Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Why Movie Stars Should Shut Their Big Fat Yaps
The embryonic stem-cell lobby has no shortage of celebrity boosters, but something tells me it's wishing today that Scarlett Johansson were on the other side.
According to Moviehole.net, the actress, who plays a clone in the upcoming "The Island," is "very much pro-stem cell research"—apparently meaning the embryonic kind, since that's the only one that is, as the article notes, "a political hot potato."
"I think that there’s a lot of wonderful possibilities erupting," Johansson explains. "I mean, if they could eliminate diseases like Alzheimer’s and polio that would be incredible."
"Eliminate polio"! Bwa ha ha.
Someone ought to tell Ms. Johansson that while she's been in a "Ghost World," a vaccine that would "eliminate" polio—and has in most of the world—has been available for 50 years. It is incredible—and no embryonic stem cells were harmed in its making. The reason polio is resurging now in Africa and the Arab world is not due to a lack of available vaccine, but rather to the kind of anti-American conspiracy theories perpetuated by the actress's Hollywood colleagues.
The Johansson interview's from an Australian Web site—so the actress can't say her meaning was lost in translation.
UPDATED, 1:16 p.m., replacing "cure" with "vaccine that would eliminate," etc., at the behest of commenters who split hairs over whether polio had been "cured." Now tell me Scarlett paid attention in history class.
3:39 AM
|
Monday, May 30, 2005
What He Said
In other words, ditto on Mark Kellner's must-read entry on "the difference between the squishy and the solid."
1:25 PM
Don't Stop the Carnival
For Sunday's "Blog On!", at Joel's suggestion, I'm thinking of spotlighting blog carnivals—Carnival of the Conservatives, Carnival of the Vanities, etc. If you're reading this and know which blog will, as of this coming Sunday, be hosting the most recent carnival on a particular topic, could you please let me know by posting a comment below? I'd like to point readers to the most current carnivals as of that date, which is June 5. You can also e-mail blog-carnival info to dawn -at- dawneden.com. Thanks very much!
For a carnival of coolness, tune into 77 WABC today for its annual "Rewound," featuring vintage recordings of the station in its pop-music glory days and the return of the legendary Dan Ingram. (Hat tip: Michael Lynch, who really should update his blog.)
3:42 AM
|
Life or Something Like It
Two things to think about with regard to tomorrow's House vote on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research:
1. Either an embryo is a human life—or it isn't. There is no middle ground. Either you and I were each once entirely contained within an embryo—or we weren't. If we were, then taking apart an embryo is morally the same as taking apart you or me.
The excuse that "these 'excess' embryos, created via in vitro fertilization, will never develop into human beings" is no excuse. Embryos have a basic human dignity that requires they not be forcibly put into the service of others. If they die because no one adopted them, it's a tragedy. But if their life is stolen from them for others' sake, it's an outrage.
2. Future generations will suffer if we teach them through our actions that life has no dignity.
Child: "Mommy, where did I come from?"
Mommy: "Daddy and I couldn't have children on our own, so we made you through a test tube."
Child: "Why didn't you make me any brothers or sisters?"
Mommy: "We did. We made lots of brothers and sisters. But then we decided we didn't want them."
Child: "What happened to them?"
Mommy: "They were cut up for science, so someday you'll be able to live a long, long time. Now, eat your genetically modified vegetables."
2:51 AM
|
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Missing Links
My latest "Blog On!" column is in today's Daily News. Thanks very much to readers who helped with ideas. I'll be making another pitch for reader help later today.
The News' Web site is working out the bugs with regard to the hyperlinks in my column, and a couple were lost in translation, so here they are for your enjoyment: Muley's World and the "Hooker Bear" entry of Not a Desperate Housewife.
2:24 PM
|
Good morning! Off to Our Saviour. Hope to have a little something up later; if not, then tonight.
9:43 AM
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Nothing much new in this space tonight—just visiting the folks and revisiting my A.A. Milne Pooh and poetry paperbacks. I wish I still had that Frank Luther album of Milne poems set to music: "Christopher Robin goes hoppity hoppity hoppity hoppity hop..." Although I haven't seen it since I was a kid, some 30 years ago, I somehow remember that it was on Decca. I must have been a record-label nerd even then. I think my "Hans Christian Andersen" soundtrack was on Decca too, if I'm not mistaken. All the cool kiddie records were on Decca.
Karol of Alarming News has a witty post about her worst summer jobs. I remember, at age 15, working concessions at an outdoor Jerry Garcia Band concert.* I was walking around holding a cardboard tray full of giant soft pretzels, calling loudly, "Pretzels! Pretzels!" when some scraggly young Reagan-era wannabe hippie guy scrambled up to me.
"Did you say mushrooms?" he asked hopefully.
I stared at him and articulated like I would to a child, "No, sir, I said, 'Pretzels..'"
Dejected, he said, "Aw, I thought you said mushrooms." And stomped away.
*Caldwell College Concerts on the Hill, produced by John Scher, 1984. Robert Hunter opened the show.
12:11 AM
|
Friday, May 27, 2005
On Seeing Red in a Blue State
I would like to say a few things for the benefit of new readers of this blog.
