Words Like Locusts Flew From Her Fingers

Words and Pictures, Words and Pictures

Alan Sears: Where is that in the Constitution?: “Does the U.S. Constitution really protect the distribution of graphic—even hard-core pornographic—videos depicting rape and murder?  Unfortunately, a U.S. District Court judge in Pittsburgh seems to think so.”

Look!

It’s our good friend Alan Sears of the Alliance Defense Fund! You all remember Alan. He’s the guy who dreamt up that completely ineffectual National Campaign to Stop the American Civil Liberties Union. In this article at Townhall.com, he’s whining about a district judge who had the good sense to rule that “…public morality is not a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify infringing on adult, private, consensual sexual conduct even if that conduct is deemed offensive to the general public’s sense of morality.”

Hurray for Judge Lancaster!

I don’t know what planet Alan Sears has been living on but, here on Earth, you don’t have to rent porn videos to see graphic depictions of torture, rape, and murder. All you need to do is tune in to pretty much any episode of CSI. You’ll get all the gore you can handle. (And maybe more.) Or if mere depictions aren’t enough, many television newscasts will be happy to provide images of real dead people for you to look at. (I well remember accidentally being exposed to pictures of the burned, mangled bodies of Sadam Hussein’s sons. Those were some pictures I could really have done without.)

Alan’s big point is that there’s no Constitutional basis for a “right to privacy”. Sez Alan, “Activist judges and their cohorts in the ACLU and elsewhere contend that these peripheral rights help make the actual rights named in the Constitution and its amendments more secure.”

Damn those ACLU cohorts! They’re at it again!

“Rights to equal protection and due process have morphed into privacy zones that include the right to unlimited abortion, the right to sodomy, and now the right to distribute pornographic videos depicting women being beaten, raped, and murdered.”

Huh?!? Uh…Alan? You have just provided us with a textbook example of the logical fallacy known as “the slippery slope”. For those of you unfamiliar with this sort of thing, the online version of the Mcgraw-Hill dictionary provides us with a helpful definition:

Slippery slope: The assumption that just because one event occurs, it will automatically lead to a series of undesirable events even though there is no relationship between the action and the projected events.

Anyway, Alan goes on to write, “Zones of privacy, though not authorized in the words of the Constitution or its amendments, give ever more creative activist judges the ability to undermine morality and the public good.”

Heh…”morality and the public good”. Yeah, right. Whatever THOSE are. Who gets to decide what’s moral, Alan? You? I don’t think so.

While the Constitution may not specifically guarantee a right to privacy, thank goodness we’ve had judges with enough insight to understand that privacy is essential for realization of the rights that are specifically mentioned.

I think Alan is just pissed off because other people are “getting some” and he’s not. (I mean… what else could it be? Either that or someone shoved a stick up his butt years ago and he hasn’t been able to get it out.)

More Paranoia from the Alaska Natural History Association

Remember last December in a post about the Alaska Natural History Association where I commented about their surreal request that people get permission from them before linking to their web site? Apparently, they are so worried about people stealing their golden verbiage that they even occasionally run Copyscape on it — looking for people who might have reproduced their content.

I was alerted to their “Copyscape” review of my December post by Site Meter. (Site Meter shows me the IP address of visitors to my page and, if applicable, the URL of the referring web site.) Here’s the Copyscape report the Alaska Natural History Association received when they checked out my site.

I have to admit, Copyscape is an interesting tool that I hadn’t been aware of. I ran it on my own site and the only copied text I found was where OTHER people had quoted the same Bill Moyers article that I’d quoted. Damn. I guess I’m just not quote-worthy.

Still, when you combine the Copyscape run with the ANHA’s “Linking Policy”(the text of which they seem to have moderated somewhat, by the way), well… it’s all just a little creepy. I mean… It’s the Alaska Natural History Association for Pete’s sake! How much of a problem is plagiarism for them, really?

Oh well. I still think they’re doing good things so, don’t let a little weirdness on their part stop you from visiting their site and buying their books.

Stupidity from The Smirking Chimp

…and I’m sad to say that this time it appears to have been written by a Smirker himself…

The Smirking Chimp: “Pro-lifers hold their little marches and hold their signs, and blow up an abortion clinic here and there, but when it comes to real activism, they suck, just like most of us. I would have a lot more respect for pro-lifers if they volunteered their time and energy to the actual care of those they claim to be protecting. Adopt some of those unwanted babies you keep insisting be born. Go change the bedding, diapers, and colostomy bags for those terminally ill who have absolutely no one marching in their names. You’re not going to do any of that and you know it. Yet you get all up in arms when someone wants to prevent or end their suffering. Typical. To further point out your ridiculousness, stem-cell research might be the one way to truly find a cure for Terri Schiavo. Culture of life, indeed.”

Let’s just do a brief dissection here, okay?

“…[pro-lifers] blow up an abortion clinic here and there…”

Puh-leeze. And when’s the last time THAT happened? Isn’t it just a wee bit unfair to impugn an entire group of people with the actions of just a few extremists? Don’t liberals really hate it when wingnuts do the same thing?

“I would have a lot more respect for pro-lifers if they volunteered their time and energy to the actual care of those they claim to be protecting.”

Of course, he has no idea whether pro-lifers don’t, in fact, adopt unwanted babies and care for the sick and poor more often than abortion advocates. I don’t know either. I can say though, that based only on my personal experience, people who are very involved with their churches (or synagogues or whatever) are also more involved with doing charitable stuff. At the church Mark and I occasionally attend, “the churchies” are always doing stuff like putting together bag lunches and distributing them to homeless people in DC. If they’re representative, then it’s probably safe to say that pro-lifers (who tend to be “church-y”) probably are generally more charitable than pro-abortion folk. Or maybe not. The point is, neither of us really know.

So… this guy’s objections are pretty much complete bullshit.

Free hint for would-be-liberals: Before you criticize conservatives for something, be absolutely, positively sure you’ve really got the facts.

Oh…and don’t engage in this sort of really stupid argumentation. Read up on logic and rhetoric. Truly, it’s one of the best things a person can do if they want to figure out what’s true and what’s not.

Are fundamentalist parents creating future terrorists for Christ?

The Smirking Chimp

Well, this is just stupid. There’s a world of difference between the sort of mild civil disobedience perpetrated by a few of the protesters outside Terri Schiavo’s hospice and terrorism.

This article posted on The Smirking Chimp web site is a reprint of an Associated Press special by Allan G. Breed, by the way, not something written by the owners of Smirking Chimp.

See, this kind of thing — comparing mild civil disobedience and terrorism — is actually a disservice to the cause of protecting civil liberties. You can’t be true to the principles of free speech and freedom of religion if you’re going to go all hysterical about fundamentalist parents.

This just pisses me off. Someone should track down Allan G. Breed and slap him.

I’m kidding! I’m kidding! Jeez…

Anti-Immigrant Vigilantes

Anti-immigrant Vigilantes Set to Confront Undocumented Border Crossers: “CHD [the vigilante group] spokesperson James Gilchrist, told the Washington Times that his group is prepared for attacks from members of a ‘violent Central American gang’ which Gilchrist claims are being sent to teach the ‘minutemen’ volunteers a lesson. ‘We’re not worried because half of our recruits are retired, trained combat soldiers,’ Gilchrist told the Times. ‘And those guys are just a bunch of punks.’”

Let’s see…”Gilchrist”… A quick internet search leads me to believe that’s the name of a family that probably originated in Scotland. I guess it’s just our bad luck there wasn’t a “volunteer border patrol” at work when James Gilchrist’s own ancestors first arrived in this country, eh?

The Roman Catholic Priesthood

[Note: If you click here, a new window will open with some music I recorded yesterday and you'll have something to listen to while you're reading my maunderings. If you're a frequent visitor to the "Music: Flute and Oboe" part of my realm, you will have probably already heard it. But...in case you're not, here it is. (Oh...if you've got a slow internet connect, be aware that it's a pretty big download.)]

Okay. I guess the news that the Pope might be going back into the hospital is what’s prompted me to write this little entry.

