|
|
|
|
|
| |
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Planned Parenthood's Perfect Storm
Just like after 9/11, when Planned Parenthood offered survivors free abortions, Margaret Sanger's bunch is there for Katrina victims with free medicine—to prevent their pregnancies and abort their babies, of course.
From the American Life League: Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas has offered to provide free birth control pills at its Houston clinics to individuals with a Mississippi or Louisiana driver's license. The organization undoubtedly knows that thousands of Gulf Coast residents have already found refuge in Texas, and thousands of people currently housed in the New Orleans Superdome will soon be on their way by bus caravan to Houston's Astrodome, in the hometown of this Planned Parenthood affiliate.
"In New York City in 2001, Planned Parenthood used the 9/11 attacks to publicize its programs by offering free contraceptives and abortions for the week after the terrorists struck," said Sedlak. "Now the organization is exploiting one of the worst natural disasters in American history for cheap publicity by offering one month's supply of free birth control and so-called emergency contraception to victims of Katrina.
"I'm sure Planned Parenthood would claim it is not a publicity stunt," said Sedlak, "but how else do you explain the fact that Planned Parenthood lists its clinics in Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana that are closed because of the storm, along with a listing of the clinics' phone numbers? If the clinics are closed, you don't need the phone numbers - unless you are trying to drum up future business. If Planned Parenthood really wants to help, it should donate a portion of the millions of dollars in profits it makes every year to aid in the victims' plights.
"While Planned Parenthood's latest stunt is disgusting and utterly inappropriate, it is not surprising," said Sedlak. "The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood is out to promote its own agenda and will stop at nothing to take advantage of an opportunity to do so."
6:40 PM
|
Shining Brute
 One of my very favorite people in the world, Brute Force is performing this Saturday night at 10 p.m. at Otto's Shrunken Head, a tiki bar at 538 E. 14th St. between A and B, otherwise known as A Funky Dive Way the Heck Out in the East Village. I believe admission is free.
Brute has a fascinating history. He was a member of the Tokens during the mid-1960s and wrote songs for the likes of the Chiffons (the pre-psychedelic "Nobody Knows What's Going On in My Mind But Me"—hear it on mp3.com), Del Shannon, the Cyrkle, and the Creation. In 1967, he released Confections of Love on Columbia, produced by the formidable John Simon, which contained such surrealist pop gems as "To Sit on a Sandwich." Just last week, walking home after a long day at work, I found myself absently singing, "Oh, to go roaming through the cole slaw/Who cares what for, anymore!/Oh, to skip and frolic through the pickles! Where the Big Sandwich Maker himself/Sits high on his Elysian shelf/And giggles/And prepares for the wurst"—
Excuse me.
After Confections of Love, Brute recorded a lovely little song called "The King of Fuh," all about a beautiful land where there was a king and everyone called him the—well, you know. It's a good illustration of Titus 1:15. The Beatles released it on Apple and it was instantly banned by the BBC, making it the rarest 45 ever released on the label. (If you're not at work and the kids are out of the room, you can hear it by clicking the "MP3" button on entry #038 of the "365 Days" music page.) Brute's subsequent album, Extemporaneous was likewise removed quickly from the market; an original copy now sells for over $1,500.
Following the commercial failure of "King of Fuh" and Extemporaneous, Brute left the music business for a while to do things that were less stressful—like swimming the Bering Strait. The photo above is of him greeting Eskimo children during his 1969 attempt to swim that body of water, which was written up in Life. He also writes poems—one of his best is his one on the death of Terri Schiavo.
In recent years, Brute's taken to playing downtown New York clubs, often backed by a group of young hipsters (as he will be this Saturday). I saw him for the first time last year, doing a solo show, and it was one of the best performances I've ever seen—pure joy. He's an actor, a mimic, a great singer and keyboardist, and most of all, a showman. Picture Al Jolson crossed with Jonathan Winters, performing songs that would make They Might Be Giants green with envy.
Saturday also happens to be my birthday, so if you're up for seeing Brute, wish me a happy 37th. I can't think of a better way to spend it than going out with a dear friend and listening to Brute Force. It even beats sitting on a sandwich.
1:52 AM
|
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
'New Orleans Is Lost'
From reader James T. Freeman III: From an emergency notice put on WWL-TV's Web site, which mirrors a bulletin they just had on TV (I'm watching online):
****ALL RESIDENTS ON THE EAST BANK OF ORLEANS AND JEFFERSON REMAINING IN THE METRO AREA ARE BEING TOLD TO EVACUATE AS EFFORTS TO SANDBAG THE LEVEE BREAK HAVE ENDED. THE PUMPS IN THAT AREA ARE EXPECTED TO FAIL SOON AND 9 FEET OF WATER IS EXPECTED IN THE ENTIRE EAST BANK. WITHIN THE NEXT 12-15 HOURS****
As all of us native Louisianians know, the "entire East bank" constitutes all of New Orleans, Metairie, etc.
The question of New Orleans' survival as a city was in some question an hour ago. Now, I think the question may have been answered. New Orleans will not be habitable for a very long time, and then only after the expenditure of unfathomable treasure.
May God have mercy. Lord have mercy. I am out of words for prayer other than that. Lord have mercy.
I think I am going to go cry now. Please pray for the victims and their families, and donate to relief organizations such as the Salvation Army.
8:14 PM
|
Troll Alert
If fellow bloggers would like to ban the troll who left a vulgar threat under the name "Karla Marx" in the comments section of a recent post of mine, her IP address is 216.139.154.190, which resolves to resnick.nyct.net.
1:10 PM
|
No Respect
By Dawn Patrol Guestblogger The Raving Atheist
"I don’t get no respect," complained the late comedian Rodney Dangerfield. He was a lucky man, if you consider how "respect" is defined by the folks over at the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Professor George Orwell -- I mean Professor Betty B. Hoskins –- explains that you gotta be cruel to be kind: Honoring The Cells That Are Gifted: Respecting What We DestroyWe began with the concern that our national debate exhibits simplistic “either/or” reasoning, which states that either human stem cell research is wrong because human life is precious, or human stem cell research is good for the advance of knowledge and medical cures for human suffering. Can we get beyond the "either/or" arguments, and instead find a way to regard human stem cells as both worthy of respect and useful tools toward potential cures for serious human diseases?