Before I begin, I would like to state what I hope is obvious for everyone who's been reading this blog up to now: that The Dawn Patrol does not represent, nor is intended to represent, the opinion of my employer or of anyone other than myself. That is the way it has always been.
For a long time, I have had the luxury of writing every night knowing that I will be read by people who have, for the most part, been following my blog for some time and have a good idea of my personality.
I like to think of The Dawn Patrol's comments section as the bar where everybody knows your name. There's Nightfly, Saint Kansas, Janjan, Joe and Joseph, Kris, "G'day" Peter, Steve G. and Another Steve, Joel and Joel, Camila, Dave, Maclin, Kate B., Sonetka, and so many others who feel like friends even though I've met only a tiny handful of them. Even when they don't agree with me, they seem to feel at home here. They actively engage themselves in posting comments—both to me and to one another—about the issues I bring up, and I'm very grateful that they take an interest in what I have to say.
With the advent of my Daily News column, I have officially become a public figure. As a result, some new people discovering my blog are looking at it in a different way than longtime readers because they see me as part of the mainstream media.
I still have a hard time considering myself part of the establishment—it's not like, as one blog paranoiacally assumed, I'm writing for the editorial page. But it's true that I have a column which—while itself fairly innocuous—draws attention to my name, which in turn can lead people to seek out my views about faith and politics on this, my personal Weblog.
When those readers get here, what they may find (particularly if they're following links that have been helpfully supplied by left-wing blogs) is that I have what liberal New Yorkers consider strong views on issues such as abortion, stem-cell research, sex education, homosexual sex—indeed, all sex outside of traditional marriage—and gay marriage.
I believe that my views on culture-of-life issues such as abortion and stem-cell research are fairly self-explanatory. However, readers seeing the strong language that I use against the abortion lobby—especially ones who don't know many Christian social conservatives—might assume that, just as I hate organizations like Planned Parenthood, I hate individuals who disagree with me. Specifically, they might assume that I hate homosexuals.
Until now, because of having a devoted regular readership, I have assumed that people know something of who I am, what I believe, and why. Looking at the overwhelming majority of my regular commenters, it's clear to me that my audience is not made up of haters, and I believe that's because most readers know I'm not a hater myself.
But as other bloggers spotlight posts where I candidly admit dismay over things like organizations' attempts to promote homosexuality to children, I can only imagine what The Dawn Patrol must look like to someone who's just skimming through it. If a liberal's just searching my blog for charged words like "homosexuality" and "abortion," I could easily look like a wingnut straight outta Jesusland. To such a speed reader, every other word probably translates as, "homosexuality bad," "Planned Parenthood bad," etc.
To such a reader, I would like to say, don't just read my posts that scream "red state." Read the ones in between. If you do, you'll see that I don't hate homosexuals, because then I'd have to hate myself.
Not because I'm gay—I'm not. (Didn't mean to give you a start.)
No, if I hated homosexuals, I would have to hate myself, because I am a sinner and have no right to consider myself morally better than another person. That's not to say I don't believe in a distinction between good and bad behavior. However, to hate someone means judging not only their behavior, but their heart. My faith tells me that only God judges the hearts. If, when writing about a particular behavior that riled me, I have judged not only people's behavior but also their humanity, then I am sorry.
This brings us to a belief put forth by Planned Parenthood and other gay-rights groups—Alfred Kinsey's claim that people's sexual behavior is an inherent part of who they are. Such organizations assert that to pass judgment upon homosexuals' behavior is to pass judgment upon their entire being.
If someone reading this really believes that—that his humanity is defined by his sexual attraction—then I don't know what to say. Such a reader will not be assured by my telling him that I don't hate him. All I can say is, if I found him lying bleeding in the street, I'd rush to his aid. I wouldn't first demand to know his sexual preference. Such things are important, to be sure, but they're not who we are. Marriage is meaningful on Earth, partly as a reflection of Christ's heavenly union with His Church. But there are no marriages in Heaven.
*You may have noticed that I prefer the term "homosexual" to "gay." That is because "gay" implies a value judgment. Its heterosexual counterpart, "straight," isn't as positive—it implies "uptight," as in "straight-laced." I don't think homosexual advocates would take it kindly if heterosexuals took for themselves a term truly equivalent to "gay"—like "happy."
2:48 AM
|
The New York Times' Stem-Cell Theology
The New York Times's editorial "The President's Stem Cell Theology is remarkably smug—even for the Times, which is saying a lot.
A couple of thoughts:
The Times says of embryos, "These blastocysts, as they are called, bear none of the attributes we associate with humanity and, sitting outside the womb, have no chance of developing into babies."
Putting aside the question of what are the attributes we associate with humanity—e.g. embodying a human life at a particular stage of development—the Times is making a disturbing distinction. Apparently, any creatures that "bear none of the attributes we associate with humanity" and "sitting outside the womb, have no chance of developing into babies" are fair game for slicing and dicing. That criteria—particularly with the attributes of "humanity" left vague and subjective—could quite easily be taken to mean any fetus that is not yet viable.
