CNN reported:

The writers' job, defendants argued, was to come up with story lines, dialogue, and jokes for a sitcom with adult sexual themes. To do this, they needed to have "frank sexual discussions and tell colorful jokes and stories (and even make expressive gestures) as part of the creative process."

Here's a sanitized version of that creative process, also according to CNN's account of the lawsuit:

[The writers would] banter about the actresses on "Friends": discussion of which ones the writers would like to have sex with and, if they did, different sexual acts the writers would like to try; speculation about with which "Friends" actresses the writers had missed opportunities to have sex; speculation about the supposed infertility of one of the "Friends" actresses; its supposed cause...; and speculation about the sexual activities of the "Friends" actresses with their partners. [The plaintiff] also complains of derogatory words used to describe women.

Another theme of the alleged comments was the personal sexual preferences and experiences of the writers, emphasizing anal sex, oral sex, big breasts, young girls and cheerleaders.

And that's not even mentioning the dirty coloring books, obscene word games, gestures, and sexual noises. All in the name of "creative necessity."

That, my friends, is the mindset of the writers whom Hollywood fears may have to begin "self-censorship."

Those "shocked and stunned" people in Hollywood are so concerned over the election groups, producer Taylor says in Ostrow's Denver Post piece, that "people are saying, 'Should I go work for Planned Parenthood or write my feature film?'"

Ostrow's account of television under the specter of a second Bush administration reads like a paranoid liberal fantasy:

Bush's win may be terrific for the small, noncommercial, fringe arts - experimental theater and underground music scenes may flourish if artists channel their angst into creativity. But commercial, over-the-air, federally regulated television could be in for a chilly season. Mainstream network fare could be dumbed down to the point of, well, "Fear Factor."

This is the kind of egotism Jack Kelly nailed when he described the Democrats' attitude as, "Vote for us, you greedy warmongering bigots, because we're smarter than you are." Or Michael Moore, who claimed that 51 percent of Americans "lacked information" in the election—because no informed person could possibly resist voting for his candidate. And then they wonder why America isn't with them.

Despite Ostrow's paranoia, she assures readers not to panic—yet: "Any programming shifts will be gradual."

"For now," she adds, "the WB's 'Jack & Bobby' has controversial subject matter in the pipeline, including an episode about a gay teenager's suicide. Grace will only grow feistier. 'I don't hate them,' she says regarding the parents of her son's fundamentalist Christian girlfriend. 'I hate everything they stand for.'"

It's true. Movies do hate you—and TV does too.

COMMENTS: Kevin Walsh, who recently lost his full-time job due to downsizing, writes about the "Jack and Bobby" producer's claim that "half the nation" is "devastated":

Jeez, I'm not devastated. My guy lost, and you know what? Life goes on. I'm writing and photographing my [Forgotten NY] book, I'm working at the paper, will celebrate the holiday with my family soon and look for full-time work. I'll vote for my selected candidate every year, who is often Democratic and sometimes Republican, and win or lose, I'll get on with life.

I suspect that most of the blue and red states feel that way. In New York and Hollywood, they're going nuts, but in most of the USA, nobody's walking around feeling either elated or devastated.

TRACKBACK This post inspired Charles at Dustbury to write his fieriest broadside in recent memory. Among the highlights is this piece of advice to TV producers:

Complaints from the audience do not constitute censorship. Freedom of speech does not guarantee that everyone will just sit there, smiling, whispering "Oh, that's so true."

Ace of Spades likewise uses the "Jack and Bobby" producer's quotes as a jumping-off point for a broadside against Hollywoodians' "solipsism":

They belive there is a special category of humanity called "Artiste," and that these Artistes are unlike any other sort of person, in that they need to exercise no self-restraint or simple common sense in their dealings with others or the public generally. They ought to be immune to any ill-will or simple indifference from the audience; such ill-will or indifference constitutes an "chill wind" of suppresson of the Rights of the Artiste.

1:01 AM |

Jesusland has claimed a new and unlikely prayer warrior. Hallelujah!
1:00 AM |

Sunday, November 14, 2004

If you read The Dawn Patrol yesterday afternoon, you saw a particularly embarrassing gaffe. I was raving about how the best post-election op-ed that I'd read was in a gay paper. Except that, as a friend pointed out to me after the post had been up for a few hours, it wasn't a gay paper. It was a top Midwestern paper that happened to share half its name with a New York City gay weekly.

Still, it's an exceptionally well-articulated column. So go read it, and have a laugh over my typical Yankee ignorance of heartland culture.

* * *
After deejaying last night at POP GEAR!, I was dancing with a cute Mod-ish man-about-town whom I've known for nearly 20 years. We hadn't crossed paths in some months, and as we were dancing, he said he had a question which he knew I could answer:

Where could he buy a good pair of swim trunks?

By good, he meant old-fashioned—not the huge, baggy kind that are in vogue.

I thought for a few seconds and then suggested Urban Outfitters, or Brooks Brothers, or, better yet, Banana Republic.

It took me another half-minute to realize that it was odd to be shopping for swim trunks in the middle of November. He said he was serious, though.
1:15 AM |

Saturday, November 13, 2004

Ten Cents a Coup

If you have the dime, Varifrank makes brilliant 'cents.'
6:23 PM |

Today's paper has my headline for a story on Denzel Washington's signing on to play the lead in Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" on Broadway: "DENZEL WILL BE GREAT 'SHAKES.'" Sadly, I did not get to see a color proof of the accompanying composite image of Washington's head transplanted onto a man in Roman garb, otherwise I would have noticed that, handsome as he is, he looks a little odd with the body of a white man.

(The headline, incidentally, was inspired partly by my having just seen legendary one-time Apple recording artist Brute Force perform one of the best shows I've ever seen at a show to celebrate the release of the new record-lovers' book Lost in the Grooves. Brute's many accomplishments include writing the "Great Shakes" commercial jingle, which was recorded by the Yardbirds, the Who, and others.)

Another line I have in today's paper is a photo kicker for an image of Palestinian policemen doing some sort of victory dance atop Yasser Arafat's coffin: "ESPRIT DE CORPSE."
2:16 PM |

A Tale of Two Suicides

When a Georgia man shot himself to death at Ground Zero last week, it made worldwide headlines as a political act—the victim was thought to have done it out of despondency over President Bush's re-election. (In contrast, the revelation a couple of days later that he was in fact anguished over his relationships with two women was picked up by only a tiny handful of news outlets.)