* * *
The concept "respecting what we destroy" clarifies the hES [human embryonic stem cell] issues, I believe. The concepts "life is death” and "right is wrong" are equally clarifying, I believe. Lest one think that Prof. Hoskins, like Dangerfield, was merely joking, she shames the reader into accepting the true gravity of the matter. "Respecting what one destroys should include behaviors such as an attitude of regret and some sense of loss, conjoined with some display of that regret and acknowledgment of loss." For those who remain morally dense, she offers a few practical applications of her thesis: Native American respect for animals hunted as food; Japanese [Buddhist] Mizuko kuyo statuary images that are part of women’s memorial services for their aborted fetuses; young American writer Naomi Wolf’s advocacy of Jewish mystical tradition practices of tikkun, or mending; dissection of human cadavers by medical students (this author would add, when followed by memorial services of thanks for knowledge and skill gained). This author would add, "and serial killer Ted Bundy's vow to his dates that he would still 'respect' them in the morning." My objection to these analogies isn’t their ineptness but their accuracy. The main problem is really one of etiquette: traditionally, the recipients of thanks or apologies are alive to receive them. Perhaps this flaw could be remedied by restricting the practice to medical research facilitated by bank robbery: the polite notes of gratitude and regret would not be lost upon the tellers. For the simplistic among you who are still confused, I refer you to the RCRC’s glossary, "Words of Choice." Although nowhere does it offer a definition of "respect," it sheds light on the meanings of some other terms relevant to the stem cell debate. The introductory paragraphs dispel the "misleading" media propaganda that abortion is a matter of "life and death." The entry for "Post-Abortion Syndrome" explains that the disorder is a myth: the reports of nightmares and feelings of guilt are not "scientifically or medically proven" insofar as "positive feelings" predominate in those who have chosen. The dictionary omits the definition of "logic," but the logic seems to be this: the killing of a embryo outside the womb (where it poses no conceivable threat to anyone) is a "destroying" act which should occasion deep regret, whereas the same act in utero is a passionless non-killing. To be fair, Prof. Hoskins considered other options before deciding to respect, honor and destroy the most gifted cells: One suggestion (heuristic and discussion-provoking, I presume) was that destruction or study of embryos is best justified by “simply stripping them of any value whatsoever.” While reflection on this stark proposal is both appropriate to philosophers’ style of rational discourse and unlikely to change public opinion or governmental policy, it helps us understand the dilemmas of a dualistic choice, which would require us to set aside strongly-held value positions. She rejected this approach, apparently because setting aside strongly-held value positions is reserved for those who engage in cannibalistic orgies or write pro-choice glossaries. She also briefly entertained the suggestion to "'continue to reframe the problem until a question can be asked whose answer will incorporate all of the pertinent values' . . . [t]hat is, change the question." Unfortunately, she changed the question before explaining why avoiding the issue wouldn’t suffice. If she’s still open to suggestions, I have yet another option. Instead of respecting what you destroy, remember that destroying isn’t respectful. You don’t have to change the question. Just change the answer.
2:38 AM
|
Pray for Gulf Coast Hurricane Victims
While news coverage is focusing on relief that New Orleans was spared a direct hit, Gulf Coast residents are suffering terribly, and there's concern that there could be more victims: In the parishes of Plaquemines and Terrebonne, officials said they were particularly concerned about commercial fisherman who had decided to remain on their boats.
"My biggest concern is the loss of life," said State Sen. Walter Boasso. "We have a lot of people down there hiding in their attics, and I don't know if we will get to them fast enough."
In Mississippi, Barbour said many people suffered from what he called "hurricane fatigue," deciding not to evacuate this time after having done so in the past only to be spared.
"We pray that those people are OK," he said. "But we don't know." At reader jjoyce's suggestion, I ask you to please pray for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. If you'd like to donate towards relief, one charity that's doing good work is the Salvation Army.
2:19 AM
|
Unborn Babies Cry in Womb
Researchers at the Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C., have discovered that unborn babies cry in the womb—at 28 weeks' gestation.
The Sydney Morning-Herald reports: "It was strikingly like an infant crying," said Ed Mitchell, a New Zealand pediatrician who contributed to the US study. "Even the bottom lip quivers—what we're seeing is everything other than the [sound] itself." Professor Mitchell of the University of Auckland said it was already known that babies had the capacity to cry from mid-pregnancy because those born extremely prematurely did so. It was earlier believed they only cried when air first entered their lungs. [begin sarcasm]
Gee, do you think they cry when they're the babies of rape or incest victims who are aborting them?
Nah, couldn't be. We all know that something magical happens when a rape or incest victim has an abortion. The crying child turns into fairydust and just vanishes away at the touch of the curette. Even—no, especially—if the rape or incest victim is a minor.
[end sarcasm]
2:09 AM
|
Monday, August 29, 2005
Attention Bachelor Bloggers:
Are You Nerd Enough?
In honor of the new "Geek Chic movement popularized by "The 40 Year Old Virgin" and the upcoming film "The Baxter," next Sunday's "Blog On!" will spotlight bachelor bloggers of the lovable-nerd variety. I'll be writing the column this Wednesday night; in the meantime, I'd welcome recommendations of bloggers. They have to be straight, male (I'll follow up with a female one if there's interest), and single (divorced or widowed is OK). They also can't be on the make—that is, their blogs can't focus on their search for an available and interested female. (That, I'm sorry to say, excludes The Anonymous Blogger. Rather, they should have a particular interest or passion that's evident to readers of their blog, something that would make an easy hook to pique readers' interest—like Charles G. Hill and his Femmes Invisible Database.
3:48 PM
|
Identi-T
Reader James T. Freeman sends a clip from an Associated Press story, along with some introductory lines that will be familiar to some readers. Here's his e-mail as I received it: Agnus Dei, qui tolis peccata mundi, miserere nobis,
Agnus Dei, qui tolis peccata mundi, miserere nobis,
Agnus Dei, qui tolis peccata mundi, dona nobis pacem.