Then there's this: "Mr. Bush is adamantly opposed to such research, which involves creating microscopic embryos to derive stem cells that genetically match a diseased patient, thus facilitating research on particular diseases and ultimately potential cures."
Note the emphasis on "microscopic." As in, "insignificant." As in, "Don't worry your pretty little head about what you can't see."
It reminds me of when, as a teenager, I first went on thyroid medication, and my father—a scientist—asked me what was the dosage.
"I forget," I said, "but it can't be much. They're just tiny little pills."
Dad set me straight. And I dare say he, or any scientist worth his salt, could set the Times straight on this one too. The "if you can't see them, they're not worth protecting" argument sounds like that of the child who believes that when he can't see others, they can't see him.
1:53 AM
|
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Burned the midnight oil last night writing my column, so just a few short takes this afternoon:
1:27 PM
|
An Innocent Manse
What a brilliant idea—lifestyles of the not-quite-famous. It reminds me of the films that Gary Weis used to do for "Saturday Night Live."
12:28 AM
|
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Reader Bob Denham comments on an earlier post that his teen's school had a special parents' meeting about blogging. Sounds like there's a story there. I'd like to ask any parents who are reading if you could please leave a comment (click on the "Comments" box below) to answer one or both of the following questions:
1) Have your school's officials or parents' association informed you about the possible problems caused by students' blogging? What did they tell you about it, and what kind of advice did they give you on how to avoid those problems?
2) Does your child blog? If so, do you read your child's blog, and do you supervise his or her blogging? If you supervise it, how do you go about doing that?
3) If you don't mind your child's blog being read by strangers, please post the URL and describe what kind of supervision you exert over the blog, if any.
Any posts left in this thread may be quoted in my newspaper column. Although the comments software will ask for your name, e-mail, and URL, you may post anonymously if you wish—include your name just if you'd like it to appear in the paper. Thanks very much!
3:24 PM
|
If you've yet to read my new column, I just put a link to it atop Gaits of Eden. My next one is due tomorrow night—any suggestions? I'm always on the lookout for recent noteworthy blog items, but I'd especially appreciate your suggestions on general blog-related topics that would interest an audience that might not have a deep knowledge of blogs. Please post your ideas by clicking the "Comments" link below—much obliged!
4:12 AM
|
Harper's Bazaar
This morning, I Googled my long-lost friend Rick Harper to see if he was still making fine, catchy, and thoroughly janglefied pop music.
He is.
I have never heard such a prominent bass harmonica in all my life.
3:34 AM
|
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Chinless Wonder
 Had a lovely lunch yesterday with Trevor Romain, who has at least as much joie de vivre in person as he does in his videos (check out the clips on his Web site to see what I mean). He's in town to appear this morning on "Fox & Friends"—you can catch him if you're watching the Fox News Channel between 7 and 9 a.m. Eastern time.
4:55 AM
Awwww
Isn't that sweet. Someone at the Post still believes in "miracles." The word appears three times in this article on "L.I. Wonder Twins"—which, despite its promising headline, has nothing to do with Saturday-morning TV.
I believe in miracles too, and I'm thankful that I'm alive to see them—unlike the four human lives that Dr. Paul Liu created knowing full well there was an 80 to 90 percent chance they would never see the light of day. Given those odds, it's a miracle that two of them survived.
1:37 AM
|
Monday, May 23, 2005
Ohio Men Are From Mars
Robert N. Going (who really should get his blog going again) writes with the following insight into a great novel. I love Ray Bradbury's work, but when I'm reading it I often have to put it down, because it hits me too hard. Interesting to see the wit behind the poignancy. Writes Robert: I am a great fan of Ray Bradbury's Martian Chronicles which I have probably read a dozen times in the last 40 years. It was only a couple of years ago that I caught the full meaning of part of it when I stumbled on the lyrics to "Beautiful Ohio." In the story about the third mission to Mars, the astronauts find an American midwestern town plopped right next to their rocket. The boys suddenly recognize their own relatives. They all run off to their boyhood homes. There's lemonade and ice cream, the sound of creaking porch rockers and through one of the windows a copy of the sheet music for "Beautiful Ohio" propped on a piano in the parlor. None of it is real, of course, just dreams of what used to be, prepared by the native Martians to lull them into complacency. (A dream that carries through to the all-American funeral with a band playing "Columbia, The Gem of the Ocean.")
So Bradbury only gives us a glimpse of "Beautiful Ohio", while winking at those who know the chorus:
Drifting with the current down a moonlit stream
While above the Heavens in their glory gleam
And the stars on high
Twinkle in the sky
Seeming in a paradise of love divine
Dreaming of a pair of eyes that looked in mine
Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see
Visions of what used to be.
Cool, eh?
11:28 AM
|
Back from visiting my love in Ohio and had a wonderful time. I started writing an entry about it, but words fail me, so it'll have to wait. In the meantime, I must get some sleep because tomorrow I'm having lunch with a visiting blogger I'm meeting for the first time, whose story is inspiring. So, thanks for coming by—please stop back later, when there should be another post or two...