But while gun suicides are, sadly, a daily occurrence, self-immolations remain rare. And when was the last time you read about a political self-immolation? If at all, it was probably during the Vietnam era.

So it was with some surprise that I read that, a few days before the election, a woman burned herself to death outside an abortion clinic in a Washington D.C. suburb.

University of Maryland student newspaper The Diamondback reports:

The woman parked her car at the Metropolitan Family Planning Center and office of A.M. Gohari, located directly across from CVS Pharmacy and Atlanta Bread Company on Greenbelt Road in Berwyn Heights, at about 3:30 in the afternoon. She stepped out, doused her body in gasoline and lit herself on fire, according to a Berwyn Heights Police Department report.

The woman, whose name police cannot reveal because of the pending investigation, was airlifted to the hospital after an off-duty state trooper stopped and used a fire extinguisher and blanket to aid the woman, who died at 1:20 a.m. Saturday [Oct. 30].

Witnesses described the scene as horrific and unforgettable, with flames spurting from the human fireball about 10 feet high....Passengers in bumper-to-bumper traffic, including a school bus full of children, also witnessed the suicide.

This, unlike the Ground Zero suicide, was unquestionably a political, election-related act:

Other news outlets reported police found another can of gasoline and an envelope marked "Kerry" inside the woman's car and speculated it could have been addressed to pro-choice Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry. [Police Cpl. R.T.] Hartnett could only confirm, however, the car contained a suicide note that "included views about abortion."

Needless to say, I'm appalled when anyone commits suicide, regardless of their motivation. Likewise, I'm not proud that some severely disturbed woman would commit violence against herself for the sake of a cause that I hold dear. (Police said she had "a long history of illness" and had attempted similar protests in the past.)

But where is the media? A Google News search turns up only three stories about the suicide. A search for "Ground Zero Suicde" turns up 307 at last count.

Apparently the media believes that suicide for a cause is newsworthy—but only when that cause is politically correct.
2:07 AM |

Friday, November 12, 2004

In the "weird but true" department, Alfred Kinsey and I both graduated from the same high school—seventy-three years apart, I might add.
8:00 PM |

Dirty-Flick Campaign

If you're wondering why moralists are up in arms over the new movie "Kinsey," a Morality in Media press release explains why the film is more than just your garden-variety Hollywood sex flick. It's filled with inaccuracies designed to paint the sex researcher as a saintly figure who improved humanity with his selfless toil. In fact, he was a soulless voyeur whose mission was to strip sex of its emotional and spiritual significance, as MIM president Robert Peters notes,

In Kinsey's mind, man was merely an animal with a high degree of intelligence; and at the end of the film, in the midst of the credits, we are treated to scene after scene of animals having sex....

In the film, Kinsey is portrayed as a dedicated scientist whose research was scientifically sound. The viewer is left with the impression that his data came from interviews with a cross section of Americans. There is no indication (unless I missed something) that much of Kinsey's data about adult sexuality came from questionable sources (e.g., prisoners). In the film Kinsey interviews a man who molested hundreds of children, but there is no other indication (unless I missed something) that Kinsey's data about child sexuality came from pedophiles.

6:59 PM |

I've added a note to the top of my "I Got Rhythm" post from earlier today (scroll down) to make it clear that I have nothing against infertile couples (including older ones) having sex.
5:33 PM |

Cheesy Come, Cheesy Go

I just ran spellcheck on a story that included a line about two Iraqi terrorists found in a Fallujah home, "limbs stiff in the rictus of death."

Microsoft Word's spellcheck program did not recognize "rictus." It suggested "ricotta."

I'm glad I didn't hit, "Change All," or it would have read, "limbs stiff in the ricottas of death."
4:21 PM |

I Got Rhythm!

[Note: I had tried in writing this post to imply that, when speaking of the connection between sex and children, I was referring only to fertile married couples. It was not at all my intention to suggest that there is anything wrong with infertile couples (including older ones) having sex. However, to make that more clear, since writing this post, I've changed a reference implying that people should not have sex "without desiring to have children"—replacing the phrase "desiring to have" with "being open to having."]

Part of being a Christian or Jew is realizing that God's word places responsiblities upon oneself. His commandments necessarily go against human nature. That's why they are called commandments. He even has to tell us to rejoice in Him always, because it's not natural to us to have joy in all cirumstances—and when we do, we often forget that we should be doing so in Him.

And so we live knowing that we shouldn't lie, even when it would be easy to do so. ("I didn't realize I was speeding, officer.") That we should turn the other cheek—even when someone's just cut in front of us on line. And that we should love our neighbors as ourselves—even when they're trying their best to be unloveable.

I'm not perfect at keeping those or other commandments, and I don't think anyone is. But there's no relativism allowed—they're all commandments, and we're required to have a heart to follow them, trusting that Jesus' grace is greater than our sins. (See 1 John 2, verses 1-11.)

As times change, humanity faces moral questions that appear, at least on the surface, to be beyond the scope of the Bible. But they're not as unanswerable as they seem. They all boil down to issues of life, family, and the relationship between the individual and God—the very issues on which the Bible speaks with resounding clarity.

I'm a nondenominational, small-"e" evangelical Protestant, and I essentially take a sola scriptura approach to moral issues. I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. From such scriptures as Revelation 22:18-19, which states that God's word is not to be amended or edited, and Revelation 19:10, which states that "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy," I believe that for moral teachings to be true, they must have a solid scriptural basis.

Keeping in mind that Scripture clearly states that sex is to occur only within marriage, the biblical issue of contraception boils down to two questions: whether God meant for couples to have sex without being open to having children, and whether God approves of people who take measures to avoid conception. The answer to both is unmistakeably "no."

The story of Tamar in Genesis 38 is an object lesson in the sinfulness of attempting to alter the nature of a marriage so that children are willfully and permanently excluded. Judah's son Onan, out of resentment, shirks his duty to father a child to Tamar, his brother's widow. As a result, he is evil before the Lord, and God strikes him dead.

Judah then shirks his own duty to Tamar by refusing to give her another of his sons, Shelah, to carry on her late husband's line. When Tamar then deceives Judah into fathering a child with her, Judah is forced to admit, "She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son" (verse 26). If Tamar is more righteous than Judah, then it is because Judah sinned by not fulfilling his duty to insure that she—and therefore his own son's line—would have an heir.