From an Associated Press story on tourists stranded in New Orleans:
Tina and Bryan Steven, of Forest Lake, Minn., sat glumly on the sidewalk outside their hotel in the French Quarter.
"We're choosing the best of two evils," said Bryan Steven. "It's either be stuck in the hotel or stuck on the road. ... We'll make it through it."
His wife, wearing a Bourbon Street T-shirt with a lewd message, interjected: "I just don't want to die in this shirt."
Expect one more, unrelated post later today...
1:22 AM
|
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Gershwin's Latest Toon
The Raving Atheist scores again with his latest continuation of the adventures of Dianysis. (The drawing of me is by David Chelsea, from my brunette days.) It's wonderful. Love the use of the Gershwin song. We are not worthy.
If you're not familiar with Dianysis, see Planned Parenthood's "A Superhero for Choice."
2:03 AM
|
Separating the Sheep from the Gloats
Some 57 passengers walked away from a plane crash in Peru's Amazon jungle last week, while about 31 died. The newspaper where I work called it a "miracle."
Looking at the photographs of the crash site, I had to agree that it was a miracle that anyone survived. But calling it that seemed dissonant in light of the recent Air France flight that crash-landed in Toronto, where all the passengers and crew survived without serious injury. The Peru crash, by contrast, certainly wasn't a miracle to the families of the dead.
In that sense, The Raving Atheist makes an important point in his post "God Approves New Gloating Rules for Plane Crash Survivors." I believe, unlike him, that we should always thank God for delivering us out of troubles. But, as he suggests, that doesn't mean we should assume that He delivered us because of anything we did to deserve deliverance—or that those whom He did not deliver were somehow worse than us.
Jesus himself asserts some of the Raving Atheist's sentiments in Luke 13:1-5: Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." Robert W. Martin has excellent observations on this topic in his essay "Jesus on Terrorism," which is worth reading in its entirety. In one section, he quotes R.C. Sproul:In effect what Jesus was saying was this: "You people are asking the wrong question. You should be asking me, 'Why didn’t that tower fall on my head?'" Jesus rebuked the people for putting their amazement in the wrong place. In two decades of teaching theology I have had countless students ask me why God doesn’t save everybody. Only once did a student come to me and say, "There is something I just can’t figure out. Why did God redeem me?" On another theological note, one aspect of the Peru plane-crash story that the news media neglected to mention is that the accident occurred on the feast day of St. Rose of Lima, Peru's patron saint.
* * *The Raving Atheist currently is soliciting answers to the question of whether the Devil, in operating Hell, is an agent of God—"the warden running God's prison." He seems genuinely curious—if you have an answer for him, respond in the comments section of his blog.
12:00 AM
|
Friday, August 26, 2005
Lauer Cowers
This tidbit arrived yesterday from reader Brian Kennelly: Matt Lauer was doing a piece on Scott Peterson. At one point he said,"Scott Peterson has been convicted of killing two pe..., er, uh, of killing his pregnant wife..."
Apparently, he could not bring himself to say "of killing two people," even though, objectively, that was the finding of the court. He might have had to admit that an unborn child is a person.
4:24 AM
|
Dawn Greets the Son-Worshiper
"I knew when I was in 4th grade that I was gay. I don’t know how the thought got into my mind—whether by men, by the devil or by myself, but it was there and I simply knew it."
Nathan Sheets may not be the only Christian ex-gay blogger. But I think it's safe to say that, with New Love in the Son, he's the newest. And I know that with his bravery, candor, and wisdom that belies his years (he's only 20), he's up there with the best of them.
He writes in one entry that "the goal of the ex-gay is not to become straight, but rather to become holy."
Further on, he says: I used to believe that I was going to have to be single my whole life, and I was OK with that. But since my repentance and devotion to being holy (not straight!) I have experienced a rather unexpected healing from Jesus! Many ex-gays don't think they can ever be straight--they might be thinking, "Nathan, you don't know me, there's no way I can ever be straight." I used to think the same way when a mentor of mine dared to suggest total freedom to me! Now I find myself moving rapidly in the direction of getting married, and wanting to get married! Blessed be the name of the Lord! I believe that anyone who has overcome a seemingly insurmountable affliction through faith in the Lord's healing power—including addiction or depression—can relate to Nathan's hope and his zeal for spreading the word.
On his main blog, he offers "The Gospel for Gay People, fully rejecting the happy-clappy, keep-on-truckin', name-it-and-claim-it attitude that passes for evangelism in many churches:The Good News never changes. This Good News is this:You are a law-breaker.
Because you are a law-breaker, you are going to hell.
But because Adonai loves you, there's a way to get out of Hell.
Repent and believe in the name of His Son, Yeshua, and you will be saved. That is the Gospel. Notice that the Good News is not "Jesus loves you, come to Him" or "He will give you peace, come to Him." I hate it when Christians say that to non-Christians. If we tell Christians how to be saved before they realize they need to be saved, they will come to Messiah under false ideas! "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1), but "how then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" (Romans 10:14).
We were not made to live in guilt and shame. Guilt and shame are gifts that are meant to show us the gap between who we are and who we can and should be in the Lord. They're not a resting place, but they're a necessary springboard in order for us to reach higher things.For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death. For observe this very thing, that you sorrowed in a godly manner: What diligence it produced in you, what clearing of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what vehement desire, what zeal, what vindication! (2 Corinthians 7:10-11) I don't long for the kind of self-pitying, hopeless sorrow that Paul describes as "the sorrow of the world" that "produces death." But there are many times when I wish I had more "godly sorrow."
Every time I realize the distance between myself and God, however much it distresses me, it ultimately brings me a greater understanding and closeness to Him. I thank Nathan Sheets for reminding me of this, and for his courage in publicly revealing his own prayerful efforts to become holy.
3:29 AM
|
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Feminists to Post-Abortive Women:
If You Can't Say Anything Nice...
Lauren of Feministe has an answer for those who say a Planned Parenthood clinic should not have told a young patient who was in great pain from an IUD that she'd have to wait five weeks for an appointment.
"[The patient] was informed of the risks and has a plan to deal with it."