As many of you already know, I’m generally a bit on the liberal side in my social and political opinions. (I was reminded of how uncommon that is in some quarters when last night I made a snide joke about Alberto Gonzales (“It’s torture. But it works!”) and no one laughed. Oops.) So, this may come as a surprise: I’m completely supportive of the Roman Catholic Church keeping the priesthood exclusively unmarried and male.

Here’s why:

Unmarried because, if you’re doing marriage right, you really don’t have the time or energy to also do the priesthood right. Priesthood is supposed to be about total committment to serving God and the Catholic Church. There’s nothing wrong with celibacy in the priesthood for the same reason. A close personal relationship with one person is going to distract. It’s just the way it works. People who think priestly celibacy leads to child abuse are, not to put too fine a point on it, morons. If there is a higher percentage of abusers in the priesthood (a big if) it’s because people who are uncomfortable with their sexual desires are more inclined to enter religious life, thinking it will help them overcome these desires. When the desire springs from some kind of mental illness though, like pedophilia, being a priest is unlikely to make it go away and no amount of genuine committment to God may help.

Okay?

As for an all male priesthood. I just don’t see what the big deal is. It’s the tradition in the Roman Catholic Church. It’s how they do it. So what? If you want a religion that’s pretty much like Catholicism but with women as priests become a Lutheran or an Episcopalian. Insisting that the Roman Catholic church ordain women is like…like joining the chess club and then insisting that everyone should play parcheesi.

A person might say, ‘Well, I don’t want to become a Lutheran or an Episcopalian because those religions don’t have the same lock on God’s Truth that the Catholics have.’ Okay, if you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the “one true church” then quit trying to mess with it! If they’re the “one true church”, the leadership must know what they’re doing, right?

Jeez. Why is this even an issue?

It just occurred to me that there’s another reason for why I’m suddenly inspired to write about this. A couple of days ago I spent several hours perusing web sites related to Traditional Catholicism. I was trying to find out if there’s a church in the area that does the Tridentine (Latin) Mass. There is, actually, though they only do it on Wednesday nights. There’s another church in Chinatown in DC that does it on Sundays, though, so I may need to drag Mark out there some time for a little “field trip”. (Hey, he’s the one who wants to become a Jesuit if I die before him. He should start getting in the groove early, right?)

Anyway, here are a couple sites that might interest you:

Apologia. This one’s REALLY interesting! Be sure to look at their “How-Tos of Catholicism”.

See also the discussion board associated with the Apologia site. The discussions about women’s attire are particularly enlightening.

These folks are really into traditional Catholicism. (They think Pope John Paul II is too liberal!) While they’re a bit too “out there” for me, there are some things I can agree with them on. Like them, I prefer a Mass that’s formulaic. I like Latin. I really can’t stand all that hand-clapping, folk-song-singing stuff. Blecccch! I like my religion toned-down and very formal.

Anyway. Do check out their message board if nothing else. It’s fascinating.

“Sanctity of Life”

USNews.com: Life and death politics: The Schiavo case is just the latest case in a much nastier war (4/4/05): “‘For many evangelicals and Roman Catholics, the religious right’s two big constituencies, Schiavo is ‘a powerful symbol for what’s wrong with this country,’ says University of Akron political science Prof. John Green, ‘which is that it doesn’t respect life.’”

I absolutely agree with anyone who says there’s not enough respect for life in this country. Here’s what pisses me off, though: What almost everyone means when they say that is there’s not enough respect for human life.

When I think of how blithely our culture sanctions the monstrous slaughter of millions of creatures — all of whom have far greater conscious mental capacity than Terri Schiavo — well, it makes me want to cry. Cows, pigs, lambs and chickens all have more on the ball than Terri Schiavo. Yet, who looks out for them? Millions of them live and die every year under conditions far worse than what Terri Schiavo’s lived with and with far more awareness of their surroundings.