Flash forward to Luke 3:33, and we find that Pharez (also spelled Phares), Tamar's son by Judah, is in the messianic line—a direct ancestor of Jesus. What does this mean, that this baby—whom two men tried to prevent from being born—became part of the Messiah's bloodline? When I read that, God is saying something: Don't mess with fertility.

Likewise, Scripture makes it clear that not only is adultery a sin, but even looking upon someone lustfully is wrong. What is lust? Lust is the desire to gain pleasure from another person without having to give fully of one's self in return. Contraception by its very nature prevents the man from fully giving what nature as God created it would have him give in the sexual act. For the man to give fully, both he and the woman would have to be open to the possibility of the woman's fully receiving, according to the way God created her.

Contraceptives are all "barrier methods," because they put up physical, emotional, and spiritual barriers to the true meaning of the sexual act. They make sex transactional—and I don't mean because the wife says to the husband, "I'll do it if you take out the trash." They turn the intense bonding that occurs during the sexual act into a more superficial version—founded on the understanding that God's gift of sexual intimacy is accepted, but His potential corresponding gift of children is not.

When God gave humanity His one and only commandment with regard to sex—His first-ever commandment, in fact—He said to be fruitful and multiply. He didn't say, "Go have fun!"

This realization does not make my life easier. I'm currently on the abstinence 'til-marriage track—a radical change from my pre-"conservative Christian wingnut" behavior—and I've yet to feel a strong desire to have children. It's possible that when I do meet my future husband, I may change. But if I don't, the only option open to me is Natural Family Planning—and if that doesn't work, I'll have to bear the child.

Even the idea of using Natural Family Planning in such a situation doesn't feel right to me, because it treats children as an acceptable risk rather than a welcomed gift. So this commandment not to use contraception—and it is a commandment, filed under "Thou shalt not commit adultery," "Thou shalt not kill," and, "Be fruitful and multiply"—feels, on the face of it, like a burden. But Jesus says that His yoke is easy and His burden is light—and I have to believe that all God's commandments with regard to sex between a loving husband and wife are truly good news.

TRACKBACK: On the Heart, Mind and Strength blog, Kevin Miller has an intriguing response to my discomfort over treating children as an acceptable risk: "I think the point is made well by Wojtyla/John Paul II in passages I've blogged before. In a nutshell, if recognition of the great value that children have as a gift from God is what motivates a couple to want to be fully prepared to accept that gift, and if the prayerful and thoughtful decision to use NFP is part of that preparation, then there is, I think, no problem."

Kevin's post also includes a link to a must-read essay in PDF format, "Anthropological Differences between Contraception and Natural Family Planning."

Alicia of Fructus Ventris references this post in a long, thoughtful, and powerful entry about pregnancy, abortion, and life issues. Sample quote:

There is a large and vocal group that states the way to prevent abortion is through the promotion of effective contraception, and (though this part is usually whispered) encouraging the sterilization of 'the unfit'. It seems logical - people who aren't pregnant don't usually get abortions. It takes a lot more thinking to see how contraception, by encouraging 'free sex' and by disconnecting sex from babies, can actually lead to an increase both in abortion and in unexpected parenthood.

2:13 AM |

"I don't think I can stomach 'The Polar Express.' Christmas itself makes me want to puke."
—Andrew Sullivan, apparently forgetting for a moment that he gets his Bill Maher gigs because he claims to be Catholic
1:43 AM |

Thursday, November 11, 2004

The Gay 'Fall' Guy

Ask a number of Christians why some people are attracted to their own sex, and one answer is likely to predominate: original sin. They'll say that, like other temptations that go against our physical nature, homosexuality stems from the fact that we live in a fallen world.

Jack Nichols, an opinion writer for 365gay.com, agrees—to a point. He realizes that original sin is central to Christians' belief that homosexuality is wrong.

That's why he wants to ban it.

In a hyperbole-filled op-ed titled "So Many Christians, So Few Lions" [Note: That page may contain graphic ads], Nichols writes, "The world-damaging Christian dogma that does more harm than any other, however, is called Original Sin. This dogma teaches that all people are born in sin and remain utterly depraved, having inherited the gross wickedness of Adam and Eve, their mythical parents."

Nichols acknowledges Christians' belief that Jesus takes away sins, but, rather than seeing that as good news, he paints the propitiatory sacrifice as disgustingly "tribal." For him, original sin exists only as a spiritual battering ram for Christians to use against homosexuals, destroying their most precious possession—their self-esteem:

Gay men and lesbians, who until the 1970s were told by mental health "experts" that they too were diseased and depraved, can discern the deleterious effect on each individual’s self-esteem that this disingenuous dogma of Original Sin has on those who believe it.

Just like the abortion-rights movement, the gay-rights movement is founded upon this "self-esteem" cornerstone: the dogma that no one has the right to distinguish between right and wrong behavior. Sin becomes the concept that dare not speak its name.

Referencing the 1960s "uprising" against the psychiatric establishment's labeling homosexuality a disorder, Nichols concludes:

The need for a similar response to the benighted Christian dogma of Original Sin, is clear for many of the same good reasons - especially so as to increase each person’s sense of self-esteem. This evil dogma, supporting the theory of humanity’s inherent Adamic depravity and must be quashed and utterly defeated. Perhaps there is no issue more pressing in what some are now calling the Culture Wars.

I can hardly believe that appeared on a real homosexual-news Web site—it reads almost like a satire from a Christian blog like The Curt Jester or Saint Kansas, or even The Onion.

Even so, Nichols' sentiments reflect certain truths, in a funhouse-mirror kind of way. He has good reason to hate the concept of original sin if it makes him conscious that his homosexual behavior is perceived as sinful. And the consciousness of such sin is indeed at the fault line of the culture wars, in which those who believe in right and wrong (the natural law in our hearts, which C.S. Lewis called "the Tao") face off against those whose god is relativism.

But if Nichols' idea of "self-esteem" is being his own man, he's on the wrong track. There are an infinite number of creative and exciting ways to be good. Conversely, as I can attest, no sin is truly original.
1:50 AM |

In case anyone cares, I would like to announce that I have come to the realization that all contraception is wrong.
1:20 AM |

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Events have overtaken this next post—but the satire it spotlights remains relevant:

Yasser, That's My Terri!