"Planned Parenthood's job is to provide basic health care," Lauren goes on in another comment. "They offer women choices of their path of treatment, give them scientific(!) advice and literature on whatever decision the woman is about to make, and provide the service that the woman requests if she meets the criteria."
The above comments may be read in their original context on the comments thread to yesterday's post, along with this comment from Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte, who is similarly sympathetic—to the Planned Parenthood clinic, not the patient: "As someone who's worked in understaffed places, I can tell that it's not that you don't care about people, it's just that after hearing one person after another after another after another with their sad stories, you get a little immune. It makes you feel really bad that you can't take the time out to sympathize with each person, but you can't."
In other words, ladies, your individual health does not matter. You're part of a faceless mass. What matters is that you have the power to make a choice. If you make a choice that's wrong for you—well, as Lauren says, you were "informed of the risks." You chose your "path of treatment" and "[met] the criteria." And as Amanda says, the people working in "understaffed places" can't help being "a little immune" to your "sad stories."
What does this attitude say to women who have had abortions and are hurting from them?
Search the archives of Feministe and Pandagon for "abortion" and you'll find scores of items on each blog. Out of the numerous abortion entries on Feministe, I found two that referred in any sort of detail to women's experience of post-abortion trauma. The number of Pandagon entries referencing post-abortion trauma were exactly none, as far as I could see (corrections welcome).
One of the Feministe entries on the topic is by Lauren, who writes of post-abortive women who are pro-life: Their feelings of guilt cannot be the standard for another’s decision. That is the double-edged sword of reproductive choice - sometimes we make the right choices and sometimes we make the wrong ones, but they had the agency to use their logic, reasoning to decide in their own contextual reality what was best for them at the time. I’m sorry it might have been the wrong choice for them at that time, but that is not enough reason for many to deny others the same agency. [See the quote in its original context.]
Lauren is attempting to express measured sympathy for women who are hurting from abortion, while at the same time stressing that the women brought the pain upon themselves: "[T]hey had the agency to use their logic, reasoning to decide in their own contextual reality what was best for them at the time."
I look at that attitude, and then I look at the attitude of conservative Christians, particularly Catholics, who back organizations like Hope After Abortion and Priests for Life, and it's like Lewis Carroll's looking-glass world. Who is judging women? Certainly not those organizations, or others like Silent No More, which acknowledge post-abortive women's pain and offer them healing.
It's outrageous that Christians allow abortion advocates to frame the debate as though the Church is unforgiving. Abortion-rights activists set up straw man after straw man—claiming, for example, that if a woman said she had not been hurt by an abortion, Christians would "judge her." (No examples are necessary on this one; one need only wade through the 150-odd comments on my latest chastity post to see this fear of judgment.)
What abortion advocates see as judgmentalism is Christians' desire to share the truth, the double-edged sword that sets us free—not Lauren's "double-edged sword of reproductive choice." We are told not to judge, but instead to "tell the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15). We are to be watchmen, and if we do not sound the warning, our neighbor's blood will be required at our hand.
Madeline is a watchman. She posted this comment yesterday:I wasn’t raped, but I was sexually and physically abused by the father of my second child (who I aborted). I hated this guy and that baby burned like fire in my womb. I couldn’t get rid of “it” fast enough. I had the abortion. I didn’t want to have any kind of connection to this guy. Years later I’m healing from my abortions. I’m regretting what I’ve done. I can’t seem to face that second baby, she was a scapegoat for my hatred. I had piled all of my anger onto her. It wasn't her fault. I’ve forgiven the guy now. Forgiveness is all there is. It’s the only way to go. Hate breeds more hate. In Lauren's eyes, Madeline, who is clearly hurting, is no victim of abortion's pain—she's one of those who "decide in their own contextual reality what was best for them at the time."
In the eyes of those who treasure life, Madeline and women like her are too valuable to be allowed to damage themselves and destroy their children in the name of a "choice" that no mother should ever have to make.
I'll believe that the abortion advocates care about women's lives when they acknowledge the real pain that abortion causes women—without equivocating about "context," without blaming the victims for their own guilt, and without demonizing them as instruments of the "Christian Right" who are only out to keep women barefoot and pregnant.
I'm not holding my breath.
* * *For more resources on healing after abortion, visit After Abortion.Please read the comments rules at left before commenting. Relevant and polite comments are welcome from any side. Thank you.
2:28 AM
|
What Is Man?
By Guest Blogger Robert N. Going of The Judge Report
I was a boy, once, lying in the back yard, gazing up at the stars and contemplating the enormity of the universe, not unlike the shepherds of past millenia. When I grew older and learned the actual distances of the stars my awe only grew.
I was 18 and just out of high school when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. Armstrong and Aldrin got the fame, but the guy in the orbiter overhead, Michael Collins, got in the last word on the way home, quoting from Psalm 8: When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which Thou hast ordained;
What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? Which leads me, naturally, to sex.
Any two dogs in the street can copulate and reproduce, not likely even connecting the two. We share much in common with the other animals, including DNA. And yet, Man alone, of all the creatures, has the ability to inspire others, through art and poetry, through courage and character, through self-sacrificing love.
Animals reproduce. Man procreates. We believers profess that at the beginning of each new life is the creation of an immortal soul, created not by us, but by God.
Just think about that for a minute. If we believe that there is eternal life, a life for us beyond this one, then we must accept that that life begins with a unique soul to go along with our unique DNA.
Therefore, at the moment of conception there exists not just a sperm and an egg, but the all-loving touch of the Creator of the heavens, the moon and the stars. The loving act of procreation joins with the ultimate Love, the Maker of us all, who bothers to become involved directly at each of our beginnings.
What is man, that Thou art mindful of him?
*****************
And now from the Masterwork of God to ordinary everyday men. Much has been written and discussed about the psychological and emotional effects of non-marital sex on women, but hardly anything about its effects on men. There are some good reasons for that.
There are some things men just don’t want to discuss, like how their partners look in that new outfit, or the shrinkage factor, or post-coital guilt.
There, I said it. The fact that it has a name shows that there is some universality to the concept.
Split seconds after release, ladies, most men undergo an immediate transformation. Moments earlier we are completely lost in the act. All of a sudden the brain kicks in, screaming “What have you done?!?!” Which we are usually pretty good at covering up, but it’s there.
I’m not saying sex isn’t good. It’s great. Feels wonderful.
But why, then, is it possible to experience the most terrible sense of loneliness when locked together with another at the end of mechanical sex? When both partners enter the act for gratification, where is the unity, where is the sacrifice, where is the love, where is the inspiration?
The dignity with which we treat our life partners in marriage, the joining of ourselves in a larger context, the sacrifices we make for ourselves and our children, the making of something that is more us than me is what love is truly about. And the joining of that love with Love Himself! It just doesn’t get any better than that.
Why isn’t that obvious?
2:08 AM
|
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Grover There
My friend Michael Lynch, composer of the Dawn Patrol and Gaits of Eden jingles (click on the pages' logos), writes: "One of my all-time favorite books is now online in its entirety."
I can assure you that it is safe for work. Enjoy!
12:55 PM
|
Planned Parenthood Leaves a Pain-Wracked Woman on the 'Wire'
One of the reasons Planned Parenthood advocates offer for why it deserves the quarter-billion that it receives in taxpayer funding each year is that the organization does more than abortions—it provides "health care."
Reading blog entries from impoverished youths gives one an idea of just what Planned Parenthood means by "health care." For example, it means inserting an intrauterine device into a young woman's womb and then refusing to take it out when the patient's wracked with pain.
Well, "refusing" is a bit of an exaggeration. Planned Parenthood's quite happy to undo the damage—if the woman will only wait five weeks for an appointment.
A 26-year-old who calls herself D [UPDATE:name deleted at her request] wrote yesterday: I made myself get up and took some Tylenol. Called Planned Parenthood and the sickeningly cheerful receptionist on the other end of the line informed me that September was one of their busiest months and I'd be lucky if I wasn't rescheduled again on the 28th. Yeah, that's right. I have to wait over a month and they might reschedule that appt.
If its an emergency go to the hospital....I want PP to take care of it so I don't run up any more debt with the hospital... D's online bio says that she's a mom to "4 or 5 cats"—no real kids, apparently—and that her interests include "rape survivor" [sic] and "polyamory." She doesn't sound like the best candidate for an IUD, given that, as WebMD's experts write, "Women who haven't had children are more likely to expel the IUD or have more pain and cramping after insertion." In addition, if D is a rape survivor, the wire IUD is a singularly invasive form of contraception, especially as it may become embedded in the uterine wall, requiring an even more invasive dilation-and-curettage.
Then there's the "polyamory." The IUD's risks include pelvic inflammatory disease, and the risk of contracting that disease increases with multiple sexual partners. All things considered, with all the contraception options available, Planned Parenthood appears to have exercised remarkably poor judgment in its treatment of this young woman.
No, it's worse than poor judgment. It's tragic. And you and I paid for it. D lists her residence as Spokane, Wash., where Planned Parenthood of the Inland Northwest offers free "health care" and contraception for low-income clients through the state's Medicaid-funded Take Charge program.
Go back through D's blog entries and you'll see that, between her bragging about mixing alcohol and painkillers, she's very ill.
August 8: "Musta been something I ate...my breakfast is trying to come up on me...Stupid abdominal pain, took some Tylenol, hope it helps."
August 17 : "Felt really sick again yesterday afternoon, didn't eat dinner and had strong abdominal cramping again. I hope Planned Parenthood doesn't reschedule my girlie exam again."
August 19: "My abdomen is f[---]ing hurting so badly right now...I took some heavy duty pain killers earlier. Had to reschedule my stupid PAP/IUD check appt. because my cycle came early. I wanted to get a pair of needle nose pliers and yank the damn [thing] out earlier today, stupid displaced IUD."
Her cycle came early. One symptom of pelvic inflammatory disease is irregular menstrual bleeding.
Fast-forward four days, to yesterday's post, where the "sickeningly cheerful" Planned Parenthood receptionist informed D "that September was one of their busiest months and [she]'d be lucky if [she] wasn't rescheduled again on [September] 28th."
Did D tell the receptionist in one of her many phone calls to Planned Parenthood that the IUD felt "displaced" and that she was experiencing "strong abdominal cramping"? Given her many complaints on her blog, and her many efforts to gain an appointment, it's hard to imagine that she would omit that fact.
One of the major symptoms of pelvic inflammatory disease, besides the abnormal bleeding, is lower abdominal pain. Planned Parenthood knows this; its own IUD fact sheet instructs patients to tell their clinician immediately if they have "severe abdominal cramping."
According to a government fact sheet, untreated pelvic inflammatory disease can cause chronic pelvic pain and scarring in about 20 percent of patients. That's in addition to infertility and a risk of ectopic pregnancy.
D calls herself a "pagan," and it's no wonder. Planned Parenthood's treatment leaves her without a prayer.
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America's annual report shows that it received over a quarter-billion dollars in taxpayer funding in fiscal 2004. If you do not want to see your tax dollars go towards Planned Parenthood's dangerous "health care," contact your senators or your representative.
UPDATE: A commenter who identifies herself as D writes:I request that you remove this or at least take out the direct quotes taken out of context/misinterpreted from my LJ as well as my name. I refuse to be 'a statistical case study' for whatever right wing political agenda this article was intended to highlight.
Freedom of press is one thing; defamation of character through misquoting and asserting religious convictions on an individual and calling it an entry is an entirely different thing. I am a pagan libertarian with a twisted sense of humor which can at times be discordian and my journal reflects that. I have removed D's name as her request. Because her blog is a public blog, unlike those that are protected by passwords, I believe I have the right to report what it says as news. I have included several links to her blog so that readers may see whether the quotes here have been taken out of context.
I apologize to D if my actions have offended her, but I believe people have a right to know what qualifies as "health care" by Planned Parenthood's standard—especially when we as taxpayers are paying for this seriously harmful and negligent treatment. I pray she gets the treatment she needs.
2:19 AM
|
Fondue the Right Thing
Did someone say pro-lifers are cheesy? In Nathan Sheets's case, it's justified. He's "Shutting Pro-Choicers Up...With Fondue."
