Of Bride Wars and White Dresses

Recently the Mrs. and I rented a movie called Bride Wars. Quick summary: two little girls vow to someday participate in each other's weddings which, for some reason I don't understand, simply must be held at the Plaza Hotel in New York. They grow up and circumstances force them to hold their ceremonies on the same date and time. They become bitter enemies. Hilarity follows.

The professional reviewers appear to have disliked Bride Wars. I thought it was mildly amusing, but I have a weird sense of humor. There are much worse movies you could watch. That's not my point; I just want to comment on one aspect of the film.

While there is no nudity or sexual activity, both the main characters are obviously living with their husbands-to-be while the weddings are being planned. "So what," you may say. Everyone lives together before marriage nowadays. Well, no, not everyone does. But obviously many people do.

Another case of Hollywood trying to pervert our culture? I don't think so. I think it is a case of Hollywood reflecting our culture. Cohabitation prior to marriage is now so common that it's unremarkable - even in a PG-rated film.

To me, it seemed a little strange to see these brides happily planning their elaborate weddings while already sharing a bed with their fiances, all the while seeing nothing ironic or unusual about it. The first part of the movie even shows both women impatiently waiting for proposals. Hello? You're already sleeping with him. Of course he's in no hurry to give you a ring.

A lot of sociological research suggests that couples who cohabit and then marry have higher divorce rates and unhappier relationships than those who don't. The reasons for this are debatable, and we've all known people who managed to make it work. Likewise many people who go through the right steps in the right order still end up in divorce court.

In any case, our culture seems to have turned a corner in its attitude about marriage. The push for same-sex marriage is succeeding because straight people have already redefined how family life is supposed to work, and not for the better. Having established - at least since the 1960s and maybe earlier - that marriage is nothing more than a contract between willing partners, and that it is perfectly acceptable for people to behave like families without any form of commitment, we now have no logical reason to restrict the arrangement to one man and one woman. Any combination will do.

Where this will lead us as a society is unclear; no culture has ever gone the places we are now going and lived to tell the tale. Maybe 21st century America will be the exception.

Or maybe not.

Obscenity at Barnes & Noble

So this weekend I went shopping at the new Barnes & Noble in my area. Mrs. D.O.T.S. and I were pleased when it opened because there were no other bookstores nearby.

At the front of the store near the checkout counters is a table featuring 2008 box calendars, the kind where you tear off a page each day. There are all manner of such calendars: dogs, cats, cartoons, happy thoughts, etc. I took a picture of it for you. Which one grabs your attention? Keep in mind this is only a few steps away from the children's section of the store.

I dare say most eyes will be drawn straight to the bright red "Sex Every Day In Every Way 2008 Daily Calendar." (Click here for a better look on the B&N web site.) This is just what America needs because, as you know, we just don't think about sex often enough in this country. Having such a daily reminder will be good for everyone.

If people want to buy this thing, so be it, but is it really a good idea to display them out in the open, alongside products that will draw the eyes of small children? There are more than words, too. The box has illustrations that graphically depict people engaged in a variety of (ahem...) acrobatic maneuvers. I don't want to show them on my blog, but you can click here for a small sample.

On the same table was another calendar, shown in the second photo. If you can't read it, the headline reads "The Dictionary of Corporate B------t." This is slightly less offensive than the sex calendar but still not appropriate for public view, in my opinion. Movies that use this word get a PG-13 rating, so parents at least know what to expect. Barnes & Noble doesn't give you the courtesy of a warning.

I took one of the sex calendars to a female store employee and asked her if she thought it was appropriate to display where children would almost certainly see them. She took one look and called the manager.

He offered no regrets whatsoever. All he could say was "People have different tastes" and he would pass on my concern to their corporate office. I again asked, what kind of person could even remotely think that it is appropriate to let children see this product? He would not answer the question. So I wished him a Merry Christmas and left without buying anything.

If B&N is like most large retailers, the store manager is given detailed directions from above on how products are to be displayed. He probably doesn't have authority to move them. This means B&N has made a corporate decision that it doesn't care if young children are exposed to sexually explicit images. Their first priority is to make money however they can. That is their right, of course. It is also my right to not shop at their store. I urge everyone else to do likewise.