I am delighted to report that gifted satirist Ed Jordan of MediaCulpa has picked up an idea I sent him and run with it—brilliantly:

In a shocking and little-reported development yesterday, Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat traded places with Terri Schindler-Schiavo. At this moment, the jet carrying Terri is en route to the Paris hospital where Arafat had been receiving care, and Arafat's body is on the way to the Florida assisted living facility where Terri had been living.

The joke—albeit a rueful one—is that Schiavo would be better off under such a switch. Jordan's satire includes this fictional quote from her father:

"This would mean that my daughter's life would be in the hands of terrorists and an atheistic French government," said Bob Schindler. "On the other hand, these are terrorists and atheists who have demonstrated more commitment to life in one week than Michael Schiavo has in 14 years. I mean, they actually went so far as to rule out euthanasia! It came down to who do I trust my daughter with more -- terrorists and atheists or Michael Schiavo and the Florida Supreme Court? When you think of it like that, it's not a hard decision."

There's much more—I especially like the quote from the lawyer for Terri's husband, who insists, despite evidence to the contrary, that she had expressed a wish to die:

"This was a difficult decision for Michael," Felos confirmed. "But he confided to me that in 1989 he and Terri were watching a Jerry Lewis movie on television, and she remarked that some day she would like to live in France. In his mind this trumps everything."

4:09 PM |

"The family is a repository of wrong ideas, archaic values, violence, perversity, and home cooking."
—Communists for Kerry, from their often (and intentionally) hilarious piece, "We Have Lost the Election Because...
1:47 PM |

Here is one of the contributions I made to the popular culture today, for a story on a countersuit by the ex-fiancée whom Burt Reynolds accused of blackmail. The other noteworthy one was for a story on how unanswered calls to a fax machine figure into the Ted Ammon murder case: "AMMON A DEAD RINGER."
1:03 PM |

Tuesday, November 9, 2004

Go 'West,' Young Woman

Roman Catholic seminarian Dennis Schenkel recently sent me a book and CD by Christopher West on the Theology of the Body, which, as one Web site puts it, is Pope John Paul II's refutation of the idea that the church is "down on sex." Dennis wrote to me that he believed it could revolutionize the world—even reaching non-Christians.

Reviewing the material, I agreed that the Theology of the Body was profound and affecting. However, I thought Dennis's belief in its revolutionary power was wishful thinking.

But as I stood on the bimah last Sunday as maid of honor at my sister's wedding in a Reform Jewish temple, I got a surprise. The rabbi spoke to my sister and her husband-to-be about the meaning of marriage—and his words, inspired from ancient rabbinical texts, mirrored the Theology of the Body.

He said that the Shekinah, or Divine Presence, would emerge from the love between husband and wife. That's analogous to the Theology of the Body's description of the Holy Spirit's presence in the union of a married couple. (The theology further states that this relationship between husband, wife, and Holy Spirit is an allegory for the Trinity, in which the Holy Spirit embodies the love between Father and Son.) He also said that, through the Shekinah's presence in the marriage, husband and wife continue God's work of creation—which likewise is a divine mystery highlighted in the Theology of the Body.

The rabbi's message was similar to this commentary by Rabbi Jay Spero:

When a man and a woman live together in harmony, and there is peace between them, the Divine presence dwells in their midst. The reason for this is that when you take two things which are by definition opposites and bring them together, this is a microcosm of the purpose of the creation of the world. We are put on this earth to bring it to a higher level, what is contemporarily called "Tikkun Olam"—repairing the world. When we take our body, which is something completely physical, and sanctify it with spirituality, we have taken two opposites and integrated them. This is done by performing commandments. And when this integration takes place between a husband and wife, there is no greater sanctification of the world (use of the word opposites here does not mean two forces which repel each other, rather it means two forces which complement each other, much like two pieces of a puzzle).

At the wedding reception, I approached the rabbi and complimented his sermon. Then, remembering Dennis's optimism in the Theology of the Body's revolutionary power, I told him about the theology—and how impressed I was to see that there was a parallel in Jewish teaching.

In the course of describing the theology, I used the word "pro-life." As a result, the rabbi thought I was asking him about abortion—so he responded with his interpretation of Jewish law on that subject. (A detailed exploration of the topic is available on aish.com.)

Not wanting the rabbi to misunderstand, I explained, "Your sermon reminded me of the Theology of the Body, in that the theology is about the deep spiritual and allegorical meaning of the body as it relates to God and His purpose for our lives. It could revolutionize the world because it shows how sex is meant to be within marriage—because there's an inherent spiritual component to it when between a man and wife, which unites them with the Divine Presence.

"That's important to me," I continued, running on Holy Spirit autopilot, "because people are damaged by having sex outside of marriage. I have been damaged by having sex outside of marriage."

At that point, the rabbi was saved by the bell—my dad came up to say hello. I couldn't exactly say, "Sorry Dad, can't talk now, I'm explaining to the rabbi how I was damaged by sex."

While the feminists of the world rage against sexual harassment and media depictions of women as sex objects, their No. 1 political goal is "choice," a k a "reproductive freedom"—the right to have sex with whomever they want to, without physical consequences. Yet it is this very "right" that ensures that women, as well as men, are exploited and enslaved.

My years before going on the abstinence-'til-marriage track are quite fresh in my mind, and I can tell you that I was not a free woman when I was having sex—not even when it was within a loving relationship. I was enslaved to the urge to use and be used as a physical object, without the love that would make the difference between, as Gerry Goffin wrote, "a moment's pleasure" and "a lasting treasure." I was enslaved to having to mentally rationalize my actions, convincing myself that the option of immediate loneliness was far worse than that of having sex with a man who would leave me lonely.

You can say that some people can take sex outside of marriage—that they can separate their emotions from the sexual act to the extent that their pleasure outweighs any discomfort. I submit that the very act of such emotional separation makes a person less than human. Separate your emotions over and over, over a period of years, and you become an empty, hollow shell.

It's this hollowness, an inability to give fully of one's self, that causes people to detach emotionally from other people as well—like unborn children, the sick and infirm, and all who are defenseless.

For these "Hollow Men", T.S. Eliot wrote in 1925, "the world ends/Not with a bang but a whimper."

In today's culture of death, it's not even a whimper. It's more like a silent scream.