2:55 AM
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Black Coffee in Bed/
Breakfast at Tiffany's
The Nightfly's got a hot streak going—several days' worth of eminently readable posts on evangelism and popular culture. His latest is on his "Twilight Zone"-like experience of passing by a New Jersey town's library, hearing a singer playing acoustic guitar there who sounds just like the guy from Squeeze, and discovering...well, read it for yourself.
Having a wonderful time with Joel in Cleveland. (Don't believe everything you read.) This morning, we will visit the Wade Chapel, which was designed entirely by Louis Comfort Tiffany.
Blogging will be light to nonexistent until I return home tomorrow night. Thanks very much to everyone who's posted encouragement—it means a lot to me. I'm also happy to have gotten a fine new Dawn Patrol endorsement (see left, below Terry Teachout's towhead testimonial).
12:32 AM
|
Friday, May 20, 2005
Looks like the big news that I promised a while back is finally coming to pass. It has to do with something that'll be in this coming Sunday's New York Daily News. I'm still going to be a little secretive because (a) I don't want to spoil the surprise, and (b) there's always the chance that the piece might be postponed. But, just as a tease, I will tell you that it has something to do with Joey McKeown.
Please don't ask Joey to disclose the surprise, as I'm trusting he'll keep his lips sealed 'til the big day. And yes, Joel knows too, but his lips are also sealed—or at least, they're otherwise occupied, as I'm about to leave for Cleveland to visit him for the weekend.
When the piece comes out, chances are it'll draw some new readers to this blog. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who's read The Dawn Patrol up to now, especially those with whom I've corresponded and who have left comments. I'm very grateful for the support and fellowship that you've shown me. It's a wonderful feeling to post entries with the knowledge that you'll read them.
Lastly, one note to my personal friends reading this: If you need to reach me, please call on my cell phone. I've never been good at responding to my e-mail—though I read all of it—and the situation does not look likely to improve...though the rest of my life, thank God (and with a nod to St. Maximilian), keeps getting better.
2:18 AM
|
Miss Odious Regrets
Patricia Beninato of I'mNotSorry.net, the Web site for women who wish to "share their positive experiences with abortion," is soliciting feedback on a new public-relations idea: got an e-mail today from a young woman who was compelled by her "pro-life" parents and her own beliefs to continue a pregnancy caused by date rape. She now deeply regrets the decision. I've gotten a few e-mails like this in the past few months, and I was toying with the idea of creating a section where women could tell such stories to show the reality that "pro-lifers" conveniently choose to ignore. I know it doesn't really jibe with the whole "I'm not sorry" idea, but I think this happens more often than is reported and may give women like this an outlet that isn't normally available. Your thoughts? Dig those scare quotes around "pro-life." Oooh, I'm scared. Those fearsome "pro-lifers" actually want to let people live. Don't let them near your fetus.
Note how Beninato begins her comments with the information that the young woman's pregnancy in question was caused by date rape. The implication is that an abortion would somehow lessen the trauma of the rape—even though the opposite is the case. This is true regardless of whether the child is aborted through surgery or through medication, but is particularly true of surgical abortion. Dr. David C. Reardon observes, "Abortion involves a painful examination of a woman's sexual organs by a masked stranger who is invading her body. Once she is on the operating table, she loses control over her body....And while she lies there tense and helpless, the life hidden within her is literally sucked out of her womb."
As for the idea of inviting women who regret their motherhood to speak out, I agree with Beninato's commenters: It's wonderful—jibes perfectly with "the whole 'I'm not sorry' idea."
You know how members of the post-abortion recovery group Silent No More wear T-shirts declaring, "I Regret My Abortion"? I'mNotSorry could make up shirts announcing, "I Regret My Motherhood." They'd be a big hit with the "I'm With Stupid" set.
Just imagine—once the kids of those regretted pregnancies are old enough to read, they can log on to the Web and read their resentful moms' stories about how those mean old "pro-lifers" allowed the little parasites to see the light of day.
In fact, why stop at a Web page? I'mNotSorry should publish baby books for regretful mothers. They could have a page for the pregnancy-test strip with its ominous pink lines; a page for the mom to draw the abortion-clinic bill that she tragically never got, and a page for a photo of the should've-been-snuffed-out baby with the smug-faced grandparents who forced its existence.
Margaret Sanger's motto for her Planned Parenthood organization was, "Every child a wanted child." It takes legalized abortion to show kids just how unwanted they are.
12:23 AM
|
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Sex Week at the University of Washington
The following article from the University of Washington—Seattle's UW Daily is offensive in so many ways that I wouldn't know where to begin commenting on it, so I'm printing it as is. Your comments (which you can post by clicking on the "Comments" link below) are appreciated: A group of eighth graders touring campus from Odle Middle School in Bellevue sheepishly giggled as they looked at tables set up for Sex Week on the HUB lawn. Some of the boys took free condoms and some of the girls gathered in front of the "who do you want to do?" poster to write in their favorite pick.
"It's a good view of college life -- which includes sex," said Gary Abbrederis, a 14-year-old student from Odle.
The tables were a promotion of Sex Week, a planned effort focused on raising awareness of sex issues to the UW student body. Put on by the UW chapter of VOX: Voices for Planned Parenthood, the event is in its 3rd year at the UW.