One more indication of the priorities at Barnes & Noble: there is a large display of Phillip Pullman's atheism-promoting Golden Compass line of children's books and related merchandise. If they can't corrupt your kids one way, they'll find another way to get the job done. Their persistence is admirable.

You can express your concern to B&N management by using the contact form at the bottom of this page.

UPDATE: Moms go after CVS; Is Barnes & Noble Next?

Parents Not Freaked By Freaking Teens

From The Wall Street Journal

ARGYLE, Texas -- Karen Miller, 53 years old, saw her first "freak dance" four years ago when she was chaperoning a high-school dance attended by her freshman daughter.

One boy was up close to a girl's back, bumping and grinding to the pounding beat of the music.

"I thought, 'That's just dadgum nasty,'" Ms. Miller recalls. "It really had me sick to my stomach."

Ms. Miller took the initiative and broke it up. School employees at the dance seemed oblivious, she says.

They're oblivious no longer. A new resolve by school officials in this booming Dallas suburb to crack down on sexually suggestive dancing -- and skimpy clothing -- has sparked a rancorous debate over what boundaries should be set for teenagers' self-expression. Argyle joins a long list of other schools around the country that have banned the hip-hop inspired dancing known as "grinding" or "freak dancing."

This story sounds remarkably like a replay of a certain 1980s movie, but is apparently the real thing. The video that WSJ provides doesn't look so offensive to me. However, it's only a demonstration and not actual events. (It's worth watching just to hear the monotone NPR-like reporter say words like "freaking.") The school superintendent is insistent.

"This is not just shaking your booty," he said. "This is pelvis-to-pelvis physical contact in the private areas...and then moving around."

To make his point, Mr. Ceyanes held a community meeting and played a video pulled from YouTube demonstrating freak dancing. "I cannot imagine that there is a father in this room who could watch this video and be all right with a young man dancing with his daughter in that fashion," he told the gathering.

Many parents support Mr. Ceyanes's actions. But another vocal faction has been harshly critical of the new superintendent, creating a deep rift in the community. These parents defend the children of Argyle as "good kids," and say they should be trusted to dance and dress the way they want.

Angry, Internet-empowered parents have searched public records to dig up personal details of Mr. Ceyanes's past, blogging spitefully about his divorce and his earlier marriage and fatherhood at the age of 17. In community chat rooms, some people were calling him a hypocrite and a power-crazed autocrat showing too much interest in teenage girls.

Supporters fought back on their own blogs, where one posted pictures of Argyle students in skin-baring clothing culled from MySpace and Facebook pages. "Check your kids profiles," the blogger wrote. "These are some of the pictures your little angels have posted on the World Wide Web." The post was later removed, and the anonymous blogger refused to discuss the matter or give his or her name in an email exchange, citing fears of retaliation. "We had several comments that were extremely threatening," the blogger wrote.

Without judging the propriety of the dancing itself, the laissez-faire attitude of some parents is disturbing. Those who believe their young teenagers "should be trusted to dance and dress the way they want" apparently don't care enough to even find out what is going on.

News Flash for the Parents of Argyle: teenagers, including yours, routinely "want" things that aren't good for them. They even "want" things that are harmful. Your job as a parent is not to simply let them do what they "want." You owe them guidance and boundaries so they can make a good transition to the responsibilities of adulthood. Maybe the freak dancing is not a problem. I haven't seen it so I don't know. But isn't it a good idea to at least open your eyes and look before you decide there is nothing to worry about?

Yes, it's important to give teenagers some degree of freedom so they can learn from their mistakes. It is also true that teenagers who willingly engage in foreplay on the dance floor probably didn't get the right lessons earlier in life. There may not be much you can do once they reach that point - except pray that they avoid the physical and emotional damage that often comes from premature sexual activity.