I believe it is possible to emerge out of the grating hollowness of promiscuity and into a place of healing, becoming capable of experiencing "the nuptial meaning of the body." But I see it as more than just a matter of refraining from premarital sex. It's about finding my identity in my relationship with God—not my relationship, real or wished-for, with another person.

Or, as I once wrote in a tagline for an online personal ad, "What part of Thou don't you understand?"

TRACKBACK: Emily Peterson of After Abortion makes a short and very sweet mention of this post.

Alicia the Midwife at Fructus Ventris likewise gives a brief and very kind mention.
1:03 AM |

In case you wonder when you see today's paper, I did not write the huge "'DAWN' PATROL" headline. That was the inspiration of my boss. I did write the headline below the photo of two models taking part in Victoria's Secret's "Angels Across America" tour: "'Angels' with flirty faces."
12:09 AM |

Monday, November 8, 2004

What's It All About, Kerry?

Encouraging news from the movie world, as Paramount is grasping at straws trying to explain the colossal failure of "Alfie":

Wayne Llewellyn, the president of distribution at Paramount, said that the conservative ethos reflected in last week's election results might have hurt the film.

"It could be the mood of the country right now," he said. "It seems to be the result of the election. Maybe they didn't want to see a guy that slept around."

Indeed, we didn't—that's why we nixed Mr. "I Married Up Twice."
2:55 AM |

Planned Parenthood's Command-ing Presence

Novelist Lars Walker writes:

Just a story to illustrate the pervasiveness of Planned Parenthood propaganda, even out here in the sticks.

I just talked to my brother on the phone. He's a Lutheran pastor in a small parish in Iowa, way out in the country at the intersection of two gravel roads. He was teaching the Sixth Commandment to his confirmation class this past week, and had some communication trouble. When he talked to the kids about not committing adultery, and how that protected you from disease and unwanted pregnancy, the kids kept saying, "Well, you know, that doesn't always work."

He had to ask several questions to figure out what they were talking about. Finally he realized that what they understood by not committing adultery was, "Thou shalt always use birth control when you have sex."

He then explained what adultery actually meant, and the kids, at least the ones participating in the discussion, were incredulous. "You mean you can't have sex at all until you're married?"

Even in rural Iowa, the Planned Parenthood message has become the cultural default.

2:42 AM |

A couple of backstage pics from my sister Jennifer's wonderful wedding yesterday:

My utterly beautiful mom and sister in the limo on the way to the temple. I could not get over how stunning Jennifer looked in her beaded dress, with her upswept 'do and tiara. Most of all, she just had that total happy-bride glow, and I was so happy for her.

I asked my mom to snap this one of me for the blog, just before the ceremony. My expression is trying to live up to the delightfully retro bad-girl face that the makeup artist gave after falling in love with my hairdo. If I had 15 minutes and a steady hand, I would make myself look like this every day. You can't tell in this light how good the makeup looks—it's meant to be seen from a distance and under wedding photographers' flashbulbs.

1:08 AM |

Saturday, November 6, 2004

Light blogging today—it's just over 12 hours 'til my sister's wedding. Allow me to just say that, as I quickly scan the news online, my favorite new expression in many moons is "asexual stealth phrases."

If you're new to this blog and would like to see what I write when I'm not in a hurry, check out "The Gospel According to St. Mark's Place."
9:38 PM |

Lord of the 'Rings'

From Fr. Bryce Sibley comes this link to the CWF: Christian Wrestling Federation.
1:24 AM |

Ed at MediaCulpa finds bias in an AP article about adult stem-cell research. I've noticed that before in AP stories; they're none too careful about distinguishing between the kind that's gotten positive results—adult stem-cell research—and the kind that hasn't.
1:12 AM |

Friday, November 5, 2004

Planned Parenthood on Why Kids of Gay Parents Deserve Our Pity

That's right. According to Planned Parenthood's sex-ed site Teenwire, the children of gay parents deserve our pity. But it's not because such children face greater mental-health risks than children of heterosexual parents. Nor because children of gay parents are more likely to identify themselves as bisexual or homosexual. Oh, no.

Planned Parenthood feels sorry for children of gay parents because they have a harder time "coming out." All that family and social pressure. I'm not kidding. As Teenwire's Christy Browlee (yes, she of "All About the Anus" fame) writes in "Multiple Moms and Dual Dads":

Like kids from any other kind of family, kids from [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] families may be straight or LGBT. You might think that the coming out process for "second generation" kids in LGBT families would be easier than it is for LGBT kids in straight families. That's not necessarily true. Some "second generation" kids can feel pressured to stay in the closet so people won't think their folks "made" them gay. Some have parents who worry that their kids will end up being targets of homophobic discrimination or hatred. Some LGBT parents still have their own unresolved issues about their orientation that they project on their children. And some straight kids may feel that their LGBT parents are disappointed in them for not being gay.

Mental health, like everything else on Planned Parenthood's planet, is about "choice." You make "choices," and then other people have to accept them. If you're unhappy, it's because other people have not "respected" your "choice." Never does it enter their universe that people could possibly be unhappy because of wrong choices—like choosing to be sexually active outside of marriage, or choosing to be an active homosexual or bisexual, or choosing to raise children outside of marriage.
11:02 PM |

Get Your Clicks

For those of you kind enough to keep checking here 'til I return to full blogging mode Monday morning, a couple more of my fave blogs:

Semicolon: A librarian and home-schooling mom offering personal and political observations. She often finds good news stories that others overlook, or has interesting literary anecdotes.

Aunt Judie's Guide to Life: A young widow without children of her own writes autobiography and advice for her nieces and nephews. It sounds poignant, and it is, but often beautiful as well.
4:35 PM |

One Man's Gamete Is Another Man's Poison

Tucked away in the national pages of yesterday's New York Times was a story by Nicholas Wade about a scientific achievement that could change the world as we know it—"Sperm Stem Cells Are Grown Outside Body":

In a step that brings closer the possibility of making inheritable genetic changes in humans, scientists have succeeded in growing outside the body the special stem cells that direct the remarkably prolific process of sperm production.

Although the method now works just for mice, it may well apply to human cells, since they use the same genetic signals as mouse cells.

Cultivation of the sperm production cells has been a 10-year goal of Dr. Ralph L. Brinster, a reproductive biologist at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine. The ability to culture the cells is a first step that leads in a number of possible directions. One is correcting the sperm of infertile men. Another, if ethically acceptable, would be genetic engineering in humans. A third is generating embryonic stem cells without the controversial step of making an embryo.