1:40 AM
|
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
'A Superhero for Choice' Rides Again
From Dawn Patrol guestblogger The Raving Atheist comes this inspired smackdown of Planned Parenthood's "A Superhero for Choice". It's inspired by dialogue from the actual cartoon, but taken to its logical conclusion. Like the original, it's not for the weak of stomach—click on the comic for a full-size view:
5:47 PM
|
De 'Profoundness'
[12/21/06: GREETINGS, SALON READERS! You're reading an old Dawn Patrol item that I wrote very late one night, many moons ago. My more recent blog entries are more reflective of my current views. Also, the theological topics I mention in this post come across better (and minus the bloggy snark) in my book; check out this online excerpt.]
The journalists who blog at GetReligion look for "religion ghosts" in news stories—parts of stories where the writer has conspicuously failed to address a religious or spiritual issue.
Elizabeth Sandoval's USA Today op-ed "A Neo-Feminist's View of Abstinence" has a religion ghost so big, you could drive a Mack truck through it.
The essay's an articulate explanation of why the author—who's 32 and single—believes women like herself should be abstinent until marriage. Its sentiments are surprisingly conservative for a mainstream newspaper. Sandoval delivers several smackdowns to popular culture, especially the inescapable "Sex and the City," and takes apart typical rationalizations for sex before marriage.
The ghost appears at the end of the piece, when Sandoval suddenly introduces her belief that sex has an essential spiritual component: Women are non-self-respecting because they willingly sacrifice such an important part of their being for just a few moments of pleasure. And they're oblivious because they don't contemplate the profoundness of sex.
Women give it up as if it's nothing. When in fact, it is everything. I know why Sandoval saved that zinger for the end. Those who agree with her will know what she means about "the profoundness of sex" without her explaining. As for those who don't—well, Sandoval just doesn't have 2,000 words to explain the theology of the body.
Yet, even allowing for the limitations of space, there's an important spiritual fact of singlehood that's missing from her arguments: pain. Just before her observation on "non-self-respecting" sexually active single women, she writes:Many women today are weak-minded in that they readily accept society's portrayal of sexual norms. The people on The O.C. are doing it. Paris Hilton, as she's hosing down that Bentley, appears ready to do it. And more important, many people they actually know are doing it. As a fellow chaste woman in her 30s, I know it's easy to write off sexually active singles as "weak-minded." But I don't think it's truly wise to do so, any more than it is for a recovering alcoholic to label his old drinking buddies as people who just need a little more will power. Sexual activity outside of marriage is a search for pleasure and, like alcohol or drug abuse, it is very often an attempt to escape pain.
In making a conscious decision to be chaste until marriage, one is not merely guarding one's heart, as Sandoval suggests. One is allowing oneself to be, in a sense, more vulnerable—because one has to find meaning elsewhere in one's life.
Keeping things casual in our casual-sex culture means divorcing sex from the aspects that physically bond people—the mixing of body fluids, the creation of new life. Two people merge antiseptically, their bodies touching but never risking lasting change in one another's life.
The jarring feeling of separation that a contracepting single woman feels after sex isn't just the perspective-shift from being connected to being apart. It's the realization, on a primal level, that even the most exciting contracepted intercourse is coitus interruptus. She hasn't fully given the gift of her body, neither has she allowed her partner to give all that he has to offer.
It's this contracepting culture that tells single women that because—like men—they can have sex without risk of pregnancy, they should likewise be able to have it without risk of emotional attachment. This is the Big Lie of the post-Pill age, and the fact that many women try to believe it doesn't make them "weak-minded," as Sandoval asserts. Rather, it shows that their desire is to be filled—not only in the physical sense, but in the sense of the proverbial God-shaped vacuum.
1:50 AM
|
Monday, August 22, 2005
Good morning! I've juggled the times of the posts to keep the "Superhero" one uptop—do check out the Harris brothers' new guest post below.
2:34 AM
The Washington Examiner Slams Planned Parenthood's 'Superhero'
Project Max—the Dawn Patrol's campaign to enlighten the news media to Planned Parenthood's vile "Superhero for Choice"—bears unexpected fruit today with "Planned Parenthood Takes Low Road," an editorial in the Washington Examiner.
The placement of the editorial in a Washington, D.C., paper is noteworthy because it's sure to be read by someone on Capitol Hill. As reader Ranting Raven discovered during a visit to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson's office, politicians do not take very kindly to seeing taxpayer-funded organizations depict them as numbskulls who should be re-educated in boiling oil.
The Examiner's editors write: Apparently, the lesson to be learned [from "A Superhero for Choice"] is that abortions are OK, especially if it means less welfare payments later. The animation ends on the high note of referring to the Rev. Jerry Falwell as a "schmuck."
The video is a shameful and disrespectful take on the very sensitive issue of abortion and reproductive rights, where good, reasonable people disagree for good and reasonable reasons. By taking the low road and appealing to the lowest - and juvenile - common denominator, Planned Parenthood demeans its opponents and, even more, its supporters. If you haven't yet seen the video, it's still accessible through Planned Parenthood Golden Gate's Web site. The organization's simply hidden the link so that it's no longer advertised on its page—but the cartoon is still housed on PPGG's server. If they've taken it down by the time you read this, a number of bloggers have taken it upon themselves to host the cartoon, making sure Planned Parenthood can't cover its tracks. You can also read a transcript of the animation via Shoutlast.com (click on one of the links on that page for the format you prefer).
Click here to see how "A Superhero for Choice" was featured on PPGG's Web page before the organization removed the link with no explanation and no apology.
1:47 AM
|
Commenting For Newbies
(A Reminder For The Rest of Us)
[I asked prizewinning debaters Brett and Alex Harris to write an entry about the rules of debate as they should apply to blog commenters. The following is their response. I think they've done a beautiful job, and I've learned some things from it myself—especially Principle #8. Also, please note that this post is cross-posted (with better formatting and fewer typos) at Conscientious Contemplation.— Dawn]
You Have Entered "The Comment Zone"
It is crucial to a vibrant and healthy comment section for participants to understand the purpose of discussion, and to possess a proper respect for their fellow contributors. Whether you maintain your own blog, comment on other blogger's posts, or both, you have most likely been frustrated by the lack of proper argumentation and the seeming epidemic of disrespect, primarily among your opponents (Insight #1: They feel the same way towards you).