It's going to be an uphill battle, according to dance experts. In the age of round-the-clock music videos on television, iPods and computers, teenagers are just copying what they see. Grinding has been around for a long time, but it has been getting raunchier as videos keep pushing the envelope. "If you're dancing to a song that says 'shake that, shake that, shake that,' it's kind of hard not to shake that," says Gino Johnson, a Dallas area choreographer and producer specializing in hip hop.

Related Posts:
Sexy Girls
Enough Wild Oats
Sixth Grade Contraception
Birth Control Shocker
Schoolgirl Wrestling
Dr. Anonymous Talks About Sex

No More Ho Ho Ho

At first I thought this had to be a joke, but it seems real.

Santas in Australia's largest city have been told not to use Father Christmas's traditional "ho ho ho" greeting because it may be offensive to women, it was reported Thursday.

Sydney's Santa Clauses have instead been instructed to say "ha ha ha" instead, the Daily Telegraph reported.

One disgruntled Santa told the newspaper a recruitment firm warned him not to use "ho ho ho" because it could frighten children and was too close to "ho", a US slang term for prostitute. [source]

Where do I begin? Any woman who would be offended to hear Santa Claus say "ho ho ho" is out of her mind and needs to get psychological help. What's next? Consider the alternatives:

• Ha ha ha promotes the stereotype that fat people are jolly.
• Hi hi hi implies that Santa is a user of illegal drugs.
• Hu hu hu may be offensive to owl lovers.
• Hee hee hee will be heard by radical feminists as a male chauvinist taunt.

Unless someone invents a new vowel, it appears that Santas throughout the English-speaking world will have no choice but to stand there in silence and stare at the kiddies. Children who expected a jolly old man will be sorely disappointed. Before you know it, Santa will be regarded as the creepy man in red who appears every year to frighten youngsters. Merry Christmas!

Mom and Dad Wanted Me Dead

This is bizarre.

A doctor can't be held liable for resuscitating a baby who was born without a heartbeat and survived with severe disabilities, the state Supreme Court says.

The baby's parents filed a malpractice lawsuit after the baby's 2004 birth. They claimed doctors in Vancouver, Wash., were negligent when they continued to resuscitate the baby for almost half an hour, after he was born without a heartbeat.

The parents also said the medical team should have gotten their consent before continuing to revive the baby.

But the Supreme Court justices say the doctor can't be held liable for failing to stop resuscitation efforts on a baby. [source]

More detail can be found in the Washington State Supreme Court opinion here. Nichole Stewart-Graves was 35 weeks pregnant in 2004 when she began having contractions. She went to the hospital with her husband, Todd Graves. Up to that point there had been no problems in the pregnancy. Nurses detected that the baby's heartbeat was failing and Nichole gave permission for an emergency C-section. She was then placed under anesthetic.

When the baby was born doctors could not detect any heartbeat and began working to resuscitate him. After 24 minutes the baby's heart began to beat. He survived but is permanently disabled with cerebral palsy, mental retardation and many other serious problems. He will require extensive care for his entire life. The parents named their baby boy "Liam."

The parents sued the doctor, the hospital, and everyone else in sight on the grounds that they should have let little Liam die. Yes, that's right - not "wrongful death" but "wrongful life." They say the doctors actually worked too hard to save their baby's life.

The court opinion is strange to read because Liam is, technically, the one filing the suit. His parents speak on his behalf. So you get odd sentences like "Liam made the same allegations as his parents regarding the lack of informed consent and negligence for continuing the resuscitation." Apparently, we are supposed to believe that Liam really wanted to die and the evil doctor should have just read his mind.

It is undeniably true that Liam will never have a normal life. Nevertheless, he has Life, and all life is a gift from God. It is not our place to give it or take it. Had God wanted Liam to die, then nothing the doctors did would have helped. The fact that he was saved suggests God wants Liam on this Earth - alive.

We see similar things when unborn babies are pre-natally diagnosed with conditions like Down's Syndrome. Parents often decide to abort such babies because they won't have "quality of life." This is the first step down a very slippery slope. Once we begin deciding that some lives just aren't worthwhile, where does it end? A lot of old people don't have much quality of life, either. How about poor people? Blind people? Mentally ill people? Where does it end?