This "breakthrough" opens the door to exactly the hell-on-earth that 1970s radical feminist Shulamith Firestone envisioned in The Dialectic of Sex: reproduction without men. For if the genetic material in sperm can be reproduced and even altered in a lab, it can be possible for children to have no fathers.

Wade continues:

Dr. Brinster said he hoped to learn how to make the sperm production cells produce sperm outside the body. Genetically altered sperm could then be used directly for in vitro fertilization. The technique could be useful in animal breeding; whether it would be considered ethical in human reproduction is likely to be a matter of debate.

That's putting it mildly. But considering how hard the cloning lobby is spinning its propaganda machines, as well as how quickly people accept once-feared scientific breakthroughs as "progress"—remember the outcry in 1978 over the first "test-tube baby"?—I wouldn't underestimate scientists' power to persuade governments to allow such research.

Judging by Wade's choice of words, it appears that scientists are attempting to spin this research as being less hostile to life than embryonic stem-cell research, in that it would paradoxically enable such cells to be created without destroying embryos:

The technique may also provide an alternative route for generating embryonic stem cells for use in repairing the body's tissues. The sperm production cells are adult stem cells, which are specialized, self-renewing cells, each type of which is dedicated to repairing or maintaining a specific body tissue. All are descended from embryonic stem cells, the all-purpose cells from which the body is made.

At present, embryonic stem cells are taken from the surplus embryos generated in fertility clinics. The sperm production cells have many of the same characteristics of embryonic stem cells and, Dr. Brinster believes, are only a couple of developmental steps away from them. It may be possible to walk them backward into being embryonic stem cells. These could then be converted into the specialized cell types needed to repair damaged organs.

I'm admittedly not a scientist nor an ethicist, but I find this deeply troubling. The idea of "walking [a sperm production cell] backward" into an embryonic stem cell sounds like something out of Frankenstein. Keep an eye on this disturbing research—something tells me we have yet to hear the last of it.
1:03 AM |

Thursday, November 4, 2004

In case you're wondering how Planned Parenthood played the Florida ballot measure permitting the legislature to require parental notification for minors seeking abortions, here's the headline from the front page of the organization's Web site: "Ballot Measure to Limit Privacy Rights of Girls Passes in Florida." They truly live in a different universe.

* * *
I'm not really blogging right now—just stealing some time between my sister's wedding-related festivities. Regular Hemingway-length blogging resumes Monday morning.
11:51 PM |

Get Your Clicks

My sister's wedding weekend is about to begin—parties, family, fun, leading up to the big day Sunday. (Note that my legendary e-mail backlog will grow even larger during this time.) I'll try to blog before Monday morning if I can, but in case I'm unable to do so, here are some favorite blogs to keep you company:

Dustbury: One of the oldest blogs on the Web, and still a delight. I can't describe it—Charles G. Hill is a loveable curmudgeon with an eye for the weird and wonderful. Check out the many links to his essays on politics and vintage pop music too.

Alarming News and Kevin McCullough: Highly topical blogs by New York-area conservative friends of mine. Kevin hosts a great talk-radio show that you can hear via his blog.

Ace of Spades: A new discovery for me, though many others have been onto the Ace for a while. I could do without the R-rated language; however, he is a "South Park" conservative in the best possible way, in that he can be very funny. Also a good source of political news and scuttlebutt.

A Saintly Salmagundi: Fr. Bryce Sibley presents a sort of "Weird but True" of the ecclesiastical world. Note that "POD" stands for Piously Over-Devotional.

Mere Comments: Excellent commentary from the Touchstone crew with the quality of writing one would expect more from a respected magazine than a [gasp!] blog.
1:15 PM |

Planned Parenthood Requires Your Parents' Consent—To Bash Bush

They've done it again.

Planned Parenthood, which raised hackles last year when it required children entering a pro-abortion poster contest to get permission from their parents, is once again showing just how much it cares about parental consent.

Its SaveRoe.com, which has morphed literally overnight into the headquarters for Planned Parenthood's new "Say No to Bush" campaign, has a page called "Pulse of the Nation" that solicits comments from people who are angry over the president's win. Its request for feedback begins,

The announcement of President Bush as the winner in the 2004 election has struck a cord [sic] with Americans across the country.

It certainly has. It's struck an umbilical cord—with the prospect of more babies being carried to term.

The announcement goes on:

Let us know what's happening in your community. Share personal accounts of events or rallies taking place in your area. Submit an article that demonstrates the reaction of pro-choice America. We want to know what's happening in your backyard.

Ah, but there's always fine print:

By sending your comment electronically or by U.S. mail, you are giving permission to Planned Parenthood to read it, edit it, post it, or not post it. It may be posted on any of our Web sites, printed, handed out, excerpted and reprinted, or reproduced in any way to any number of people in any location, both online and off. If you are under 18 and want your name or other identifying information used in your letter, your parent must sign a permission slip and mail it in with the letter.

And so, once again, Planned Parenthood shows that there are some things just too risky for children to do on their own. In 22 states that either do not have parental-notification laws or do not enforce them, there's nothing to stop Planned Parenthood from sticking forceps inside a 12-year-old girl to remove her unborn baby in pieces. And Planned Parenthood wants to keep it that way—that's why it fought tooth and nail against Florida's ballot measure in favor of requiring parental notification for minors' abortions. (Thankfully, good sense prevailed—the measure passed by an overwhelming margin.)

Ah, but if a minor wants to say in her own individual way that the president is stinky-poo, it's a different story. Then the permission slips have to be completed.

In the case of abortion, parental notification protects the minor and her unborn child from physical harm. In the case of Planned Parenthood's "Say No to Bush" campaign, it protects Planned Parenthood—from lawsuits. That's Margaret Sanger's bunch for you—always looking out for No. 1.
1:33 AM |

Wednesday, November 3, 2004

'Left' Behind: Post-Election Liberal-Blinders Syndrome

My friend Caren, the editor of a chain of weekly newspapers and a best-selling author of novels in the chick-lit genre, lives in the same town as me—but she's the only one of us who resides in a blue state. (Come to think of it, blue-staters literally are in a blue state today.) She writes:

ABC News says that their exit polls in the heartland show that moral issues were their most important issues when voting, and Iraq is down around fourth. These folks aren't as worried about being hit by terrorists or the war in Iraq as they are about abortion and gay marriage? Actually, not surprising on certain levels. To some people, if it hasn't hit you directly, it doesn't exist.