The truth is that we all can use a helpful reminder every so often as to how we should conduct ourselves in the high-intensity role of "the commentator's commenter."
For that reason we present "Commenting For 'Newbies' (A 'Reminder' For The Rest of Us)" as an invaluable resource for bloggers and their readers; an aide-mémoire, if you will. Yes, logic, evidence, and respect still exist and can be realized—even in your comment section.
The Purpose of Argumentation
Critical to proper argumentation is an understanding of why we argue; we argue in hopes of persuading dissenting opinions to conform to our own. If we disagree, it is because we think we are right and others are wrong. We take the time to discuss our disagreements in hopes of proving the validity of our views. It is frustrating, therefore, when we find ourselves perpetually clashing with our opponents, while making seemingly no headway towards our goal of changing their minds.
In fact, at times it can feel as if, were we to publicly claim that rabbits exist, our opponents would deny it; even if one hopped up, said, "What's up, Doc?" and starting burrowing into their heads. How do we get past these confounding doldrums and arrive at a place from which the discussion can progress in an intelligent manner?
Here are three steps to improve your skills of argumentation:
Step One: Remember that your opponents have come to their conclusions using more or less the same rational process you have. The difference is not necessarily their intellect, but rather the information they had at their disposal and the values they hold.
Step Two: Understand that this means your opponent feels just as confident about the accuracy of his or her position as you do about yours, and will only be persuaded otherwise if you prove that their information or values are out of line.
Step Three: Realize that successful argumentation will only take place when you make it your goal to inform and persuade, by supplying additional bits (or chunks) of information and by addressing the values behind your opponent's conclusions.
Eight Principles For Logical & Respectful Discussion
The key to respectful, profitable argumentation is to respect others and to be respected. You respect others by acting civilly and arguing reasonably. You cause others to respect you by not acting like a fool in your manner or in your argumentation. Here are eight principles that allow you to do both:
NUMBER ONE: Understand the "classical" view of tolerance.
The classical view of tolerance lends itself much more readily to intelligent argumentation than does the modern view. It teaches that, while we may strongly disagree with their opinions, we still treat the person behind them with respect. - DO feel free to disagree, even strongly, with other people, and say so!
- DO feel free to permanently demolish opposing viewpoints. (Good luck!)
- DO NOT attempt to demolish opposing "people."
NUMBER TWO: "No 'ad hominem' attacks, you moron!"
Nothing more quickly degenerates a discussion than when people start attacking those making the arguments rather than refuting the arguments themselves. Remember that the character, circumstances, or political ideology of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended.- DO NOT stoop to name-calling (moron, idiot, etc.)
- DO NOT imply negative monikers onto people simply because they disagree. (i.e. "Anyone who's even slightly intelligent will believe that cows are people too.")
NUMBER THREE: Eschew Obscenity & Prohibit Profanity
The use of inappropriate language and shocking statements is a sure sign that the author lacks the ability to communicate their position in a calm and reasonable manner. It shows tremendous disdain for others and will not be allowed on respectable blogs.- DO NOT be upset when your comment is deleted for inappropriate language.
- DO NOT be upset when you IP address is banned for multiple offenses.
NUMBER FOUR: He who asserts must prove.
This is one of the most critical aspects of proper argumentation and requires that you carefully guard yourself from making groundless statements. Every proposition should be supported by either logic or evidence.
Logic includes everything from complex syllogisms to plain ol' cause-and-effect. Evidence can take the form of examples, statistics, and/or quotations from authorities in the field. Supported arguments stand until refuted. Unsupported arguments do not deserve a response and might as well not exist.- DO feel free to confirm other people's points without providing additional support.
- DO NOT make additional arguments or publicize your
disagreement with someone else's position without providing adequate
support.
NUMBER FIVE: Respond to the argument, not to the spelling.
There is no surer sign of inadequacy on the part of a debater than when they take issue with some small "error" on the part of their opponent, while ignoring the main point/s their adversary is trying to make.
If you are unable to refute your opponent's position, don't insult his or her spelling, grammar, or insignificant deviations from fact. Your opponent is most likely correct, and their small errors have nothing to do with the overall truth or falsity of the proposition they defend. Don't make a fool of yourself by being a sore loser.- DO feel free to point out significant errors that impact the validity of a claim.
- DO NOT point out errors solely for the purpose of embarrassing your opponent.
NUMBER SIX: Debating When Less Is More.
A common tactic adopted by inexperienced debaters is to ask a long series of questions that place an enormous burden on their opposition, without actually making any particular point. Such an approach is not only unfair to your opponent, but it really isn't argumentation at all. These kinds of "question avalanches" can hardly be responded to in the confines of a comment section, but will often foster animosity.
The same is true of those with too much time on their hands (or a gift for speed writing) who present far too many arguments at one time in hopes of "burying" their opponent under the supposed "empirical" weight. Both of these abuses inhibit true argumentation and inevitably degrade the quality of a discussion. Respect yourself and your opponents at all times by using moderation in your argumentation and questioning.- DO feel free to ask pertinent and probing questions about your opponent's position.
- DO NOT expect answers for loaded questions.
- DO NOT ask loaded questions.
- DO feel free to make powerful and relevant arguments
against your opponent's position. - DO NOT expect answers to your 5 page tome.
- DO NOT write 5 page tomes.
NUMBER SEVEN: Do your own research.
Remember that your opponents are busy people who are taking time out of their day to discuss relevant issues with you. Do not place an excessive burden on them by requiring them to go "off-site" to read lengthy articles or study ancient philosophers, scientists, etc. If Aristotle makes "your" point then "you" should be able to make the argument. Your opponent certainly will not (and shouldn't have to) make it for you.- DO feel free to provide links to outside sources for your opponent's consideration.
- DO NOT expect your opponent to read them unless you make them want to. (i.e. "If you go read Maxwell's five-foot bookshelf, then you'd agree with me!" never works)
- DO feel free to support your arguments with outside resources. Just make sure you summarize what the resource says. Otherwise your opponents will consider your argument unsupported until they go read/see the support. They most likely never will.
