Wise Counsel

(H/T: Catholic Fire)

I've recently switched to Coke from Pepsi; this makes me more glad for that decision.

Anti-Child

Jeff Miller at The Curt Jester nails it:

No what the supporters of abortion are is anti-child. A child should never result unless they have deemed the timing perfectly convenient and that the child is 100 percent willed. They are open to life only on their terms and a gift of a child is a gift that should be returned or best never received at all. The sexual act must be totally divorced from the natural consequences unless directly willed. The old "Every child a wanted child." Of course they never take into account that this is not the fault of the child, but of their will.

"First, Do No What, Hippocrates?"

[guest commentary by Paladin]

In many of the discussions on this blog, the moral debates have (on the liberal/secular side) very often regressed to a sort of "battle cry" which can be roughly translated:

"Whom is it hurting?"

That touches on a key point, I think: what does it mean to "harm" someone? Isn't it rather important to have a definition of "harm" (at least, in the sense meant by the people above--which I suspect is really meant to be "unnecesary/unjustifiable harm"), before we start talking too much about that? I mean, if someone refuses to recognize an involuntary and mecically unnecessary amputation of both arms to be "harm", there's not much hope for a meaningful discussion on the topic, is there?

Here's some grist for the mill:

1) Some people consider so-called "homosexual marriage" to be harmful.
2) Some people consider the existence of orthodox Catholic teaching to be harmful.
3) Some people consider artificial contraception to be harmful.
4) Some people consider theism to be harmful.
[etc.]

Some questions:

1) What is "harm", in the sense of that which can/should be restricted by law?

2) What/who is being harmed, and how?

3) Why is such "harm" unjustified?

Pick an example (e.g. abortion, "homosexual marriage", artificial contraception, Christian evangelism, etc.), and tell me about it. I'm especiall interested in those things which liberals are wont to call "victimless crimes". (It's a sloppy definition of "victim"--the word "person(s) harmed unjustly" woudl fit better--but I'll let that pass, for now.)

A Well-Named Award

It's a nice pat on the back when another blogger gives me an award. And it's nice to be able to pass it on to other good blogs as well. Thanks very much to LarryD at Acts of the Apostasy for awarding me this "Honest Scrap Award".

We do a lot of scrapping on this blog, and we do our best to keep it honest, and so the name of this award seems particularly appropos.


As always, there are rules. In this case I am obliged to post 10 things about myself, and pass the award on to 7 others. Here goes:

1. I share a birthday with Harry Potter, but I'm substantially older.
   
2. Berlin is one of my favorite cities in the world.
   
3. I've lived in four states: Nebraska, Illinois, Tennesee, and Texas.
   
4. I'll never grow up to be President of the United States, which was my childhood dream.
   
5. I did intelligence work in the Air Force behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War.
   
6. I'm a real smart guy: I have two college degrees, and can sometimes solve games of FreeCell on the first try.
   
7. I am about to become the Charter Grand Knight of a new Knights of Columbus Council.
   
8. I have a very good singing voice.
   
9. I'm really not as overweight as you think.
   
10. I used to wear a beard, but I shaved for the same reason I grew it in my 20s: it made me look older.

And the seven blogs I'd like to nominate for this award:

1. Backyard Conservative
   
2. Dad29
   
3. Is Anybody There?
   
4. man with black hat
   
5. Redneck Catholic
   
6. The Lair of the Catholic Cavemen
   
7. Blowing San #1

Congratulations, bloggers! Pass it on!

Interesting Reflections On Fatherhood

An excerpt (H/T: Ori):

What began as the necessary and commendable move in law and the culture at large to equate biological and adoptive parents for reasons of stability (as well as to defang abusive or absent parents) has led to the view that blood relations are insignificant in regard to families. As a consequence, a barrage of alternative arrangements—intentionally mixed families, artificial insemination by donor (AID), heterologous surrogacy—is now being justified on the grounds of the irrelevance of biology. One lesbian-support website describes a break-up of a lesbian couple and their wrangling over the offspring of one of the partners (conceived through AID.) The other partner, who has no biological connection to the child yet playfully calls herself “a Canadian lesbian female-father,” chides her estranged lover for not recognizing her claims to paternity: “You are also wrong if you think that upon separation that any father is given adequate rights with their child.” Bad grammar aside, the message here is clear: To father is a function, and with the proper planning, procedures and safeguards in place, this function can be filled, at least in principle, by anyone.