Actually, people in the heartland can identify quite well with victims of terrorism—ask anyone in Oklahoma City. And as for the war in Iraq—ask anyone with a son or daughter over there.

People who do not want to believe that moral issues are of supreme importance will continue to discount them—just as they will continue to believe that it is impossible for anyone with a brain and heart to support the Bush administration's war on terror and the invasion of Iraq. Thankfully, 51% of American voters know better.
10:21 PM |

I dreamed I worked until 2:30 a.m. Election Night in my Maidenform bra...

3:17 AM |

I am sitting at my desk in the newsroom after 10 hours on the job, watching the electoral numbers on four different Web sites, and I can't get that Randy Newman song out of my head...
2:20 AM |

Post-Election Peace Pledge

Wise words from blue-state blogger Jeff Jarvis:

I promise to... Support the President, even if I didn't vote for him..... Criticize the President, even if I did vote for him..... Uphold standards of civilized discourse in blogs and in media while pushing both to be better.... Unite as a nation, putting country over party, even as we work together to make America better.

1:35 AM |

National Review Online's The Corner has an excellent message from Concerned Women for America spokeswoman Janice Crouse on what the Bush win means. Worth reading in its entirety—here's a tease:

As the dust settles, we are beginning to see how heavily this election was influenced by concern about moral values. After a campaign focusing on the threat of terrorism and the war in Iraq, this development will surprise those from the Left—and Right—who dismissed moral issues and social conservatives as irrelevant. And, in fact, those who view the appeal to moral values as mere political manipulation and ideological posturing have a basic misunderstanding of people of faith and Main Street Americans...

1:28 AM |

Tuesday, November 2, 2004

Tiny Tim Would Approve

There's an amazing story in Newsday about a wildman who swam to Governors Island, a national monument off of Manhattan, and claimed it for the "Blue Tulip Nation."

The version of the story that the paper I work for has (under a great headline by co-worker Jon: "FANTASY ISLAND") has a wonderful quote that didn't appear in the Newsday piece, where the swimmer tells about his mythical "nation":

"I'm the only member. But I have been trying to get people to join since 1999."

Somewhere, G.K. Chesterton is smiling.
11:40 PM |

Nice Gilda Radner/Emily Litella tribute up on Dennis Schenkel's blog, Vita Mea. What is all this I hear about Russian jewelry?
10:00 PM |

GOP Voter Harassed By Thuggish Poll Worker

Read about it on John Fitzgerald's blog, Secession Daily.
8:56 PM |

Rather Corny

Bryan S. writes on The Command Post's election blog: "Dan Rather is throwing out the folksy sayings. So far: 'This race is hotter than the devil's anvil.' 'Don't taunt the alligator 'til you get across the road.' 'Politics has gotten so expensive, it takes a lot of money just to lose.'"
8:02 PM |

At work now—may be here 'til 5 a.m., depending how the polls go. If you're looking for up-to-the-minute poll information, I recommend The Command Post's election blog, whose contributors include BatesLine's Michael Bates.
7:35 PM |

Fr. Shane Tharp of Catholic Ragemonkey has requested I link his "Ragemonkey Red Alert" on the importance of voting today. While I may not relate to all the Catholic imagery in his post, I can appreciate the priest's reference to St. Thomas More on this voting day. That's what I want—four "More" years.
10:48 AM |

Planned Parenthood's Sex Ed Melts in Your Mouth

No, I'm not being obscene. Planned Parenthood really does use M&Ms to teach teenagers about venereal disease.

It's "The M&M Game," and it is as bizarre as it sounds:

Objective: To use as an icebreaker for a lesson on STIs and HIV/AIDS. Upon completion, participants should be able to demonstrate a clear understanding of the definition of "sexual contact," modes of transmission, risk factors and risk reduction, and the differences between bacterial and viral infections....

Preparation: Separate candy into color groups, and put approximately 20-30 of the same color pieces in a bag for each participant so that each player begins the game with only one color of M&Ms. (BONUS: You won't use the blue or brown peanut ones, so you can eat those while you work!)

Why does each teen begin with only one color of M&Ms? Because the color represents different "aspects of sexually transmitted infections":

Code:

* Plain Brown = Health (either treatment or abstinence)
* Plain Blue = Condoms or Dental Dams
* Plain Green = Trichomoniasis
* Plain Yellow = Gonorrhea
* Plain Red = Chlamydia
* Plain Orange = Syphilis
* Peanut Green = HIV
* Peanut Red = Hepatitis B
* Peanut Orange = Herpes
* Peanut Yellow = HPV

(Note that bacterial infections are represented by plain M&Ms and viral infections are represented by peanut M&Ms.)

As you can see, the "bacterial infections" include health and dental dams—something that the full instructions to the game fail to explain. I can already picture those poor high-schoolers beginning to become confused—and it's not going to get any clearer for them:

Beginning the Game:

Announce that you want to start out with a game as a way of learning one another's name, and to help the group start sharing in a fun way. Distribute a 3x5 card and pencil to each person. Paraphrase this introduction:

I have just given you a card and pencil. In a moment I am going to give you a paper sack containing M&Ms, but you can't eat them yet. When I say "Go", try to get as many signatures of the other participants on your card and exchange M&Ms before I call time. (Depending on size of group, allow 2 to 3 min.) Go up to anyone in the group and ask them to sign your card, then place 1, 2 or 3 M&Ms in each other's sack. Don't tell how many M&Ms you are giving each other and don't pay attention to the color of the M&Ms.

The instructions never explain the point of the signatures. Apparently, they're supposed to represent notches in the teens' belts, proof of how many "sex partners" they've managed to rack up while "sharing in a fun way." I gather this from the post-game instructions:

Processing the Game:

Have them return to their seats, and remind them not to eat the M&Ms yet. Ask:

* Who has more than 5 signatures?
* Who has the most?
* Who has the least?
* What felt more important, getting the signature or the candy?

How moronic is this? The kids don't even know what they're supposed to be doing, and they're asked if they felt more "important" getting a signature or getting candy? Again, the instructions give no clue as to what these things are supposed to signify.

After the kids are told that the M&Ms stand for various STIs (plus those infernal "health" and "dental-dam" issues), the instructions list "Possible Discussion Questions":

* Does sexual contact just mean sexual intercourse?