"We want people to start talking about sex and [to give] people access to information about ways to have sex safely and myths about sex," said Alice Lemieux, VOX volunteer.
Event organizers said this is the biggest and most comprehensive Sex Week yet. This year's goal was simply to raise a dialogue about sex.
With posters on safe sex, cancer detection, sexually transmitted diseases testing and sex tips, the club, along with collaborating groups such as Students for Choice and the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Comission, are making an effort to get students talking about sex.
"It's nice to be able to talk about the nicer parts of sex," said Lemieux.
Volunteers passed out 500 condoms in the last two days, said Lemieux.
"We want students to know information to have safer sex, to teach that it is not taboo to talk about sex," said volunteer Drew Simshaw.
But organizers for this year did not want to merely talk about the informative sides of sex. They conjured up ways to bring a little fun and humor to the issue.
"Sex is funny, it's ridiculous," said Lemieux. "It's utterly ridiculous. I think some people go at it too seriously. While we want people to have the information to keep it safe and respectful and how to communicate, we also want people to be comfortable to talk about it, joke about it."
Yesterday evening in the HUB, six women and one man gathered for "porn karaoke." The karaoke required participants to improv the dialogue of the movies shown, which included heterosexual, gay and lesbian movies from Toys in Babeland. [Note from Dawn: Planned Parenthood has a close relationship with Toys in Babeland, recommending the sex-shop chain on its Teenwire Web site (where children as young as six can register to ask advice of "sexperts").]
VOX will continue tabling the rest of the week and showcase different sex positions on the HUB lawn today. A dominatrix, who goes by the name of Mistress Mattisse, will speak tonight in Savery 239 about the many sides of "kink."
2:19 AM
|
Cosmo Takes a Stand—for One Night
A new survey by British Cosmopolitan finds that the overwhelming majority of women who have had one or more one-night stands regret it.
This is not surprising. What is surprising at first glance is that Cosmo would report such information, since so many of its articles are focused on nonmarital sex.
I think what's going on here is that Cosmo's editors realize that women are dissatisfied with one-night encounters—so they use that knowledge to market the magazine to women who dream of such encounters' being transformed into "real" relationships. After all, they paired the cover tagline for the sex survey with one for a story on "10 Sexual Sins Thou Shalt Commit Tonight." The message is, if you're good enough in bed, he just might stay.
The truth about the destructive and numbing psychological effects of unmarried sex, particularly on women, is one of our society's most closely guarded secrets, kept out of the popular culture in much the same way that the deep emotional damage caused by abortion is hidden. It's not just the mainstream media that avoids the topic either; as World magazine's blog recently noted, fornication runs much deeper among churchgoers than homosexuality—yet pastors rarely preach against it.
The fact that over 40 percent of women age 15-44 have cohabited suggests that the problem's invisibility is due to its very immensity—fornication is woven seamlessly into the fabric of our culture. Television, films, and the rest of the media combine to encourage women to self-medicate their loneliness with sex. Society pretends to frown upon one-night stands—out of concern over AIDS if nothing else—but sex within an unmarried relationship is considered acceptable because of the atmosphere of mutual "respect."
The truth is that no woman can truly be respected by a man who is perfectly willing to make full use of her body and perfectly unwilling to give her a full commitment. That's not respect. It's a transaction: "You give me sex and I will 'respect' you until we get bored of one another." Behind that "ideal" lies a deep cynicism. Whores have a point when they say that the difference between them and other women having nonmarital sex is that they get paid.
I'm not saying this to judge women, but to suggest that any hope of future love is worth forgoing present "respect." It's a subject on which I feel qualified to write with authority—as I've written before, I've had more "respect" than you've had hot dinners. When love finally came, I knew that it was far more than just deserts.
1:26 AM
|
Calling Cleveland Catholics
I'm going to be in Cleveland this Saturday and would like to attend a vigil Mass. Can anyone recommend a church with all the smells and bells and—if at all possible—no Eucharistic ministers? (I'm not receiving, but I do plan to go up for a blessing—plus I just prefer more traditional churches.)
1:04 AM
|
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Patti Davis 'Cells' Out
One of the reasons some Christians warn about the "culture of death" is that when you put together the pieces of today's biggest issues—like abortion, abortion-causing "contraceptives" such as the morning-after-pill, and embryo-killing infertility treatments, plus embryonic stem-cell research—they form an overarching picture of a society that is indifferent to human life.
Take in vitro fertilization, the last hope of many couples determined to have a baby who carries on their own genes. It's sold as a means of creating life—yet, by its very nature, it destroys more lives than it creates. A typical IVF treatment involves fertilizing up to 12 eggs and implanting them two or three at a time, in the hope that at least one will "take." As a result, according to a 2003 count, over 400,000 "surplus" embryos languish in fertility-clinic freezers because the couples for whom they were created do not want them. I say "languish" because the longer the embryos are frozen, the smaller the chance that they will survive if implanted. And that doesn't even count the untold number that are simply destroyed because their parents are certain that they do not want any more children.