Fortunately, in this case the Washington Supreme Court agreed that the doctors were not negligent. They were simply doing what doctors are supposed to do. Justice won in the end, but this case truly has no winners. Unlike some parents who develop a heroic love and dedication for disabled children, this couple clearly wishes their son had never been born. It is unclear to what degree they are involved in his care. It sure sounds like they regard him as a burden rather than a blessing.

If, someday, Liam is able to understand what happened, what will he think? Mom and dad wanted me to die? What a horrible way to go through a life that is already hard enough.

Hat tip: WWWtW

Friendly Advice: Sell The Boat

Health care is a growing political issue in the U.S., and for good reason. Nobody is happy with the system we have and no one can agree how to fix it, either. There are too many competing interests with loads of money at stake. This week I heard a story that illustrates the problem.

A person I know - male, mid-twenties - developed a condition that is very painful. The pain comes and goes. A few days it ago it became so severe he went to the emergency room. The doctor there said he needed to see a specialist, gave him some pain medication and sent him home.

This gentleman is a self-employed craftsman and appears to have a decent income. I know he recently bought a very expensive boat. He does not, however, have health insurance. He also doesn't have the $250 it takes to see the specialist who treats problems like his. How someone can afford a boat but not be able to come up with the cash to get himself out of excruciating pain, I don't know. It makes no sense. But he spent a couple of days at home in agony before his girlfriend finally took him back to the ER again. This time they gave him morphine, again advised him to see the specialist pronto, and told him his life might depend on it.

So what did he do? He went back home and relaxed until the morphine wore off. Then the pain started up again. They finally went to the ER of a much larger hospital which had the necessary specialist on staff. It appears he is bleeding internally and is now scheduled for surgery. It is unclear what this will cost and who is paying for it. Depending what the surgeon finds inside, he may need a lot more treatment.

I tell this story for two reasons. First, this man needs your prayers for healing. Second, it illustrates that the so-called health care crisis in the U.S. isn't always the fault of "the system." This guy isn't poor. He could have afforded health insurance, but like a lot of people his age he goes without because he thinks he is indestructible. He gambled and lost. He figured "somebody" would always be there to take care of him. "Somebody" means all the rest of us who buy health insurance and pay taxes.

This doesn't mean he will be off the hook. With this condition in his medical history, he will probably be uninsurable for the rest of his life. He works in a field where most people are self-employed and group medical coverage is hard to find. He'll need insurance if he decides to marry and start a family, yet he'll be too "rich" to qualify for Medicaid and still unable to get insurance privately. His best bet will be to change careers and go to work for a big company or a governmental agency. That will be a shame because he's very good at what he does.

I believe we all have a moral obligation to help the sick. What do we do, though, with people who have the ability to take care of themselves and simply don't? This guy made a mistake by not insuring himself when he had a chance. He knows that now - or at least he will very soon when he starts getting the bills. Multiply this story by a few thousand times every day throughout the U.S. and you start to see the magnitude of the problem. I don't have a good answer. I think an excellent start would be to do something about the trial lawyers whose frivolous lawsuits drive up the cost of health care for everyone. Beyond that, I don't know.

You Must See Bella

I am not in the habit of recommending movies I haven't yet seen. Having heard several interviews with the producers and rave reviews from people who were at pre-screenings, however, I'm excited about a new film called Bella. It opens next weekend, October 26.

Bella is described as "a true love story that shows how one day in New York City changed three people's live forever." The three producers - Alejandro Monteverde, Leo Severino, and Eduardo Verastagui - seem to be men of great faith who want to build an oasis in Hollywood, with artistic and entertaining films that touch people in profound ways. Bella won the People's Choice Award at the Toronto Film Festival, so it's clearly not "preachy" or overtly religious. It is just a good movie, with a subtle yet powerful pro-life message.

Leticia at Causa Nostrae Laetitae has chronicled the amazing story of this film and its makers. Bella is a miracle in itself, as the producers overcame numerous obstacles that should have been insurmountable. Read Leticia's review and other articles here.