Apparently it means taking candy from a stranger.

* What does this tell us about transmission of STIs?

I don't know about STIs, but I know that rumor about M&Ms causing cancer was untrue.

* After a person is treated for an STI, can they get it or another one again?

Only if they go back to the same candy store.

* Do more partners = higher risk?

Yes. The best thing is to avoid aphrodisiacs. So steer clear of those green M&Ms.

* Can someone have an STI and not know it?

I might have a few of them that rolled into corners of my bedroom. M&Ms, I mean.

* What lessens or eliminates risk?

Not having any change for the vending machine.

* Does treatment mean cured?

I really wouldn't want to eat cured M&Ms, would you? The salt would throw off the taste.

* What is the difference between bacterial and viral STIs?

Very simple. The bacterial ones are plain, and the viral ones are peanut. But don't eat the dental dams or health, unless you like the Beatles—they'll give you a "rubber soul."

Planned Parenthood supports John Kerry knowing that he supports their efforts to bring sex-ed activities such as this one into classrooms across the country. God help us.

TRACKBACK: Ace of Spades muses, "Hmmm...using candy to lure children into graphic discussions of sex? Why didn't I think of that? Oh yeah -- because the last time I tried they locked me up on a trumped-up morals charge." He also offers suggestions for additional diseases that could be represented by candy bars. [Note for the sensitive: Other entries in Ace's blog contain foul language.]
1:28 AM |

Monday, November 1, 2004

The Prattle of 'Bunk'-er Hill

The news on the radio is that Hillary Clinton crossed the river to Hackensack, N.J., today, where she repeated her answer to those who call John Kerry a flip-flopper.

She says at each of her rallies that President Bush "makes a great pledge of consistency. But there is nothing positive about being consistently wrong.”

This is known as the "I'm rubber, you're glue" school of political retorts.

Of course there's nothing "positive" about being consistently wrong. Neither is there anything positive about being wrong...and then right...and then wrong again.

11:32 PM |

John Kerry Approves This Message

The course schedule for Planned Parenthood of New York City's upcoming training "The Abortion Option: Clarifying Our Role in the Decision-Making Process" features this nugget worthy of the Kerry campaign:

Participants will be able to...clarify their own values toward abortion services and women who utilize them [and] separate their personal beliefs from their professional role in helping clients make decisions about an unplanned pregnancy.

In other words, this course is for people who feel the tiniest bit squeamish about telling a mother to abort her child. Don't worry, says Planned Parenthood soothingly. We will take away all moral responsibility from you and choose what is right.

They're whispering in John Kerry's ear right now. They've been doing so for years. And he hears them. That's why their political-action committee is pouring millions into his campaign. That's why he has a 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood and NARAL. And its why he ties himself in knots trying to morally justify his pro-abortion stance—with arguments that anyone, with or without faith, can see through.

A man who forsakes moral principles to satisfy interest groups cannot be trusted to run the country. George W. Bush, by contrast, is his own man—with a deep respect of life at every stage. He is doing all he can to prevent the twisted, cynical, and truly power-hungry Planned Parenthood operatives (check their "Vision for 2025" if you don't believe me) from dictating our country's policy.
7:33 PM |

John Kerry's Unbelievable 'Feet'

One of the presidential candidates stood in the pulpit of a church yesterday morning and said, "We are going to get the job done. Help make this happen, let's walk in the footsteps of the Lord."

For those who have noted the candidates' individual styles of religious rhetoric, the identity of the speaker should come as no surprise. It was John Kerry.

But let's give the senator the benefit of the doubt and assume he really meant what he was saying. What does it mean to walk in the footsteps of the Lord?

Well, if you want to be technical about it, according to the Psalms, it's impossible: "Thy way is in the sea, and thy path in the great waters, and thy footsteps are not known" (Psalm 77:19).

But for those who won't take "no" for an answer, Jesus' response can be found in three gospels, including Mark 8:34: "Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."

In Matthew and Mark, Jesus' declaration comes immediately after He rebukes Peter for refusing to believe that He would suffer, die, and be raised again. He accuses his disciple of savoring the things of men, rather than the things of God.

For Jesus to then turn around and exhort all who would follow him to "take up their cross," the message is clear: Walking in the Lord's footprints means living according to God's values—not the world's values.

Peter understood the rebuke, for he wrote in 2 Peter 1:4 that through the Lord's "exceeding great and precious promises," those who follow Him "might be partakers of the divine nature [theios], having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." In order to partake of God's own nature—that is, to become more like Him—we have to "escape" worldly corruption, which is not only physical lust, but also the lust for approval from others.

And here's where we come back to Kerry. For Paul says of that divine nature, which we receive when we walk in the Lord's footsteps: "Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the divine nature [again, theios] is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising" (Acts 17:29, NKJV).

Time and time again in this campaign, John Kerry has depicted faith in God as something that must be subjugated to material concerns. When his chosen constituency's demands conflicts with his faith, his answer is to override his faith.

"I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic...Religion has been a huge part of my life," Kerry said in the second presidential debate. "It helped lead me through a war, leads me today. But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that."

That's the sort of response one would expect from a Jewish candidate after being asked, "Would you require all Cabinet members to wear yarmulkes at meetings?" It's what one might expect a Catholic candidate to answer if asked, "Would you make Good Friday a federal holiday?"

It is not the sort of response a candidate of any faith should give upon being asked by a voter for reassurance that her tax dollars will not go to funding abortions.

First of all, abortion is not a fundamentally religious issue. It is a life issue that cuts across religious boundaries. One does not have to believe in a higher being in order to value human life—and to see the danger in creating a culture that treats the most vulnerable forms of human life as being disposable.

Second, even if Kerry's approach were correct and he were responding to a faith issue, to say that one's most deeply held beliefs should not inform one's decisions is to place human nature above divine nature—again, what Paul meant when he spoke of reshaping the divine "by art and man's devising."

A Christian journalist who interviewed George W. Bush told me that one of the Bible passages that is most important to the president is in Joshua 5:

And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?

And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come.

The journalist told me that President Bush values that passage because it reminds him not to place his own desires above the Lord. It's not about, "Are you with us or against us," but about, "Am I with God?"

That's the meaning of walking in the footsteps of the Lord. It's a sense of moral accountability that John Kerry will never understand.
2:42 AM |

Search this blog: