Telling Stories

Q: What's Worse than One Idiot?; A: Seventeen Idiots Trying to Get Pregnant

I can't think of a single excuse for a girl trying to get pregnant because it would be fun.  Can't excuse the girl, the parents, the community.  It's thoughtless and dumb.  What annoys me is that it's so dumb that you don't need to think about it too long or too hard to realize how dumb it is.

That's why things like this really give me heartburn.

GLOUCESTER, Mass. - A pact made by a group of teens to get pregnant and raise their babies together is at least partly behind a sudden spike in pregnancies at Gloucester High School, school officials said.

Principal Joseph Sullivan told Time [magazine] that nearly half of the expecting students, none over 16, were involved. Sullivan said students were coming to the school clinic multiple times to get pregnancy tests, and "seemed more upset when they weren't pregnant than when they were."

Emphasis added.  I may be showing my age - or my elitism - but I cannot recall ever coming across anyone of that age range who thought getting pregnant was a good idea.  I know of plenty of young boys and girls that are sexually active and when the girl gets pregnant she thinks she can handle it.  But none that has really said "hey Johnnie, come get me pregnant!"

Mayor Carolyn Kirk told The Associated Press on Friday that many factors are involved in the surge in pregnancies in her community, a hardscrabble fishing village which has fallen on tough economic times and cut teachers and services, including some health classes.

Emphasis added.  As far as I know, there are only two "factors" involved.  You know what they are.  Besides, can anybody say with a straight face that having health classes would have prevented this?  That's ridiculous.

Then again, Gloucester did give us The Perfect Storm so maybe there's something about this town that makes people do counter-intuitive things.

To the Female Clinton Supporters Who are Considering Voting for McCain or Sitting it Out

Consider this an open letter.  I'm a male, so I can only begin to appreciate your disappointment and frustration.  And I understand why, at this stage, you'd rather sit it out in November.  I cannot understand for the life of me why you would vote for McCain since most of his positions are 180 degrees from Clinton's.  I think that's what they call "cutting your nose to spite your face."  Whatever choice you're contemplating, my sincerest plea is this:

Don't do it.  Please, don't do it.

If you really believed in what Hillary Clinton stands for and you didn't support her just to see a woman in the White House, there are a number of reasons why you should be leery of "President McCain."

On issues related to abortion and even birth control and sex education, McCain is as ideological as any Operation Rescue activist crawling around in front of an abortion clinic.

You want to know what's coming with a McCain presidency? How about the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. I'm not kidding. The latest case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court on abortion made it clear that the two newest justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, will vote for substantial incursions into abortion rights, if not their outright elimination. It turns out that Roe isn't a "super-duper" precedent after all. It's now hanging by the thread of 87-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens' continued vitality.

Due to McCain's reputation as a maverick, many voters seem to attach more moderate abortion views to him. In Florida's primary, for example, 45 percent of those Republicans who said abortion should be legal voted for McCain. Whereas the prochoice Rudy Giuliani won over only 19 percent of the prochoice Republican vote.

But McCain's voting record is solidly antichoice. He said directly in South Carolina that Roe "should be overturned" and strongly reiterates that position on his campaign Web site. He told the American Conservative Union that one of the three most important goals that he wants to achieve as president is to promote "a nation of traditional values that protects the rights of the unborn."

In accordance with these views, McCain promises to "nominate strict constructionist judges," which is code for "will overturn Roe if given half a chance." . . .

An intelligent person might think that someone as rabidly antiabortion as McCain would be backing approaches to prevent unwanted pregnancies, thereby, ipso facto, fewer abortions. Well, think again.

McCain is an antagonist of sensible family planning and effective sex education. In 2005, he voted "no" on a $100-million allocation for preventive health care services targeted at reducing unintended pregnancies, particularly teen pregnancies. In 2006, he voted against funding for comprehensive, medically accurate sex education for teens.

It would be the epitome of irony if by your lack of participation or by your support of McCain you end up electing a President who will have a shot at limiting the reproduction rights women have fought long and hard to earn and keep.