Bella opens October 26 in a limited release of 31 cities. If it does well in the first week or two, other theaters around the nation will be encouraged to show it. So it's very important that as many people as possible see Bella in its opening days. Click here to see if it is playing in your city. I'll post more thoughts after I see it for myself.

Bella Official Site
Yahoo! Movies Bella Page
iMDB Page
Rotten Tomatoes Page
Bella trailer on YouTube

Forgiving The Worst

Father forgives son who had mom, brother killed.

Wow. It's painful just to imagine what this man has gone through. The easy thing would be to give in to hate, to let it take over and consume you. Kent Whitaker chose another course. I hope I could do the same, and pray I never have to.

Hat tip: J-Walking

Sixth Grade Contraception

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) - Pupils at a city middle school will be able to get birth control pills and patches at their student health center after the local school board approved the proposal Wednesday evening.

The plan, offered by city health officials, makes King Middle School the first middle school in Maine to make a full range of contraception available to students in grades 6 through 8, according to the state Department of Health and Human Services.

There are no national figures on how many middle schools, where most students range in age from 11 to 13, provide such services. [source]

There is an excellent discussion about this story underway at the Crunchy Con blog. I've never seen so many people from all political and religious viewpoints agree on anything like the do on this. The consensus: it is a monumentally stupid idea.

Set aside for a moment the question of whether schools should be in the business of enabling or encouraging, however tacitly, sexual activity by middle school students. The plan is medically dangerous.

Students treated at the centers must first get written parental permission, but under state law such treatment is confidential, and students decide for themselves whether to tell their parents about the services they receive.

It is a small comfort that parental permission is required, though I wonder how closely the clinic workers will scrutinize whatever signatures or forms the kids bring from home. Nevertheless, exactly how feasible is it to expect an 11-13 year old to provide accurate medical information to the clinic?

Birth control pills and patches are prescription medicines. They have risks, side effects, interactions with other medications. You can overdose on them. They have to taken on a precise schedule in order to work. Yet "students decide for themselves" whether to tell their parents about any medicines they receive. Any parent who lets their kid go to this clinic, as well as any physician or nurse who works there, is taking a huge risk.

The very same public schools that are terrified a kid with a headache might take a Tylenol are now happy to administer birth control pills. The logic behind this escapes me. We know that school-administered sex education isn't preventing sexually transmitted diseases, even as the states outlaw the one technique that actually is effective: abstinence. Is there a method to this madness?

I can only think of one thing that fits: school administrators (and the parents who cooperate with them) must want the kids to be sexually active, as early and often as possible, and are willing to risk medical complications in order to achieve this. The plan in Maine makes perfect sense if that is their motivation. So far, they seem to be succeeding.

Does Poverty Cause Abortion?

Surveys of women who have had abortions reveal that many of them felt they simply "couldn't afford" to have a child. Darwin responds to a Christian blogger who made this argument:

We live in the most wealthy country in the world, with one of the highest abortion rates in the world. Is our problem really that we're not wealthy enough?

Not only the average citizen of our country, but the poor of our country are far, far wealthier than they were 100 years ago. And yet, as we have become wealthier, the institution of the family has collapsed, illegitimacy has become a pandemic in the lower economic reaches of society, divorce has become commonplace, abortion is common -- used by some parts of society as a last resort, and by others almost as backup-birth control. (The stats I've seen on abortion repeat customers are pretty terrifying.)

And yet the problem, we are told, is that our country is still too poor to have a lower abortion rate? The claim is, quite frankly, so ludicrous that it's hard to believe the author even means it seriously. Sadly, though, I think he does. MORE

I agree - the idea is simply laughable. The fact that people take it seriously says a lot about the rampant materialism of Americans. When these women - and the men who impregnate them - say "I can't afford to have a child," what they really mean is "I can't afford to have a child without giving up my life of fun, frolic, and freedom."

Contrast this with of Third World countries where people who have far less than even the poorest Americans continue to view children as a blessing, and do whatever it takes to care for them. For that matter, right here in America we have parents who figure out ways to afford five, ten or more children on a typical middle-class income.