NUMBER EIGHT: The fallacy of the majority.
When the majority of participants in a discussion hold your position, it is common to starting acting as if the last seven principles no longer apply to you. You feel you can destroy the dissenter, along with their position, since you have so many like-minded chums. However, the majority has no more right to silence the opinion of a minority through disrespectful, improper argumentation, than the minority would have, if it was able, to silence the opinion of the majority using the same methods. Victory by means of respectful, logical argumentation is true victory. Victory by any other means is no victory at all.- DO feel free to destroy dissenting opinions using
respectful, logical argumentation. - DO NOT silence dissenting opinions by majority "piranha attacks."
About the Authors: Brett and Alex Harris have competed for four years in high-school speech and debate, including policy and value debate, persuasive platform speaking, limited preparation categories, and even interpretative events. Over the past two years they have combined for six national titles, making it into the final rounds over 18 times. They have been contributing authors to several debate sourcebooks and have coached high-school speech and debate clubs in Oregon, Washington, and Maryland. They currently author the blogs The Rebelution (Brett) and Conscientious Contemplation (Alex).
12:01 AM
|
Sunday, August 21, 2005
WomenvChoice
[Welcome again to guestblogger The Raving Atheist:]
Feministing.com Executive Editor Jessica Valenti -- who also runs NARAL's Bush v Choice blog -- is infuriated by New York Times columnist John Tierney's use of abortion polls. He wrote: It's true that pregnancy is a uniquely female burden and that most pro-life politicians are men -- but then, so are most pro-choice politicians. There's no gender gap in opinion on the issue. Polls have long shown that men are no more hostile than women are to abortion rights. In a New York Times/CBS News Poll earlier this year, men were slightly less inclined than women to say that abortion should be outlawed. The fact that most women are pro-life doesn't quite fit Ms. Valenti's agenda. But she finds an interesting if somewhat convoluted work-around:Perhaps there isn't a gender gap in how many people consider themselves pro-choice, but there's certainly one when you take a look at anti-choice leaders. The fact that leaders in anti-choice groups are overwhelmingly men (insanely misogynist men, I should add) isn't coincidental. And numbers aside -- no matter how many men are pro-choice, abortion is still a women's issue. To try and separate it from women is not only naive, it's insulting. Insulting, yes, but to whom? If the minority of men who lead the movement are insane, what are the majority of women who support it? Insanely masochistic? Just plain stupid? Or is their support, unlike that of the men, just "coincidental"? At a minimum, the suggestion here is that female pro-lifers are mindless sheeple who, lacking the capacity for sufficient moral reasoning, are merely following the big mean billy goats over the cliff. That certainly seems far more paternalistic than anything Mr. Tierney said.
It's Ms. Valenti, not Mr. Tierney, who is separating the issue from women. The only stats that seem to matter to her argument are those involving the minority of men and, among them, the subminority she characterizes as their leaders. That the identical views are held by the majority of women is an inconvenient irrelevancy.
So just say what mean, Ms. Valenti: women are gullible idiots who need to be led to the Promised Land of Choice by you. I'll help you out. I'm in a similar position. The majority of atheists are gullible pro-choice eugenicists who need to be led out of their moral idiocy by me.
2:24 PM
|
Rave On
Yesterday I received another guest-blog submission from the Raving Atheist.
The entry's well-written and makes a worthy point about the delusionary mindset of those who argue for abortion rights. I plan to use it. But before I do, I have a topic that I'd like to submit for discussion.
I've read other writings by the Raving Atheist and I see that his blog is a strong rallying point for those seeking affirmation that there is no God. Although I believe his pro-life views are sincere, it's quite possible that in posting to my blog, he wishes to draw readers away from faith. Moreover, even if that's not his motive, it's a risk that's present anytime I draw attention to him and his blog.
Beyond that, there is, I believe, a larger issue: In a world where life is being attacked on so many fronts—from abortion, to embryonic stem-cell research, to in vitro fertilization that destroys embryos—should pro-lifers have to pass a theological litmus test? Should we avoid atheists the way we avoid the violent fringe of the anti-abortion movement? Or should we accept them, as I do the Raving Atheist, confident that we can filter out their anti-faith message—just as they are confident that they can ignore the faith we demonstrate to them?
Personally, I believe, in a wider sense, the abortion-rights movement is far more anti-God—and more dangerous to more souls—than the Raving Atheist's 95 theses or whatever. Likewise, I believe that the Raving Atheist's defenses of life are by their nature more powerful than his attacks on faith—whether he intends them to be or not.
12:35 AM
|
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Back on Track
 Just finished riding the Erie Lackawanna (above) back from my mother and stepfather's place. The three of us went out together today, the first time Mom was out of the house since she came back from the emergency room Thursday night. It really is a miracle that she had no permanent damage from her high blood-pressure episode—thanks so much for your prayers. Last night, I suggested we rent the Drew Barrymore flick "Never Been Kissed," as my stepmother and father had said Barrymore's character—a copy editor—reminded them of me. I wouldn't recommend the film—it's a cheesy attempt to recapture the John Hughes thing, which I never cared for anyhow—but there were a few unintentionally funny moments. For one thing, the "youngest copy editor at the Chicago Sun-Times has her own office. BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAA.... Plus, she gets to sit in on editorial meetings—as though anyone on the copy desk other than the chief ever got to do that. More hilarious was the part right at the beginning, where the editor hands her a stack of papers and says they have to be copyedited by six o'clock. A stack of papers! Is this a modern-day newspaper, or Bartleby, the Scrivener? But by far the funniest moment of the film was when my mother commented on just why Drew Barrymore did not remind her of me. Mom pointed out that Barrymore's lantern jaw stuck out quite a bit more than mine, and that her nose did so as well. "Between her nose and her jaw," Mom said, "she looks like New Jersey." I'm laughing right now as I type this. I love my mom. I'm so thankful she's better.
7:53 PM
|
It's, Like, So Totally Cool or Whatever
Submitted for your consideration, via commenter "Nola"'s better half, Meghan Cox Gurdon on girls' magazines.
11:52 AM
|
| | |