And if that wasn't enough, think about what you'll be doing to millions - maybe billion - of women across the globe.

McCain also supports the global gag rule - probably the most backward foreign policy initiative since the importation of slaves. This is the policy that bars foreign family planning organizations from receiving U.S. funds if the group in any way advises clients on abortion as an option or advocates for legal abortion - even when using their own funds. We know that population control and family planning is the only way for Third World nations to advance, yet the United States and its antiabortion zealots have put a foot on the neck of the most effective groups.

More info here, here,

“During his 25 years in office, Sen. McCain has consistently voted to block low-income women’s access to birth control,” NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan said in a statement Friday. “Voters need to know that John McCain is not only against abortion, he is against birth control.” 

and here.

As St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman, an enthusiastic Clinton backer,said this week, “You don’t spend your life fighting for women’s rights and then vote for Sen. McCain.”

The thing is, staying at home, or voting for Clinton via write-in is just as counterproductive as voting for McCain.

So, please, don't do it.

Thanks to Canada, Gay Marriage is Legal in New York State

I don't keep track of this issue, so I sort of stumbled upon it.  That said, this is a remarkable, precedent-setting legal decision.

Today, New York’s highest court handed down a victory for many gay and lesbian couples throughout the state by letting stand an appellate court’s groundbreaking ruling that recognized same-sex couples’ valid out-of-state marriages.

The case, Martinez v. County of Monroe, was brought by the NYCLU and cooperating attorney Jeffrey Wicks on behalf of Patricia Martinez. Martinez, an employee of Monroe Community College in Rochester, sought health care benefits for her wife whom she married in Canada in 2004. The case was filed in 2005 in State Supreme Court.

With the highest court letting the earlier ruling stand, the appellate court’s decision continues to remain the statewide law in New York with respect to recognition of gay and lesbian couples’ valid out-of-state marriages.

The case raised the issue of whether the longstanding “marriage recognition rule,” which requires New York State to recognize marriages that were solemnized outside the state, applies to gay and lesbian couples’ valid marriages. The court held that it does and that Martinez and Golden’s valid Canadian marriage at issue in the case is entitled to recognition.

If you believe - like I do - that love is love and that marriage should be for everyone, this is really a happy day.  Today, I'm proud to be a New Yorker.

Tags: Sexuality

"Leave Hillary Alone!!!"

The line between "passionate" and "kooky" can be very thin at times.  Case in point, Marcia A. Pappas, President of NOW, New York State.  While I don't consider myself a member of the liberal fringe - Dennis Kucinich endorsement notwithstanding - I've always been very supportive of women issues.  I was raised by a single mother, after all.

However, Ms. Pappas seems to have had her Chris Crocker moment last January 11 - how this didn't really make waves I'll never know - when NOW NYS issued a press release titled "Psychological Gang Bang of Hillary is Proof We Need a Woman President"

Check the link.  It's not a typo.  And what does she compare Hillary's campaign problems to?

[T]here was that movie where Jodie Foster portrayed the true story of woman who was ganged raped in a bar while others looked on and encouraged the realization.  Still others pretended the rape didn't happen. In short, gang raping of women is commonplace in our culture both physically and metaphorically.

Emphasis added.  Now Clinton is not just being "gang banged" she's being "gang raped."  Well, since we know who the "rapee" is, we might as well ask who the alleged "rapers" are:

This past week, we witnessed just such a phenomenon involving men who are afraid of a powerful woman. Hillary Clinton, in her quest for her Presidential nomination, has in fact endured infantile taunting and wildly inappropriate commentary.  Indeed we have witnessed almost comical attacks by John Edwards who in turn sided with Barak Obama as both snickered at Clinton's "breakdown," which consisted of a very short dewy-eyed moment. Now John Kerry, who should certainly know better after his own "swiftboating," has joined the playground gang.

Emphasis added.  So the "gang rapers" are Edwards, Obama, and Kerry.  What did Edwards say?