Whether men in general are aware of any of these alternative arrangements, they are undoubtedly aware that they have been supplanted in the culture at large. If a mere biological father senses he can easily be replaced—if he is fungible, as the courts would say—then it is that much more difficult to find a reason to stick around. If anyone can do all of that tiresome, demanding, and thankless work, then let him (or her or them) do it!

The Shameful Lack Of Homosexual Themes In Children's Movies

Progress marches on (H/T: Blowing San #1):

Researchers at the University of Michigan have concluded that the love stories told in classic Disney and other G-rated children's films - such as the Little Mermaid - are partially to blame for the pervasiveness of what they label "heteronormativity."

"Despite the assumption that children's media are free of sexual content, our analyses suggest that these media depict a rich and pervasive heterosexual landscape," wrote researchers Emily Kazyak and Karin Martin, in a report published in the latest issue of the Sociologists for Women in Society (SWS) publication Gender & Society.

Kazyak and Martin said they studied the role of heterosexual relationships in several of the highest-grossing G-rated films between 1990-2005.

The results, say the researchers, illustrate two ways that the children's films "construct heterosexuality": through "depictions of hetero-romantic love as exceptional, powerful, transformative, and magical," and "depictions of interactions between gendered bodies in which the sexiness of feminine characters is subjected to the gaze of masculine characters."

No, the male characters are not admiring beauty, but instead they gaze on the "sexiness" of the female characters. Of course, in The Little Mermaid, it's Ariel's voice that Eric falls in love with, not her "sexiness." By the by, what does that mean, "construct heterosexuality"? Are they suggesting that movies help form children to grow up to heterosexual, and that they ought to form children to be homosexual? I thought their claim was the sexual orientation was inborn?

"Characters in love are surrounded by music, flowers, candles, magic, fire, balloons, fancy dresses, dim lights, dancing and elaborate dinners," the researchers observed. "Fireflies, butterflies, sunsets, wind and the beauty and power of nature often provide the setting for -- and a link to the naturalness of -- hetero-romantic love."

Why do these researchers seem to take such offense at the "naturalness" of "hetero-romantic love"? Do they really think that homosexual sodomy is what evolution was working towards when it did its thing?

The SWS press release on the research blamed what they called the "old ideals" of romantic relationships, specifically those found the Brothers Grimm fairy tales, which in many instances inspired the films' storylines, for "such heavily gendered depictions and glorified portrayals of heterosexual relationships."

The team says the results point to heterosexuality achieving a "taken-for-granted status" "because hetero-romance is depicted as powerful."

"Both ordinary and exceptional constructions of heterosexuality work to normalize its status because it becomes difficult to imagine anything other than this form of social relationship or anyone outside of these bonds," they concluded.

"These films provide powerful portraits of a multifaceted and pervasive heterosexuality that likely facilitates the reproduction of heteronormativity."

The SWS press release concluded: "President Obama may have declared June to be Gay Pride Month, but entertainment for children therefore continues to perpetuate a less inclusive message, leaving those outside its confines with little to build their own dreams of happily ever after."

Got that? Heterosexual relations are not to be considered "normal," and children must be given equal time for gay romance. The ancient fairy tales of western culture are to be suppressed, as, presumably, must the great romantic tales be: Arthur & Guinevere, Robin Hood & Maid Marion, Romeo & Juliet, and so forth.

Reading this, anyone would think that half the population, rather than a vocal 2%, are gay. And if these are the attitudes that homosexuals are bringing to the raising of children, then my objections to adoption by same-sex couples has been reinforced.

The Best Reaction To Mark Sanford's News...

...that I've seen comes from And Sometimes Tea:

The argument always goes like this: If a prominent conservative (or someone near him) violates a moral law, his hypocrisy should be taken as proof that the moral law is bunkum, and ought to be dismantled; and if the prominent conservative doesn't agree than he's just showing the depth of his hypocrisy. Thus, if a Republican commits adultery he should support gay marriage; if Rush Limbaugh abuses prescription drugs he should have to support drug legalization, if Sarah Palin's daughter has a child out of wedlock then Sarah should have to support government-funded birth control, etc.

The problem with this argument is that it fails to understand what conservatives, particularly Christian ones, believe about sin--and it illustrates what social liberals and people who like to add a hissing "ists" to the end of the word Christian completely fail to grasp.

In a way, these social liberals (that is, those who are liberal on social issues) are all, no matter what religion they may practice, spiritually a bunch of frustrated Calvinists (or at least, the popular conception of a Calvinist). People are either good, or bad. If Christian, they are either saved, or damned. If saved, then they commit no sin and live lives of shining purity and virtue; if damned, they end up in Argentina with a mistress and a flimsy excuse. Since most people's behavior shows that they're clearly not saved, then there's no reason to expect any sort of morality, and certainly no reason to have any public standards of morality, such as might reasonably be expected by marriage laws or the like.

But most Christians don't view things this way. As a Catholic, for instance, I can say that the possibility of sin occurring at a regular basis even in the life of someone sincerely trying to follow Christ is one reason why the Sacrament of Reconciliation makes so much sense. Even when we're doing our best to live according to Christian principles of morality and virtue, we can and do fall. If we smugly think that there's some sin or other we would never commit--well, I think of my former pastor, who would say things like "How do you know you'd never commit adultery? Has anybody ever asked you to?"

Believing that we're somehow above sin is a kind of presumption, one that can be managed with frequent sacramental Confession, sincere examinations of conscience, and a close relationship with Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. It's not true that good Christians don't sin--the difference for a Christian is that he's supposed to try to avoid sin, and to sincerely repent of it should he fall into it.

The moral laws are not less important because Christians sin--if anything, they're more important because we do.

Sanford: Aw, Shit

He was up to no good:

Gov. Mark Sanford admitted today that his secret trip to Argentina over Father's Day weekend was to visit a woman he is having an affair with.

"I have developed a relationship with what started as a dear dear friend from Argentina. It began very innocently as I expect many of these things do, just casual email back and forth," Sanford said. "But here recently this last year developed into something much more."

Asked if Sanford was separated from his wife, he said "I don't know how you want to define that. I"m here and she's there. I guess in a formal sense we are not."

Sanford said his wife has known about the affair and they have been working through it for the past five months. "What I did was wrong, period. End of story," Sanford said.

This is just...

Clintonesque.

RedState On Adam

An excellent piece, check it out!

REDSCR

For years, I've called it Recreational Embryo-Destructive Stem Cell Research (REDSCR), on the theory that the only reason to carry it out was that it's so much fun.

Now, others are picking up on that as well:



(H/T: Reflections of a Paralytic)

The State Of The World

If you haven't yet, be sure to check out VERITATIS|PRAECO, a very interesting looking new Catholic blog.

A sample:

Every age and locality faces its own set of unique difficulties. Some of these sets are more difficult than others. Some have easily-implemented solutions, while others do not; some are resolved by the strength of empires while others are caused by such strength. Every once in a while, these problems become so entangled that they ultimately create a crisis: a situation so perilous that the whole of some multi-part entity, be it a community, nation, society, or civilization, regardless of whether or not it is recognized by those wrapt up within it, is on the verge of total collapse. Indeed, oftentimes in the life of an individual, he will encounter a precarious moment of crisis and not realize it himself as such; he may even be elated by the situation. But so may a drunkard teetering towards the edge of a fatally-high promontory.

The state of the Western world today is very comparable to that of a drunkard. Reason has been drowned beneath an intoxicating flow of pleasures, and despite having long ago passed the early signs of sickness, the flood of hedonism has not yet abated. The individual’s care for anything beyond himself has diminished continually, with the maxims of friendships, cliques, and supposedly noble causes taking on little more than the significance of the reflection of one’s subjectivized beliefs in the righteousness of something. The status quo of the Western moral paradigm has become a morbid and calcified perversion of the Kantian categorical imperative: rather than act only in such a way that you will your action to be a universal law by which all others abide, it has been adopted that the most morally righteous way to treat others is precisely as they desire. Even the notion that harming others, be it against their will or not, has been dissipating in many parts of the world. Hopefully this is an indication that the sickness of the West is at the least near the climactic point at which it will go through a painful and perhaps vile purgation; but it is significantly better for the filth to be unveiled for what it is and expunged from the body, lest it corrode from within.

Illinois Governor Poll

There's a poll up at Illinois Review where you can enter your preference for the GOP nominee for Governor.

My preference, of course, is for Adam Andrzejewski.

Take My Poll, Please

Find it here!

Something To Look Forward To

A Relatively Big Mess

[guest commentary by Paladin]

I suppose you could say that the fight against relativism (and the liberation of relativists from their error(s)) is one of my life's missions. Illogic bugs me, for one thing... but worse, some of the worst moral decay in our time is due, in large part, to the adoption of moral relativism as our cultural "mental base"... and I really can't help but be concerned about that.

One of the most frustrating things about this battle, however, is the "squirminess" of relativists who are called to defend/argue their case. Here are the top 3 (so far) "defenses" for moral relativism that I've seen on this blog alone--along with the specific name of the fallacy which it represents:

1) "Well, what about *you*? How do *you* find moral certainty?"

fallacy: "Tu Quoque", literally "You, too!", implying that--if you do it too [in their opinion, anyway], it must be right... or at least they can call you a hypocrite, and distract you and others from noticing that the defense of their own position is conspicuously absent; a variant of the "red herring" fallacy.

2) "Everybody knows that [x] is right (or wrong)!"

fallacy: appeal to consensus, implying that something regarded as self-evident must, in fact, be true. (This might be so, but the consensus has nothing whatever to do with that fact, and implies nothing except that the idea is popular and/or pervasive.)

3) "It's practical/expedient to believe [x]! If we didn't, chaos would result!"

fallacy: appeal to consequence. Expediency is expediency, not morality; if an immoral act were more beneficial in some way that was a moral act, the original act would still be immoral; usefulness does not imply moral liceity.


So... let's try this again:

Those who are moral relativists: how do you determine, ULTIMATELY, that any specific act/decision/object is morally good or morally evil? Here are the fallacies and distractions I'd particularly like you to avoid, while answering:

1) Don't tell us that "there's a consensus on the matter"; that's interesting (if true), but completely irrelevant. Examples abound (e.g. Nazi slaughter of the Jews, slavery of African-Americans).

2) Don't try to distract with shouts of "I'm not proving anything until you answer the question yourself!" Not only have we already done so, in many ways... but it's our blog (well... Paul's blog, and I'm a seasonal tenant), and we asked first. Consider it an intellectual and/or soul-searching exercise, to discern your own answer. The unexamined life is not worth living, after all... and it certainly isn't rational; so start examining.

3) Don't say, "It's self-evident!" Lots of things seem self-evident to us, but not to others; it's the hallmark of rationality (and good teaching/writing) to put the "patently obvious" into coherent explanations. Take it from a math teacher; you really don't understand "division" yourself, until you try to teach/explain it to others! Just so, with moral issues: if it's "obviously true", then find the reasons, and articulate them.

As a closing plea: don't try to "play your position against ours" (described above, somewhat) in the vein of "Well, we're both appealing to what's undeniably true--we atheists just use one less unnecessary step [i.e. appeal to God] to do it! You say that God created the universe; we say that the Universe was always there!" For people who pride themselves on supposed rationality, atheists really make me scratch my head with that one; it's as odd as listening to a city kid saying, "Where does milk come from? From the STORE, of course!"--as if that settled the matter completely!

So... relativists: your turn, again. Try to be logical, this time. And be polite. My finger is not often on the "zap" button, but I don't suffer trolls with flame-throwers gladly. Leave the troll suits, incendiary grenades, and the like at home, thank you.