So the question is not really about money; it is a question of priorities. People whose highest priority is their own pleasure naturally regard children as a burden to be avoided. That's why we have DINKs and pampered pooches. Children are, quite literally, the future. If your focus is on the present, it's much easier to flush your future down the drain.

Rise of the Wiggers

Bill Cosby, who in recent years is making it his mission to preach self-responsibility to black Americans, has a new book called Come On, People. On Sunday he appeared on Meet The Press along with his co-author, Dr. Alvin Poussaint of Harvard Medical School. They seem to have their work cut out for them.

MR. RUSSERT: One of the things that you did in “Come On, People” were—was to compile statistics, very hard-headed numbers.

DR. POUSSAINT: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: And they are numbing when you read through them. You mentioned one. One out of three of homeless people are black. Blacks make up 12 percent of our population. And here’s a some—a few more that you cite which I think really does help us dramatize how critical this discussion is. And let’s read them through here.

“Homicide is the number one cause of death for black men between 15 and 29 years of age and has been for decades.

“Of the roughly 16,000 homicides in this country each year, more than half are committed by black men. A black man is seven times more likely to commit a murder than a white man, and six times more likely to be murdered.

“Ninety-four percent of all black people who are murdered are murdered by other black people.

“Although black people make up” “12 percent of the general population,” “make up nearly 44 percent of the prison population.

“At any given time, as many as one in four of all” black men, “young black men are in the criminal justice system—in prison or jail, on probation or on parole.”

Those are numbing numbers. They truly are. What can we do? [Full transcript]

What the transcript doesn't show is that when Russert said "What can we do?" there was a long, awkward pause before Cosby began to answer. My impression was that he knows full well that there are no good solutions. Two and maybe three generations are lost forever. It's very sad. Cosby has a few specific public policy ideas, which may help some, but what really needs to happen is a moral awakening in the black communities. There is only so much that outsiders can do to help.

The broader point I wish to make is that I fear the trends we see among young blacks are finding their way to white youth, through the conduit of rap music. More from the MTP interview:

In fact, the audience for gangsta rap is made up predominantly of white youth, who get a vicarious thrill from participating in a black thug fantasy, including the degradation of women. Black youth, as well as some misguided adults, have defended the use of the N-word, suggesting they are somehow making it a positive term...

If you’re going to use those words and the white male is buying the CD, then they’re buying into those words, and those words are being used on their women. Hint, hint. Domestic violence in the police department. Now they also share in the N-word. And it’s OK to say it, according to them, because it’s on the record...

Remember, too, that for a while that white kids who were into some of this rap and so on started calling themselves “wiggers”? ...

... the young, young girls will be dancing to words that degrade women and degrade them and they’re dancing to it. It shows you how much values have been corrupted, you know, by some of the media influences, and the young people can’t distinguish between what’s right and wrong. It’s like the, the bad stuff has become normal, and then they even see it as part of their culture instead of something that’s abhorrent and, and, and, and hurtful to their, to their lives and to their community.

Now, I know plenty of white parents who either don't mind or don't know that their kids listen to the vile lyrics of gangsta rap. I suppose it is possible, in a family situation that is otherwise healthy and stable, that this kind of music won't cause any harm. On the other hand, it's insane to suggest that music has no effect on us at all.

Music is processed by our brains differently from spoken or written words. It makes us feel good, and we retain information better when we acquire it musically. Kids who would never read poetry in English class love to hear the same words set to music. Properly used, this can be a good thing. Use it to spread misogynistic, violent, and hedonistic thoughts, and it should surprise no one if we end up with misogynistic, violent, and hedonistic youth.

White Americans need to hope and pray that people like Cosby and Poussaint are successful in their mission - not only because blacks are fellow citizens and humans, but because whites are vulnerable to the same disorders. The trends you see in black youth today will overtake white youth. When white kids begin calling themselves "wiggers," you know it's already starting. The violence and chaos that prevail in inner cities are spreading to white suburbs.

Think I'm wrong? I hope I am. Let's talk again in twenty years.