Edwards, speaking at a press availability in Laconia, New Hampshire, offered little sympathy and pounced on the opportunity to bring into question Clinton's ability to endure the stresses of the presidency. Edwards responded, "I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business."

What did Obama say?

During a campaign stop at Jake's Coffee in New London, New Hampshire, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was also asked to comment about Clinton's teary moment.

"I didn't see what happened," he said, but added, "I know this process is a grind. So that's not something I care to comment on."

I add that Jesse Jackson, Jr., Obama's campaign co-chair did call into question the "truthiness" of the tears and where were Hillary's tears for our dead in Iraq, the Katrina victims, etc.

What did Kerry say?  Beats me.  I couldn't find anything really offensive.  Other than, perhaps, this?

John Kerry, the Democratic candidate in the 2004 presidential election, made an extraordinary intervention on behalf of Barack Obama yesterday, accusing his opponents of stooping to "Swiftboat" smear tactics to destroy the senator's presidential ambitions.

Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, endorsed Obama last month, despite his long friendship with Bill Clinton. It was an important endorsement, giving heart to other members of Congress who had been dithering about supporting Obama for fear of antagonizing the Clinton machine. But it is a big jump for Kerry to go from endorsement to criticism of the former president and his spouse, even if indirectly. He described as "disgusting lies" allegations on the internet about Obama's religion and record of public service.

And that's what Ms. Pappas calls "the gang-rape of Hillary Clinton."  It's particularly offensive to compare political attacks with a crime as scarring as gang-rape.  It's irresponsible and it is reprehensible.

But, what about Ted Kennedy?  Does he get away with endorsing Obama?  Think again.

Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard.

We are repaid with his abandonment!  He’s picked the new guy over us.  He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one).  “They” are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow).  "They" are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women's money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future.

Are we in agreement?  This whole thing just shattered my "Kooky-meter."

And BTW, I haven't heard Hillary say anything about it either way, which is disgusting.

Tags: Politics, Sexuality

Gays in the Military

Well, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, really stepped in it yesterday:

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that he supports the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving in the military because homosexual acts "are immoral," akin to a member of the armed forces conducting an adulterous affair with the spouse of another service member. . .  Pace said the Pentagon should not "condone" immoral behavior by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly. He said his views were based on his personal "upbringing," in which he was taught that certain types of conduct are immoral.

Translation: gays serving openly is wrong because my momma and my poppa told me so.

Generally, I would let this kind of idiocy slip by because (a) I'm not gay (for real, not in a Mr. Garrison kind of way), (b) my gay friends and acquaintances can defend themselves very well without my help, and (c) so many people are going to be on this like flies on shit that it seems like piling on.

But it is so stupid at so many levels that is, well, irresistible.

First, don't-ask-don't-tell basically requires gays to stay in the closet.  It doesn't require them to stop being gay.  So, is Gen. Pace going to feel any more "comfortable" with a soldier he knows to be gay - but he hasn't said so it's still within the military's rule - just because the soldier is silent on it?

Second, he compares homosexuality and homosexual relations with adultery.  If you believe, like I do, that it is normal for gays and lesbians to be attracted to members of their own gender, you're comparing a person's trait over which they have no control over with something like adultery, which - unless you're plastered or your judgment is otherwise impaired - is a voluntary choice.

Third, and most troublesome, is the fact that he is injecting his own personal sense of morality into a very diverse military.

I'm not blasting him for believing homosexuality and same-gender sex is immoral.  Or even for sharing his views with the rest of the world.  If he feels the need to say so, then he should do so.  But remember what I've said before in countless other scenarios, freedom of speech carries with it the responsibility to own up to your opinions.  Gen. Pace is no different, so I don't want to read anything about how he's being beaten down for his views.  He said it.  He owns it.  He has to own up to it.

I am blasting him because he is purporting to impose his sense of morality on the military.  If it's true that about 10% of the population is gay or lesbian, you're talking about 30 million people in the United States who are being told "you're immoral because of the way you are."  And they are being told by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs "if you're gay, you have no business in the military."  That's the problem.

Whatever happened with Dr. King's dream of people being judged for the content of their character?

Tags: Politics, Sexuality

Cause and Effect?

Via The Moderate Voice:

A Republican-led legislative panel claims in a new report on illegal immigration that abortion is partly to blame because it is causing a shortage of American workers. The report from the state House Special Committee on Immigration Reform also claims "liberal social welfare policies" have discouraged Americans from working and encouraged immigrants to cross the border illegally.

Emphasis added.  In the interests of fairness, I should note that this is Missouri's House, not the one in D.C.

The statements about abortion, welfare policies and a recommendation to abolish income taxes in favor of sales taxes were inserted into the immigration report by the committee chairman, Rep. Ed Emery.

This is Ed Emery:

Admire this man for he has two brains: one is lost and the other one is out looking for it:

Emery, who equates abortion to murder, defended the assertions. "We hear a lot of arguments today that the reason that we can't get serious about our borders is that we are desperate for all these workers," Emery said. "You don't have to think too long. If you kill 44 million of your potential workers, it's not too surprising we would be desperate for workers."

Democrats contend the abortion statement wasn't discussed, much less agreed to, by the committee. Emery said there was some testimony about abortion during a question-and-answer session at one of the hearings, although he couldn't recall by whom.

"I felt like that was significant enough and fundamental enough that it warranted addressing it in the report," he said.  Missouri does not keep records of oral testimony during legislative committee hearings.

Emphasis added.  Lets see, it was significant and fundamental enough to be addressed in the report, but the source of the statement wasn't significant enough to remember.  Fortunately, there are some in Missouri who have a brain and know how to use it without an owner's manual:

[Rep. Trent] Skaggs said the abortion statement undermines the credibility of the entire report, which was submitted to the House speaker's office late last week. "That's ridiculous to draw that conclusion. I don't think that has anything to do with immigration," said committee member Rep. Ed Wildberger, the chairman of the House Democratic caucus.

Emphasis added.  If the Republicans need to know why they got whipped like they did last week, they just need to look at stuff like this.

It bothers me that both immigration and abortion are very important and divisive issues by themselves.  Then you throw in a bunch of ignorant - or willfully ignorant - knuckleheads who make totally outrageous statements like these and you remove any credibility the debate or the report may have about both issues.

How people who think this way can function on a day-to-day basis, let alone get elected to  public office, is beyond me.  It only goes to confirm what a former co-worker of mine referred to as "the 85% rule" which goes like this:

"85% of the people in this country and in the world are idiots."

Take a good look at that photograph.  If you see that man, stay away from him.  Run the other way, keep your children at bay.  Below normal use of the brain may be contagious.  OK, it isn't but, what the heck could you possibly talk about with someone who doesn't use his brain?

Tags: Health and Medicine, Sexuality,  Politics, Immigration

Open Mouth, Insert "нога"

That would be "foot" in Russian, which is very appropriate given Vladimir Putin's latest faux pax:

Vladimir Putin's international image was tainted today after it emerged he had let slip another of his infamous remarks - this time praising the president of Israel for alleged sex offences. "He turned out to be a strong man, raped 10 women," the Russian president was quoted by Russian media as saying at a meeting in Moscow with Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert. "I never would have expected it of him. He has surprised us all, we all envy him!"

In case you didn't know . . .

Israeli police announced on Sunday that the president, Moshe Katsav, could be charged with the rape and sexual harassment of several women.

But that's OK.  Vladi didn't really mean it!

One of Mr Olmert's delegation said Mr Putin said "dealing with" 10 women, not raping them. The Kremlin press service confirmed the remarks. A spokesman told the BBC the comments were meant as a joke and in "in no way meant that President Putin welcomes rape". "Russian is a very complicated language, sometimes it is very sensitive from the point of view of phrasing," he said.

Remind me never to say "I'll be dealing with you later" in Russian.  I was going to say that Russian shouldn't be that complicated for a Russian, but English is truly complicated for some Americans, so that theory goes out the window.

You draw your own conclusions.  To me, these comments are so obviously crude, inappropriate, and sexists that they need no further discussion.

And this is the guy responsible for the other big stash of radioactive material in the world.

Tags: Odd News, Sexuality

The Wrong Time to be a Gay (Closeted) Republican

Via the LA Times,

In recent years, the Republican Party aimed to broaden its appeal with a "big-tent" strategy of reaching out to voters who might typically lean Democratic. But now a debate is growing within the GOP about whether the tent has become too big — by including gays whose political views may conflict with the goals of the party's powerful evangelical conservatives. Some Christians, who are pivotal to the GOP's get-out-the-vote effort, are charging that gay Republican staffers in Congress may have thwarted their legislative agenda. There even are calls for what some have dubbed a "pink purge" of high-ranking gay Republicans on Capitol Hill and in the administration.

Emphasis added.  The moral of the story?  "Big Tent" does not equal "Big Heart."  But wait!  There's more!

This week, a list that is said to name gay Republican staffers has been circulated to several Christian and family values groups — presumably to encourage an outing and purge. McClusky acknowledged seeing the list but said his group did not produce it and had no intention of using it.

Emphasis added.  Who are they kidding?  They can pretty much destroy the political viability of these "gay Republicans," remove the "obstacles" to their agenda, and they say they're not going to use it?  How stupid do they think people are?  If I were in their shoes, I'd use it.  Early and often.  Not to get them out of the way, though, but rather, to hold it against them if they are not "out."  Blackmail, you say?  Darn right (no pun intended).  "Do as I say or you're 'out.'"  It would be too easy.

This, however, is not an indictment of homosexuality on my part.  I really believe gays and lesbians ought to be allowed to marry and have the same rights as heterosexual couples.  Rather, the issue here is one of secrets and privacy:  know who you're sharing your secrets with.  Because if you are not 100% sure, pretty soon those secrets won't be secrets anymore.  And you'll have to deal with the consequences.  And this lesson applies to both gay and straight Americans.

Now things get a little more interesting.  Via New West Boise,

Mike Rogers, who calls himself "the nation’s leading gay activist blogger"  . . . alleges that Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig has engaged in same-sex sexual activity. Senator Craig’s office flatly rejected the claims. "The Senator says this story is absolutely ridiculous – almost laughable," said press secretary Sid Smith. “It has no basis in fact.” Rogers said he has talked to three men unknown to each other who all reported in detail their sexual encounters with Craig over the last four years. The men were of legal age, Rogers said.

So, what's Larry Craig's record? Via On the Issues:

Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation.
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage.
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.

It's not too difficult to appreciate the disconnect.  Particularly when he's on the record for making statements like this, via The Olympian Online:

"Marriage has always been defined as the union of a man and a woman, and I believe it should stay that way," Craig said. "Unfortunately, it looks more and more like the courts will force one state's definition (of marriage) on others. I support the Marriage Protection Amendment because it appears to be the only way to stop that."

Emphasis added.  Now, there's been a rather negative response to this so-called "outing."  For example, at the Moderate Voice:

What a sad little man Mike Rogers is. It is disgusting that: one - this could actually play a role in politics and, two - that Rogers thinks he has the right to 'out' someone he believes to be a homosexual.

That American politics has dropped to this. I am too Dutch to even consider this somewhat normal or acceptable. This is none of Mike Roger's business. And his excuse is a pathetic one. It seems that according to Rogers every homosexual should be in favor of gay marriage. As far as I can tell, homosexuality or heterosexuality, Mikeyboy, are not religions, nor are they political ideologies.

And from the comments section there:

I'd like to clarify that I am gay, have been 'out' for over thirty years and politically active most of that time and still think Mike Rogers' tactics are disgusting, inappropriate and harmful.

Or from here:

Last I looked, Tester running in Montana had half a million dollars in the bank. Half of those dollars came from a Netroots web now claiming an Idaho Senator is a homosexual three weeks before an election, as if it's anyone's business besides his, even if he were.

Emphasis added.  So the question is whether the sexual orientation of a candidate or incumbent,  and the threat of exposure, if that candidate or incumbent is not open about his or her sexual orientation, should be a legitimate political issue and if so, when.

There are groups for whom a person's sexual orientation will always be of importance whether they are public figures or private citizens.  Remember this little nugget of wisdom from Jerry Falwell shortly after 9/11?

The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say: you helped this happen.

Emphasis added.  And while this is far from the "majority view" in the U.S., there is a large segment of the population who believes that there's something inherently sick and twisted about being gay or lesbian.

So if you're a politician, and your platform features or includes or reflects an anti-gay and lesbian philosophy because it is "wrong," "unnatural," "contrary to tradition and custom," "a sin," or any other reason, your sexual orientation will inevitably matter if it comes into question.

Would it make a difference to you if a politician continually railed against  oil companies and later you found out that he's been receiving money from that sector?  Of course it would.  Therefore, if fighting homosexuality is important to you, then it would matter if your elected officials engage in same-sex activities.  It would be disingenuous to think that a gay politician will support anti-gay measures just because his constituency so expects, ant that the politician will be comfortable with his actions.  That would be worse than lying to the public.  That's lying to yourself.

In Senator Craig's situation, the bigger issue is whether these allegations are credible and whether they can be substantiated.  If they can be substantiated then that's fair game.

What a person does in the privacy of his or her home/apartment/hotel room is none of anybody's business.

But if you have a secret . . .
And you share it with others . . .
You may lose control over whether it remains a secret.

Tags: Current Affairs, Sexuality, Politics

Do Not Adjust Your Television . . .

No, I'm not talking about "The Outer Limits."  But it appears that someone has taken over basic TV, Cable TV, and dish TV and can only broadcast three shows: "Foley's Follies," "The Amish School Massacre," and "Here Come the Yankees."

The Amish murders are, as is always the case when those types of attacks occur, not just regrettable but saddening and reprehensible.  The murderer was not all there and innocents died as a result of his mental illness.  As I've noted before, the media is having a field day with this story which, by rights, should have died and gone away by now.  Shocking?  Yes.  Worthy of all this attention?  No.  Bad Media?  For sure.  It's an easy and inexpensive story to cover, it's sure to raise ratings, and it has plenty of fluffy "human interests" subplots that can be explored.  News editor's heaven.  Yet, other stories such as North Korea's nuclear test deserve more coverage than this one.  The Amish have no idea how lucky they are for not having TV sets.  If they only knew the kind of coverage this is getting, they'd be embarrassed.

And if it's October, the Yankees must be on their way to try and win the pennant yet again.

Foleygate, on the other hand, is a little more complex than that because of the Republican leadership's inability to bring Mark Foley under control.  But that's a different story than the actual "naughty" e-mails.  The e-mail story should have gone away by now too.

However, I must confess that I draw special pleasure from this Foleygate.  Not because it impacts the Republicans' odds for retaining control of the House - although that does bring a smile to my face every once in a while.  Rather, because there are few things I enjoy more than seeing self-righteous, holier-than-thou S.O.B.s out there fall victim to the same flaws they so eagerly criticize and then try to see them explain their failure.

For example, here's Foley's attorney yesterday:

Disgraced former lawmaker Mark Foley's behavior was affected by alcoholism and childhood molestation but he "never attempted to have sexual contact with a minor," his attorney said yesterday in the first extensive defense of the Florida Republican's actions, which have rocked Congress and the GOP. . . Lawyer David Roth told reporters in Florida that Foley was intoxicated when he sent lewd electronic messages to former House pages but was always sober when conducting official business during his 12 years in Congress. Roth said he could not explain new reports of an exchange in which Foley appeared to be having Internet sex with a youth while participating in a House roll-call vote.  Roth also said that Foley is gay, and that when Foley was 13 to 15 years old he was abused by a clergyman. Foley, who is single and Roman Catholic, will fully cooperate with law enforcement officers and will preserve all records, e-mails and other items they might want to review, Roth said. "Nothing will be altered," he said.