Most people who seek out in vitro fertilization are not aware that they are almost certain to cause the creation of lives that will be destroyed. Chalk their ignorance up to the mainstream media, which hides this fact both passively and actively—passively, by reporters' and editors' not bothering to learn the facts, and actively, by punishing those who do attempt to get those facts out to the public. I can personally attest to the immense lengths to which a major newspaper will go to silence and ridicule a staff member who informs readers that IVF "miracle babies" are acquired at the expense of destroyed embryos.
Which brings us to Reagan daughter Patti Davis's latest column for (that bastion of responsible journalism) Newsweek online "Humanity Before Politics," in which she repeats the call that she and her mother have made for federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research.
The image at the top of the article says it all: a collection of test tubes at an embryonic stem-cell bank. Each one of those tubes contains a human life—or what would have been a human life, were it not torn apart after growing for several days.
What's truly chilling about the photo is its bloodlessness. The tubes look antiseptic, clean. One of them is raised with gleaming metal pincers by an unseen laboratory worker. Talk about your Brave New World.
It's images like that which make me believe, as much as I hate gore and hate the idea of children's being exposed to gore, that Priests for Life are right when they say on their Web site, "America Will Not Reject Abortion Until America Sees Abortion." Here's a page, courtesy of that organization, which—while it does not itself contain photos—will take you to what's really in that test-tube pic. It's disgusting, it's horrible, it's repulsive. It is the face of death—which the embryonic stem-cell researchers and their supporters such as Patti Davis are trying their hardest to hide.
Just as sick is the way Davis phrases her pitch for nipping lives in the bud. While she mentions "embryonic stem-cell research," she never once refers to the research subjects as embryos. So, what does she call them? It's a phrase that's sadly familiar if you've followed Planned Parenthood's claim that the thing which so-called "emergency contraception" kills is not an embryo: "clusters of cells."
"People who have been struck by Parkinson’s, ALS or Alzheimer’s possibly could look forward to a life free of disease," Davis writes. "But not if this president has his way. He puts more importance on those clusters of cells, leaning on the word 'human' as if they will actually grow into little boys and s. Which they never will."
The most amazing thing about Davis's claim is its brazenness. Talk about a tautology. Of course the "surplus" IVF embryos (never mind how offensive the word "surplus" is when it refers to humanity) that are used for embryonic stem-cell research will never grow into human beings. They won't because they've been created by a process which is inherently immoral, and they're being destroyed in a process which is not only immoral, but outright murderous.
As for the claim that Parkinson's, ALS, or Alzheimer's sufferers could "possibly" be cured by embryonic stem-cell research, well, Ms. Davis, az der bubbe vot gehat baytzim vot zie geven mein zayde. (Translation from the Yiddish: "If my grandmother had balls, she would be my grandfather.") Moreover, the "possibility" of such cures from embryonic stem-cell research is far outweighed by its risks—tumors, for instance—as well as the simple fact that it is wrong to destroy life in order to save it. stem-cell research, which does not involve the destruction of embryos, has shown as much or greater promise.
Davis twists herself into an ever-more bizarre ethical pretzel—perhaps the most convoluted position she's taken since she contorted herself for 's video cameras—as she belittles President Bush's 2001 decision to allow federally funded research of about 60 embryonic stem-cell lines: "Meanwhile, couples have continued to go into doctor’s offices and clinics for in vitro fertilization, and cells have been created in excess of their needs. Those cells, with the promise of new life in them, have later been destroyed."
Amazing. Read that again.
"Those cells, with the promise of new life in them, have later been destroyed."
"The promise of new life in them"? What new life? I thought those "clusters of cells" couldn't "grow into little boys and s."
Oh. She means "new life" for patients with Alzheimers/ALS/etc.—destroying human life at one end to extend it at the other.
Somehow, I don't think the Gipper would have approved.
1:45 AM
|
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Leave it to Michelle Malkin to link to me on a day when I'm busy and don't have any new posts to speak of. (Actually, she links to an old post, and I greatly appreciate her long memory.) More substantial posts late tonight, I promise. In the meantime, John Bambenek is all over the Newsweek debacle, including an entry where he rightfully ridicules Andrew Sullivan's "fake but plausible" argument.
Thanks to the commenters on the evangelism post below—it's an enlightening discussion.
1:08 PM
Need a smile this morning? Check out Evilpundit's Photoshop masterpiece "St. George and the Kitten." (Thanks, Credibility.)
4:48 AM
Monday, May 16, 2005
Gore Blimey
Lesley Gore has a new album.
Based on the brief sample available on her label's Web site, it's quite listenable—graceful, mature, yet with a voice that remains instantly recognizable.* I'm not sure if there's a song there, but it's a nice feel, and unquestionably the best thing Gore's done since recording "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap" for the odd When Pigs Fly compilation.
I eagerly await a full review on Dustbury.
*Warning: The song sample inexplicably includes the very same note that Macintosh computers use to tell you that you have a new mail message. It made me check my Telnet mailbox four times within 50 seconds.
6:55 PM
|
Hell Is Luther People?
Heading to work earlier than usual today, I saw outside the PATH-train entrance, directly facing the rush-hour crowd, a man displaying a large white posterboard. On it, he had written with a marker in block letters, "IT'S HELL IF YOU'RE NOT A ROMAN CATHOLIC."