Have you ever noticed that in the earliest creation stories in the Bible, God says, “I now give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the entire earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.” He doesn’t talk about cows and pigs and chickens, does He? Only after Adam and Eve have been booted out of The Garden do people start killing animals and eating them. You’d think more Bible-believers would give that idea some serious thought.

Whatever. The next time someone tries to tell me all about the “sanctity of life” while munching on their hamburger or chicken nuggets, I suspect I’ll have to leave the room to keep myself from slapping them.

A Many Splendored Thing

SpeakSpeak News

I think I’m in love! Her name is Amanda Toering.

No, no… not that kind of love! I’m not a LESBIAN, after all.

I’m talking about the love that cannot be named. You know — intellectual love?

Amanda Toering runs SpeakSpeak News. “SpeakSpeak was created in a response to the right-wing’s stranglehold on the FCC.” SpeakSpeak makes it easy to send correspondence to the FCC, to broadcasters, to advertisers, and to congresspeople so you can let them know you’re in favor of free speech and that you have not been mentally scarred by a brief glimpse of Janet Jackson’s tit. (If it had been her brother Michael’s tit, that might have been another thing altogether, though…)

Let’s talk for a moment about the CSI television show, since that’s a program the Parent’s Television Council is especially upset about. We watch it every now and then if the Law & Order episode of the night is a re-run. Man oh man! That CSI is one gross, violent show at times!! I remember one episode in particular where this guy got squashed under a big shipping container. I had to turn it off. It was just too much for this soft-hearted pacifist! I’m a vegetarian for Pete’s sake! It was too much “ground meat” for me!

The operative words there were “turn it off”. You all noticed that, I bet! That’s what I do when I see something on television that I don’t like. I turn it off. Everyone has that option.

Here’s the deal. CSI is absolutely not a show for children. Even kids under the age of…oh…16?…should probably not be watching this show. It’s very graphic. It reminds me of that movie “Reservoir Dogs”. Have you ever seen it? It’s amazing. Just when you think it can’t possibly get more violent, it get more violent!! Don’t let your kids watch Reservoir Dogs. Don’t let your kids watch CSI. Parents need to be responsible. Why the hell do these people pop out these kids and then expect everyone else to take care of them? Take care of your own damned kids and quit messing with my television!

Whew. Okay. I feel better now.

So, anyway. SpeakSpeak is a wonderful site with great resources and Amanda is my new love.

Purpose Driven Marketing

Purpose Driven Life

I see that the great minds behind the official Purpose Driven Life web site have wasted no time taking advantage of the free publicity handed to them by Ashley Smith (the woman who wasn’t killed by Brian Nichols in Georgia.)

That’s all part of God’s big plan, too, I suppose. Still, it’s a shame that God had to make Brian Nichols kill those people just so Rick Warren could sell more copies of The Purpose Driven Life.

More on Terri Schiavo

Salon.com | The panderers: “Americans embody Kantian reasoning in the often-cited dictum that we are a government of laws, not of men. The Schiavo case reminds us why that dictum matters. In a case as conflict-ridden and morally wrenching as this one, the courts have reached a decision: Michael Schiavo’s claim that Terri would not have wanted to live this way has been upheld.”

Okay…so I suppose it can be argued that I pretty much missed the point with my last post about Terri Schiavo.

Maybe it doesn’t matter whether she can feel pain or pleasure in any way. If she clearly never wanted to be kept alive in this condition, then….

BUT. Almost no one will, in casual conversation, get so specific about what conditions they’d consider acceptable reasons for ongoing life support. Did Terri really say, at some point, ‘I don’t want to be kept alive if I’m still breathing on my own and can feel some variety of pleasure in life [assuming she can feel some variety of pleasure] but need to be tube-fed’? I haven’t read anywhere that she ever got that specific.

See? Now I’m pretty much back where I started.

Salon.com writer Alan Wolfe does make an excellent point, though:

“…a sane society would try to put cases such as Terri Schiavo’s outside the realm of politics. Let us by all means have a national debate over persistent vegetative states, living wills and conflicts between husbands and parents. But let us hold that debate over general principles. Our laws must be designed for unnamed individuals in the future, not on behalf of specific people in the here-and-now.”