Abuse of Women is OK?

Eric over at Black Tygrrrrr thinks so, and he’s got some damn fine examples of when it’s OK and when it’s not.

Note:  Eric’s post is largely satirical, so be sure to bring your grain of salt.

Rape in the South

An interesting parallel between the Duke rape case and the Scottsboro rape case of 1931. Just goes to show you that race & politics in this country have come a long way, but somewhere we missed a turn.

General Dating Rule #1

And I mean, #1. Supremo. For men and women, but especially women.

Never, ever pose for naked photos/webcasts/videos. EVER! Nothing good ever comes from it. And if someone is pressuring you into taking nude photos, get away from them. Don’t think, “Well, I really love him, and he’ll really love me if I strip to a thong and pose topless on his roommate’s bed.”

I’m going to blow that up into a big poster and put it on the walls of my daughters’ room.

Will Benedict Sanction Condom Use?

It’s a possibility. Reformists in the Church have been pressing for the use of condoms in some cases, and Benedict has been somewhat receptive to their overtures.

This isn’t new. A couple of months back there was a similar story about it. Now it looks like a report has been finished and submitted to the Pope. Here’s what the speculation is about condom use:

He did not reveal its conclusions. But Cardinal Barragán is known to favour reform and Vatican sources said it was highly likely that he had come out in support of using condoms in marriages where one of the partners was HIV-positive.

Now use of contraceptives for health reasons is not something new. Women are allowed to take the birth control pill for health conditions. Because it can cause abortions, however, the couple is asked to refrain from sex while the woman is on the pill.

It’s a similar take with the condoms, however, to a smaller degree. Condoms can’t cause abortions, so they’re a safer stance than BCPs. They are primarily a method to prevent male-to-female transmission of HIV, primarily in Africa where infection rates are at the epidemic level.

While some look at this as good news, I’m not sure I’m comfortable with allowing condom use in marriage, even when it’s health related, primarily bbecauseof the traditional dogma regarding contraceptives.

Catholics believe that coitus involves 3 people– the man, the woman and God. As sex is a creative act, God must be present. To remove the creative potential from the act, it effectively turns the glorious union into paired sexual gratification, which is a function of lust, a sin. By sanctioning sin in Marriage, the second biggest Sacrament next to Eucharist, the Church is contradicting tradition and, more importantly, contradicting one of the Sacraments.

I have also seen two other methods that have curbed the spread of HIV. The ABC method has been successful in Uganda. However, the biggest, and I think most iimportantleap in fighting HIV has been male circumcision. (Pointy-headed eexplanationhere.) Additionally, the medications that are currently in use for fighting HIV have been getting better and better, and there is talk of a vaccine. Of course, the vaccine idea scares the pants off of me because to vaccinate someone you have to infect them with weak or dead HIV virus. Um, no thanks.

Taking into account all of these measures, for the Church to sanction condom use in marriage is unnecessary and will jeopardize Sacramentality as a whole because it sets precedent for marginalizing the meaning of the Sacraments when it is seemingly necessary. I know it makes me sound like a cold hearted bastard who doesn’t care about people dying in Africa, but I have to speak on behalf of what is good for the Church and its people. And any such decision will save lives in Africa, but it will cost the Church its soul.

Scarlett’s letters

Oh, Scarlett. Why did you have to and open that mouth and totally ruin it for me?

SCARLETT JOHANSSON has slammed US PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH for his staunch conservative views on sex, criticising the Republican for being too unrealistic in his opinions on the topic. The LOST IN TRANSLATION star last month (10OCT06) boasted about being so “socially aware” she gets tested for HIV twice a year. A staunch Christian, Bush is vehemently anti-abortion and is seeking to have the operation made illegal in all US states. During his time as Governor of Texas, Bush overhauled the state’s sex education system and high school students were taught abstinence was the only way to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases (STD). Johansson says, “We are supposed to be liberated in America but if our President had his way, we wouldn’t be educated about sex at all. “Every woman would have six children and we wouldn’t be able to have abortions.”

Tested for HIV twice a year?! I like the article’s little bias points. “Vehemently anti-abortion.” Not “strongly pro-life.” And notice what Scarlett says, which is completely false, “we wouldn’t be educated about sex at all.” No, you’d be educated about sex, and educated that the best possible method to avoid STDs is by abstinence. But asking someone who’s sexually active to an extraordinary degree (2 HIV tests a year!) about abstinence-only education is going to illicit that response.

I’ll also highlight her last line. “Every woman would have six children and we wouldn’t be able to have abortions.” Notice the context. In other words, that woman could abort the children and have less kids! Oh, but they’re not kids, they’re fetuses. Gotta keep that straight.

Needless to say she just took the ol’ Garafolo jump off Doc’s Top Ten list. Janeane did the same thing when she showed up on Fox News Sunday spouting disproven conspiracy theories. And let’s not forget Cameron Diaz and the Bush Doctrine for Legalization of Rape.

Now let’s abort the living

I don’t know if you saw this, but the Church of England is now backing doctors who want the right to terminate disabled newborns as a form of “mercy killing”.

So, what have we gone from? We started with “Abortion is a grave sin” to “Abortion is a matter of privacy” to “Abortion isn’t that sinful” to today where we have “Abortion can even be done after birth.” Of course, it’s all in the name of mercy.

Here we have the phenomena of moving goalposts. The C of E has been moving left for a long time. They started with divorce, but in recent times have moved to allow women priests (not a big deal), to openly homosexual priests (bigger deal), homosexual bishops, and now euthanasia. Their stance on abortion is that it’s bad, but if it is to be done, to be done as quickly and as early as possible. (I guess it’s not a person in God’s eyes if it doesn’t really look like a person.)

In 10-20 years, I’m sure we see a softening stance on abortion, where abortion is OK if it would mean the mother would have to give up watching “Big Brother XXV” to take care of her child.

The Western views on life have been gradually eroding for a number of years. The Roman Catholic Church has been a remarkably consistent voice, even in light of the “radical” proposals of Vatican II. You can always gauge how the Protestants will move with the Church of England. The constant objections by the Vatican are falling on deaf ears with fellow Christians, and that’s something the Roman Church seems to object to.

I am not surprised at this. But I worry about the “severely disabled” moniker. Are we talking gross malformations that would cause a lifespan of under a year? Under 6 months? Or are we talking about “severely disabled” babies like those with Down Syndrome, the mentally handicapped. What about those with MS? Cerebral palsy? Epilepsy? Asthma? A gross wart on the nose?

Most people would say, “Come on. You don’t expect us to buy that a gross wart on the nose warrants abortion, do you?” No. But in this upcoming century of designer babies, if you see a “wart” on the DNA that you don’t like, you can just chuck that child and try again. or you can give that embryo over to stem cell researchers. All because there’s an perceived imperfection in the child.

Many of us are concerned with these types of labels. Fortunately the “Pro-Life” crowd doesn’t need to move their goalposts. They’re rigidly set, and we know that you can’t redefine someone’s humanity away.

Dying To Be a Model

There’s a guest column in today’s Seattle PI by my brother, Matthew Ruane. He’s railing against the artsy exhibition “Bodies“. Here’s a quote from the Op-Ed:

The exploitation of the poor by the rich no longer ends with death. Once, the poor believed that all were equal in the eyes of the Grim Reaper. Thanks to “Bodies — The Exhibit,” which runs through Dec. 31, the poor need worry that their remains (that they foolishly donated to better mankind) can be procured by entertainers and propped up in lifelike poses for the amusement of the rich.

One disadvantage to an Op-Ed, however, is that you cannot link to your sources. (Ha! Internet PWNs the print media again!)

Here’s an excerpt from National Geographic online talking about the sources of the cadavers used for the exhibit:

The bodies in question are unclaimed or unidentified individuals from China. As such, neither the deceased nor their families consented to the use of the corpses in the exhibit.

Now proponents of the expo are arguing that this is akin to cadavers used in medical schools to teach people about anatomy. In fact, the “Bodies” website states:

All of the bodies were obtained through the Dailan Medical Plastination Laboratories in the People’s Republic of China. Asia possesses the largest and most highly competent group of dissectors in the world, and and they are highly skilled in preparing the bodies for educational and scientific purposes. Currently, human specimens in medical schools in China and the US and other countries throughout the world are donated or unidentified bodies.

What a bunch of spin. “The China and the US do the same thing– what could possibly be wrong with that?”

Well, does the US gather up the homeless, skin them, then pose them playing badminton? The difference between the US and China is most human cadavers are donated. Some who want to help through organ donation cannot (by cancer, disease, or other damage) and instead donate their body to science. This is voluntary and part of a last request, so there is no ethical dilemma. China, on the other hand, gathers up the bodies of the dead (homeless, prisoners, the recently executed) and harvests what they can. Those they can’t steal organs from to sell across the globe, they “donate to science”. Nice of the state to think for the dead.

There’s an issue here, brought up by Mr. Ruane, that hits the nail on the head– respect. Whenever medical science deals with the dead, they respect the dead. Medical students pay homage to their cadavers all the time, a last “thank you” before they are relegated to burial or cremation. But where is the respect in sealing the bodies in plastic and then posing them for amusement? It doesn’t really advance medical science– we know what the muscles do when we kick or throw a ball. But posing a body playing volleyball– is that “science”? Or splitting a body mostly down the middle, just connecting it by just the stomach how is that respectful? It’s grotesque.

What’s worse is people are paying $25 a head to see the bodies displayed in such a fashion. And it’s not just adult cadavers. It’s children and even that of an aborted fetus.

Do we really want to be teaching our children how little value we place on human life? There’s not respect in gathering those neglected by society, preserving them, then posing them is “stances”. There’s no education value. Just a morbid display of how little life is worth in China, and how a lack of any kind of moral substance by a society will cheapen life so it becomes entertainment instead of treasure.

We Are Nihilists, Lebowski!

Cartago Delenda Est, part of my weekly reading, has a great link to a post over at One Cosmos. The title of the piece:

The Psychophysics of Falling and the Dialectic of Nihilism

Sounds pretty pointy-headed. But trust me, it’s a fascinating read.

Calling Out Michelle Malkin

You heard me Michelle. I’m calling you out. I want 10 zillion hits here, simply because I want to see Blogspot explode. But hey, if it can handle the Radio Equalizer, it can handle my blog. Hey, Brian’s calling you out, too! That way Blogspot has to handle twice the traffic! Ha, I’m an evil, bandwidth-wasting genius!

Seriously, though, Michelle should be proud she’s getting such attention after the publication of her last article. Especially in the form of this “photoshop” alterations. The truth of the matter is that the message of Michelle’s column isn’t being attacked, it’s the messenger.

This is typical of the progressive attack machine. By “exposing hypocrisy”, as they like to call it, they are forcing a change in topic. Nobody is talking about 9-year-olds wearing low-cut jeans and thong underwear. Instead we’re talking about whether Michelle Malkin looks good in a bikini. (I’m sure she does. She’s had a child and looks fantastic. Now everyone will be clamoring for a “Hot Air” segment from the beach.)

Essentially, Wonkette pays some lip service to the Malkin column, but in a passive manner. They say, “Well, yeah, I don’t want to see kids like that, BUT MICHELLE USED TO DRINK IN COLLEGE!” It’s like going to the doctor. The doctor comes in, says “You have to quit smoking or you’re going to die.” Then you say “Hey, you can’t tell ME what to do. You’re 20 pounds overweight, hypocrite!” Then you walk out of the office all high-and-mighty because you put that fat doctor in his place for not taking better care of his health. However, the major problem still remains– your smoking is killing you.

That’s what we see with the current attack on Michelle. Rather than get behind her and agree that yes, Bratz dolls are nothing but skank role models, the Wonkette and Is That Legal crew decide to use that moment to attack (possibly falsely) Michelle, yet do nothing to discourage Bratz dolls. Nor do they seem to complain about the lack of positive role models for young women. Instead they offer “Michelle’s a Slut!”

Michelle isn’t the first person they target this way. Any religious figure is eviscerated for any failing. Anyone who warns of moral corruption is, in turn, attacked for their own moral failings, although it does not invalidate the premise of their ideas.

I’m happy Michelle wrote her column. It needs to be said. And she should be proud that she’s being attacked in such a way. It means her message means something. Keep up the good fight, Michelle.

Bring out– The Comfy Chair!

Over on Hot Air, Michelle gives a talk about McCain, Warner and Graham and about how they are attempting to extend the Geneva conventions to terrorists. For a more in-depth discussion, you can go to Right Thinking from the Left Coast, as Lee’s dedicated the past two weeks to blogging about torture.

Lee’s got good points. So does Michelle. And I’ve weighed in a bit on the comments on RTftLC. After listening to some very good debate on the subject, I think the most reasonable course of action is three-fold.

1) Extend Geneva convention protections to prisoners of our military. Our military should behave as if every terrorist and insurgent captured is under these protections. The reason this is important is to show what a civilized nation does to its captured enemies. Streamlining this process and removing the guesswork will prevent embarrassing episodes like Abu Grahib from ever happening again. This particular proviso should also bar CIA interrogations of prisoners in US Military custody. There’s a reason for this in section 3.

2) Define what constitutes torture, humiliating treatment, and degradation. Walking on a leash is pretty much textbook degradation. Panties on the head? It’s humiliating to a degree, but not torture. Pulling out fingernails? Yes, torture. Slapping? No. Anything that seriously impairs or damages a subject to the point to extreme pain or belief in a life-threatening compliance (waterboarding) should be banned. Cold rooms? Loud music? Sleep deprivation? None of those do serious physical or psychological harm to the subject, so those are defined as interrogation techniques that are acceptable use by the US Military. Have the US Congress and the US Executive branch agree on these terms.

We’ve already addressed this as a nation, both in UN treaty and our response to said treaty. I think it’s clear we’ve been lax in our enforcement of what we’d say we’d do. So the best way to show a strong hand and committed response to this topic is to define it. There should also be language in the statute that gives some wiggle room for new interrogation techniques and how those should be viewed by the US government.

3) Now, if you examine a terrorist, you’ll see that they are an irregular force, mainly civilians, who are dedicated to attacks on civilian targets, disruption of economic and humanitarian infrastructure, and carry out these attacks from civilian disguises. We are making a mistake to treat these people as enemy soldiers. We should treat them for what they are– spies.

The essence of espionage is embodied in Al Queda. Intelligence gathering, planning, non-military attacks– these are all targets that sabotuers engage. Last I checked, capturing enemy spies was the CIA’s business.

So let the CIA capture and hold these people indefinitely. The punishment for espionage, as a maximum, is death. And as they are irregular enemy agents, they are not privy to the rights of our nation, nor are they privy to the protections of the Geneva Conventions, signatories or not.

So make this public. Call Al Queda operatives spies. And let the world know what we do with spies. Just ask the Israelis, or Russia. They’ll tell you what you do with spies.