UPDATE 10/16/07: Mark Gordon has a post about the Cosby book. Otherwise not much reaction in the blogs I read.

Thoughts on Hypocrisy

A few days ago Rod Dreher noted something from a recent press interview of Jenna Bush, the president's daughter. It seems that in 2006 Jenna and her boyfriend (now fiance) Henry went on a camping trip. Upon being told of the plans, the president asked his daughter, "Do you have two tents?"

Rod's post quickly drew comments from people saying the president, who had his share of youthful indiscretions, is a hypocrite for saying such a thing. To me, this attitude is very strange. In our culture hypocrisy seems to have become the only unforgivable sin. Yet at the same time, it is something we are all guilty of in one way or the other. I wrote the following a few weeks ago in reaction the the arrest of Senator Larry Craig:

It is entirely possible to simultaneously a) believe that a certain behavior is immoral, and b) be unable to resist one's own urges to engage in that same behavior. As much as we struggle to do good, every single day we still do things we know to be wrong. To be human is to be a hypocrite. The fact that we are often unable to live up to the standard does not mean that no standard exists. MORE

I think when people make charges of hypocrisy, often what they are really saying is "I don't like that rule." But in fact, the existence of a moral principle and the ability of individuals to follow that principle are entirely different subjects. Neither effects the other.

For example, I know that I should not eat an entire quart of Blue Bell Cookies & Cream ice cream at one time. It is not good for my health, it is wasteful of my family's money, and it sets a bad example for others. I should not do it. It's wrong. Yet I have, on many occasions, done this thing that I know to be wrong. I'm pretty sure I will do it again at some point. Am I a hypocrite about ice cream? Sounds like it. But that does not change the fact that too much ice cream is bad for me. I could simply deny the negative effects of ice cream and eat a quart of it every day. Then I would not be a hypocrite. I would, however, pay a heavy price in other ways.

Now, back to the Bush family situation. Like many of us Baby Boomers, George W. Bush did dangerous, unwise, and sometimes illegal things in his youth. What does this have to do with the way we bring up our own children?

One approach is to presume that we as parents have no moral authority to tell our own offspring not to do these things, because we did them ourselves. The result is kids with no restraint who quite naturally go wild. If they don't come to some kind of harm, they will go on to produce another generation that is even worse. This isn't good, but at least you, the parent, won't be a hypocrite. Congratulations. I'm sure your hypocrisy-free conscience will help you feel better when you visit your kids in prison, or put flowers on their graves.

The other approach is to recognize, with the benefit of maturity, the harm that we caused ourselves and others when we were young, and then help our kids avoid the same mistakes. Is it hypocrisy? Yes. Is it the best thing for our children? Yes.

This seems to be what Bush was telling his daughter: sharing a tent with a young man to whom you are not yet fully committed in marriage can be harmful in a variety of ways. By this time she was probably old enough to make her own decisions, but there is nothing wrong with a father offering advice to his daughter - at any age.

Is George W. Bush 100% successful as a parent? Apparently not, if some of the stories about his daughters are true. On the other hand, I don't know any parents who are perfect. I'm sure not. We all just do the best we can, regardless of what may be in our past. The alternative is to set our kids adrift without a moral compass. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it.

Bread & Circuses

In yesterday's post I linked to this video of Hillary Clinton in a Democratic debate. One of the comments on YouTube caught my eye. This was left by someone identified only as kkoolcat.

This is why the dems wont win in '08.
People don't care about social issues, we just want to know we are going to be protected at any cost. We just want to live and raise our kids and watch sports on TV. It is that simple, and they just don't get it.

I hope this was meant as some kind of joke. Could there be a more succinct statement of surrender to the nanny state? We just want to be protected at any cost. Really? Any cost? You want prisoners to be tortured, civilizations to crumble, soldiers to die so that you can watch sports on TV?

The sad thing is that people like this get to vote. There may well be enough of them to put somebody like Giuliani in the White House, because he seems on the surface like a guy who will "protect" us. He won't, because he can't, nor can any other president. Put not your trust in princes.