You see, it's not so bad.  Foley is only PWI - Pedophile While Intoxicated.  And doesn't that "never attempted to have sexual contact with a minor" sound too much like "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

But what really gets me about Foley is that even if he was abused as a child, which is something he had no control over, he had control over seeking help for his alcoholism and his pedophilia.  And he did not do it.

It is certainly worth investigating why the Republican leadership didn't do more to protect the pages from this harassment.  But the real question is why Foley's friends, Republicans AND Democrats, didn't try to get him to seek help.  That, after all, is the caring and compassionate thing to do.  Not kicking him while he's down, but rather, helping him get up.

Because, sooner or later, we all fall down.

Tags: Current Affairs, Bad Media, Sports,  Sexuality, Politics

Abortion, Religion, and Choice

I define myself as "reluctantly" pro-choice.  I say "reluctantly" because in this day and age there are very few reasons to have an unwanted pregnancy.  There's abstinence (stop laughing! It's the only sure-fire way of avoiding a pregnancy, you know) and there are numerous prophylactic methods or devices available both over-the-counter or by prescription.  They do not give you 100% protection but if the choices are 95% protection AND sex or 100% protection and NO sex, well, you get the idea.  So, unless rape, coercion, or something like that is involved, there's plenty of ways out there to avoid a pregnancy.  And, it goes without saying, avoiding a pregnancy is the responsibility of women AND men.

But what if a woman gets pregnant?  There appears to be a stigma associated with putting up babies for adoption.  Cases in point - and I will acknowledge that all I have to go by is anecdotal evidence - the daughters of two of my wife's co-workers got pregnant by their boyfriends.  They are both teens - I think one is 16 and the other is 18.  Neither has finished high school - as a matter of fact, both dropped out.  The "male contributors" (since it takes a heck of a lot more than semen and a penis to be a "father" or a "parent") are pretty much similarly situated.  Neither the women or the men have steady jobs, and what jobs they have are in the minimum wage area.  This is hardly an ideal situation for them or the babies.

Yet, when my wife asked the grammas-to-be if they had thought about giving up the babies for adoption, given that it would probably be the responsible thing to do, they reacted as if she had asked them to sell them into white slavery ("I would NEVER let them give their babies up for adoption and they would NEVER do such a horrible thing anyhow!" or words to that effect).

In the end, it's their lives.  They will be screwing it up royally for decades to come, if not for good.  But I'm a big live-and-let-live kind of guy so that's OK with me.

When it comes to a woman's right to choose, however, if the Supreme Court ever rules that there is no such constitutional protection, it would mean that every state would be free to regulate abortions as they saw fit.  Inevitably, you would have some states that would ban abortion outright, like South Dakota.  Other states would regulate it, and maybe a handful would allow it at will.

Which brings me to my number one concern: that things like these start happening around the U.S.

In May Colombia's constitutional court partially lifted the ban on abortion in this deeply Catholic country, allowing pregnancies to be terminated in cases of severe deformity of the foetus, when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or when the mother's life is in danger. The first test of the ruling came when the girl sought to terminate her pregnancy, which followed her being raped by her stepfather. The man admitted to the abuse, which began when the child was seven.

Sounds perfectly reasonable, right?  That's not what the Catholic Church thought, though:

A Vatican official has said the Catholic church will excommunicate a medical team who performed Colombia's first legal abortion on an 11-year-old girl, who was eight weeks pregnant after being raped by her stepfather. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, said in addition to the doctors and nurses, the measure could apply to "relatives, politicians and lawmakers" whom he called "protagonists in this abominable crime".

I can see the Pat Robertsons and Ralph Reeds of the world doing something like this.  And I can see women seeking abortions under extreme pressure not to do so.

I don't like abortions.  Pregnancies are avoidable and abortions are unnecessary most times.  But I cannot do something that I believe could lead to that type of intolerance.

Just my $0.02.

Tags: Religion, Health and Medicine, Sexuality,  Politics