Support A Real Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage Conservative Republican

Many social conservatives, including myself and many readers of this blog, have agonized over supporting Republican candidates who fell short on the issues that we care most about, abortion and the defense of marriage.

We wondered why the Republican Party hasn't provided us with candidates who actually supported the socially conservative positions we believe in.

The reason is simple. It's because not enough socially conservative men and women have sought office as Republicans. I only know one solution.

I am pleased to announce that I will be a candidate for the Republican nomination for the Illinois General Assembly, 62nd district, in the February, 2010 primary.

Wherever you are, I need your help.

My well-funded incumbent primary opponent is a person who:

• Has voted in support of state funding for embryonic stem cell research.
  
  
• Provided the decisive vote in committee for a bill that would have:
  1. established abortion as a "right,"
  2. abolished all restrictions on abortion through all nine months,
  3. repealed Illinois' parental notification law,
  4. provided standing to women seeking abortions to sue healthcare providers who chose not to provide abortion-related services for denying her "right,"
  5. abolished the requirement in Illinois that abortion be performed by physicians, and...
  6. protected abortionists who "in good faith" harm women during an abortion procedure from malpractice suits.
  
  
• Calls civil unions an "emotional issue" about which she does not commit herself either for or against, but promises to be "responsive to the opinions" of her constituents -- meaning that she'll vote for it when she thinks she can get away with it.
  
  
• Has been repeatedly endorsed by Planned Parenthood and the pro-abortion Personal PAC.

The period to collect signatures to get on the ballot starts in July.

I have no money. I can't even afford business cards. If you think you cannot contribute enough to make a difference, you are mistaken. $25 will make a difference. Even $10 will make a difference. I need to print campaign materials, rent a P.O. box, find campaign staffers and volunteers, and all this while continuing to work my regular job to support my family.

It doesn't matter where you live. Liberal laws in one state, we have learned, affect other states. So do conservative laws.

I need a jump start. Please contribute. And if you have a blog, website, or twitter account, please link to my campaign website, PaulFor62.com, and endorse me on your blog.

Hundreds of people read this blog daily. Make a difference.

SC Gov. Mark Sanford: GOP Needs New Voices

I couldn't agree more.

And Sanford's voice should be one of them.

Exciting announcements

You can now follow me on Twitter. I know this news will really make your whole day.

And there will be some interesting news coming up in the near future.

But this week, expect slower than usual blogging as I'll be on vacation in sunny Texas!

Civil Liberties Under Obama

Three words: "Worse than ever."

(H/T: Patrick Madrid)

Kneel Before Zod

See Brian Williams bow to President Obama.



(H/T: Illinois Review)

(Cross-posted to Southern Appeal.)

Another Look At Green Eggs and Ham

I always thought it was a training manual for young salesmen, but The Ironic Catholic reveals it to be a story of damnation!

What's the Difference...

... between a murdering right-wing Christian extremist and a murdering left-wing Muslim extremist?

The Muslim acts alone, but all right-wing Christians participate. And the President only deplores one of them, and only deploys federal marshals against one group.

Monument To A Living Congressman

ABCNews Reports: Empty Airport Sucks Up Stimulus. This is the vitally important work being done with our federal tax dollars. This is what the TEA Parties are about.

Pro-Choice Writer Gets It

Megan McArdle at The Atlantic gets it (H/T: DarwinCatholic):

If you interpret this murder as a political act, rather than that of a lone whacko, then this should be a troubling sign that the political system has failed. So why do so many people think that the obvious answer is simply to more firmly entrench laws that are rightly intolerable to someone who thinks that a late term fetus is a person? [Emphasis added.]

My pro-choice readers would no doubt enjoy this piece by a fellow pro-choicer with a different point of view.

Voting Has Begun

I promised I'd write about the other blogs in my categories, Best Blog by a Man, and Best Written Blog, and give you reasons to vote for them, but I didn't realize that you can only vote once.

Suffice to say, this is not the best blog in either of those categories, so I hope you'll use the opportunity to find some new blogs you haven't seen yet.

And if you do decide you like this one best, well, thanks!