It wasn't until I got on the train that I realized what his sign meant. My first thought was that he was promising some sort of earthly reward, e.g. "Be a Catholic! Life won't seem so bad!"
Two things seemed remarkable to me: First, that the man was one of those rare Catholics who publicly take it upon themselves to fulfill John Paul II's call to evangelize. Second, that he was doing so in a singularly unappealing fashion. He didn't look particularly happy. Where's the good news?
6:07 PM
|
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Imperfect Communion
Joey McKeown's latest tale of woe sounds like a script for a sitcom pilot. I'm thinking, "The God Couple."
When Joey's good, he's very, very good. Somebody syndicate this man's vignettes—make him a guest on Amy Welborn or something. And find a way to keep him in New York City—its Catholic intellectual life needs him.
11:49 PM
|
Aviatory Porcines Dept.
Reader Belinda writes: "I figure that given their commitment to women's reproductive health, Planned Parenthood will be all over this story from the Telegraph."
(If the above link doesn't work, the story is also on LifeNews.)
I'll go one further. If Planned Parenthood's national organization issues a press release about this study that takes its findings seriously, expresses grave concern about its implications, and states that the organization will henceforth warn all of its abortion customers about the significant risk of future premature births, then I'll never write a negative word about Planned Parenthood again.
Now, what are the odds of that happening?
11:04 PM
|
Pronoun Trouble at the Associated Press
The Associated Press apparently has a new policy for citing sources. People quoted in its articles can call themselves anything they want—even saying they're male when they're female and vice versa—and the AP will simply print whatever they say as gospel.
Witness "Transsexual Youth Haven Provides Support", the AP's story about a Chicago center for youths who want to change their gender. As it bends over backwards to be tolerant, the news organization doesn't even bother to get a quote from someone who might think it's not a good idea to mix sexually confused teenagers with 25-year-old cocaine-addicted prostitutes. But more than that, it quotes the youths by the names and genders that they've applied to themselves—even though it appears that none of them have actually gotten sex-change operations or had their names legally changed.
So, the news organization quotes a girl named Dai as a boy named David, and a boy named Josh is quoted as a girl named Jessi—because respect for transexual youth's self-esteem apparently trumps the facts in the Associated Press's 2005 stylebook.
Nice to know that if the AP ever comes calling, I can tell them to refer to me as a "he" and call me by the name "Cole Porter." After all, they're now the "anything goes" newswire.
3:02 AM
|
 Had a little fun with my cell phone last night after deejaying at POP GEAR!, taking a couple of self-portraits to send to my love. The other one is on Gaits of Eden.
2:17 AM
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Prom Fright
[Note: The following contains graphic sexual language from Planned Parenthood's Teenwire.]
Just in time for prom season, Planned Parenthood's sex-ed site Teenwire—where children as young as six can register to get advice from "sexperts"—has posted a new-and-improved version of its evergreen "Be Prepared for the Prom", which gained the attention of MSNBC's "Scarborough Country" after I covered it last year. This time around, they're recommending that high-school girls pack not only condoms in their prom purses, but also dental dams (for oral sex or licking their prom date's "anus"—"plastic wrap" will do in a pinch) and—for "even more protection"—morning-after pills. For girls who don't have a ready supply of the embryo-destroying drug, the article includes a toll-free phone number to order the pills, which—in nearly every state—are supposed to be dispensed only with a doctor's prescription.
* * *On a related note, the Catholic World News blog reports that Boston's Jesuit Urban Center is passing along an urgent request for adult volunteers to "chaperone" the Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Youth's Prom—which, according to the BAGLY Web site, is "like a huge queer club."
2:12 AM
|
Friday, May 13, 2005
Sweet Chastity
Reader Paas comments about the manner in which children should be taught about abstinence: [S]omeone should make the distinction between repression and sublimation very clear. Repression, as I understand it, refers to the denial that certain feelings and urges exist, thereby causing such feelings to manifest themselves in other, often unhealthy ways. But sublimation is something else altogether. In this case, it means acknowledging, accepting and embracing the fact that we are humans with sexual desires, but simultaneously recognizing that the potential consequences of irresponsible sex compel us to temper our urges. Instead, we sublimate them. We take that energy and consciously channel it into other parts of our lives, scholastic, creative, interpersonal. While it's true that repression as Paas describes it is an unacceptable solution, the problem with this approach is that sexual desire cannot be sublimated.
The "scholastic, creative, [and] interpersonal" activities which Paas cites as sublimations of desire are not really sublimations—just shifts in priorities. A woman who channels her sexual desire into practicing for a marathon doesn't become better at going the extra mile in a relationship. She only manages to take her mind off of it. Likewise, a man who would like to be having sex but instead focuses on scholastic achievement doesn't graduate with a doctorate in chastity. He's still the same frustrated individual—just with more loans to pay off.
Think about the Virgin Mary, who lived an active, healthy life for many years. Was she rejoicing at a Canaa wedding and following her Son from place to place because she had so much leftover energy from not having sex? Hardly.
Rather, Mary made a conscious decision, at the very point in her life when she was poised to become sexually active with her husband, to instead put her entire self into serving the Lord: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word."
So, Mary's capacity for sexual desire was not "sublimated," it was sacrificed. It is in such sacrifice to the Lord that nuns, priests, and all who are called to chastity gain strength, inspiration, and vitality. In an ideal society, we would esteem such individuals—whether their chastity is relative (that is, within marriage) or absolute—as examples for ourselves and for our children.
2:08 AM
|
Just checked Kyriosity for the first time in a while—that's the blog of Valerie, who designed The Dawn Patrol's logo—and found lots of good stuff, including a link to the trailer for "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe." But what's really cool is that the date of each of her posts ends with "AD."
2:00 AM
Wonder Mint
You will never look at a Cert the same way again.
(From Muley's World, a brand-new blog whose prolific author has the makings of a comedic genius and will be famous if he doesn't burn himself out. Mark my words.)
1:13 AM
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Philip K. Dick, Prophet
The BBC reports that researchers at Cornell have created a self-replicating robot.
Score another fulfilled prophecy for the late science-fiction author Philip K. Dick, who saw this coming 52 years ago in his short story "Second Variety," which was much later adapted into the film "Screamers."
12:37 AM
|
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
The Love You Save
Zippy Catholic, who inspired The Dawn Patrol's recent post on sola scriptura (scroll down and look for the post with over 100 comments) has a new post today, "Salvation by What?", that—while by no means ending the argument—offers a lovely summation point for the Catholic side: ...[T]o understand the Catholic Faith you have to understand that it is not primarily about intellect, or even morals: it is about Christ received through the sacraments, because He commanded it, and because those who love Him will do as He commands because they love Him. And He commands as He does because He loves us. Understanding may follow practice, to a greater or lesser degree. But the Catholic faith is a loving response to our King and Redeemer, not an intellectual response to a text. A Downs Syndrome Catholic who can't read the Bible is in no way lesser than a theological polymath....
That isn't to say that there aren't sincere elements of all of these things in Protestant faiths. But the answer to "what must I do to be saved" can't be specified in a finite text, any more than "what must I do to make sure my wife still loves me tomorrow." There are no intellectual certainties, and yet the certainties transcend any intellectual certainties because they are rooted in love... Beautifully stated. I would add that Jesus' love is the same yesterday, and today, and forever.
You can comment on Zippy's post on his blog.
12:22 PM
Just Asking
Fr. Bryce Sibley is a man after my own heart.
Yesterday, he posted for his readers' benefit a couple of questions he sent to Dr. Vanessa Cullins, the Planned Parenthood columnist who answered a "when does life begin" query by saying a baby becomes a person when it takes "its first breath." Here's an excerpt: From the Planned Parenthood website, it appears to me that you are an African-American. How do you feel being employed by an organization founded by Margaret Sanger who is quoted as saying, "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population"? This of course was to be achieved through her so-called "Negro Project" - which would exterminate blacks and other minorities as "undesirables"....[more] [Comments disabled on this entry, as there's already a lively discussion brewing on Fr. Sibley's blog.]
2:30 AM
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Fetus, Don't Fail Me Now!
Reader John R. (who lists a comics site as his home page) weighed in on a recent post about "fetus vs. baby" terminology with a comment worth reprinting. The following fictitious exchanges, he writes, are "to prove that there is no such thing as common sense that even a child can articulate perfectly that some grown-up with a political agenda can't pervert!"
John R. writes: "guess what grampa jim - mommy's got a baby in her tummy!" so it is - amen."
Not so fast...here's an alternative script, with Grampa Jim an avowed "technicalist" re "the fetus":
Little Girl: Guess what grampa jim - mommy's got a baby in her tummy!
Grampa Jim: Oh, no! That's no baby...it's a fetus!
Girl: Wow! Mommy's got a fetus in her tummy!
Grampa Jim: That's right!
Girl: What is a fetus, Grampa Jim?
Grampa Jim: The important question isn't what a fetus is! No, the real question is what it could be! Don't be afraid to use your imagination to wonder about "the mystery of life!" The fetus is your friend. It's like a cloud in the sky- it can be anything you want it to be!
Girl: Ooooh....the mystery of life! So you mean...a fetus could be a kitty kat?
Grampa Jim: Yes! The fetus could be a cute, fluffy kitty kat! It could also be a boat, or a dump truck, or a comic book!
Girl: Wow! A comic book!
Grampa Jim: Yeah! It's a fetus, so the sky is the limit what it could be. Nobody knows until your mommy lets it come out!
Girl: Neat! And here I thought it was just gonna be a crummy little brother!
Grampa Jim: It could be a Hershey Bar, too! Or a catcher's mitt....or a....
11:22 PM
|
Bizarre
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports, "Police used taser on pregnant driver."
The reporter's name and e-mail address are at the bottom of the article. I'm running off to work right now, but I'd be very interested if someone could find out if the woman, who went on to deliver "a healthy girl," really said this:
"As police officers, they could have hurt me seriously. They could have hurt my unborn fetus."
Associated Press style frowns upon "unborn child," but reporters and editors aren't supposed to change words like that in a quote.
Thanks to Peter Horvath of that wonderful Who-inspired think tank Anderson Council for the tip.
| |