How To Avoid Marriage

Mark Shea uncovered this study from Australia about the effects of pre-marital cohabitation. I have long wondered about this. There seems to be a difference in the way men and women view "shacking up." For the woman, it is often considered sort of a trial marriage. Once compatibility is established, she thinks a marriage proposal will soon follow. For the man - men being the simple creatures that we are - living with a woman is a handy way to get what you want without making much of a commitment.

Ruth Weston and Lixia Qu, research fellows at the Australian Institute of Family Studies, conducted a study into the percentage of cohabiting couples who end up marrying one another.

They found that marriage rates had fallen dramatically since the beginning of last century and those couples who did tie the knot were doing so at a later age.

Weston told the Sydney Morning Herald that many young people thought moving in together was "a fun thing to do".

But she said cohabiting couples often lingered for years in unsuitable relationships and had trouble finding new partners when they eventually did split.

"In the old days people might go 'steady' but there was still opportunity to meet others," she said.

"Now once you are living with someone you are cheating if you see someone else. When you cohabit it adds a sense of commitment to a relationship that might be going nowhere."

The logic is a bit twisted but it makes sense. In a marriage, two people mutually agree to set out on the journey of life together. They will, normally, make plans and try to think ahead about career, children, etc.

Conversely, when a man and woman are simply playing house there is little incentive to establish anything permanent. The man will stick around as long as he gets what he wants, The woman will stick around far longer than she should because she thinks if she does the man will eventually give her the commitment she wants.

So what happens is the unmarried couples end up in a sort of limbo, not fully committed but not able to move on to other relationships that might be better. Mark Shea says it a little more directly:

Wouldn't you know it? When men and women just move in together because it "sounds fun" this results in indistinct, vague relationships in which the woman wishes the guy would commit and the guy sort of hangs around, not buying the cow because the milk is free and simultaneously lusting after other women/feeling guilty and then wishing he could escape the relationship in which he sort of participates. The arrival of children acts, not as a blessing, but as an intrusion and a complicating factor. Who could possibly have foreseen this?

I've known people who lived in long-term cohabitation without benefit of actual marriage, and seemed from the outside to have a good relationship. This is the exception, I suspect. Marriage is all about sacrifice. It is about standing up in public and saying "I will deny myself and make a lifetime commitment to my spouse." Following through on the marriage vows is not easy, as all couples find out. The fact that they have made vows, however, provides motivation to work through the inevitable problems instead of just giving in to their own desires and moving on.

Do some marriages fail? Yes. Now if you want your marriage to fail, one of the best ways to achieve that outcome is to live with your would-be spouse first. The statistics prove that marriages that are preceded by cohabitation are far more likely to fail than others.

So, if you even think you may want to marry a particular person, moving in with them is the last thing you should do. This isn't a religious rule; it's a scientific fact derived from natural law. The "trial run" theory of marriage is demonstrably false, yet people persist in trying it. We never seem to learn.

UPDATE 10/13/07: Fr. Rob Johansen of Thrown Back has some helpful links on this subject.

The Real Meaning of Life and Limb

Whatever challenges you may face in your life, this video will make you re-think them. Watch it. I promise it will change your attitude. (via Jeff Cavins)

Can Gays Go Straight?

I recently heard a radio interview with Dr. Joe Nicolosi, a psychologist who runs a group called NARTH - National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. He takes the politically-incorrect position that homosexuality is a condition that can, with the correct kind of therapy, be treated and reversed.

In the interview several callers challenged Dr. Nicolosi on this belief. Their point: they were born gay, they didn't choose it, it is simply who they are.

His response: first, there may be some kind of genetic predisposition to homosexuality. The research isn't conclusive yet. Nonetheless, his experience is that early childhood experiences are the immediate cause of this condition. Specifically, people who become gay almost always had some kind of disordered relationship with the same-sex parent. Sons with absent, inattentive or abusive fathers are more likely to become gay. Likewise for daughters who have problems with their mothers. (If this is true, it is no wonder there seem to be more gay people now than in the past. Think of how many single mothers are trying to raise boys without much help from the father.)

Dr. Nicolosi was careful to say that he doesn't think homosexuality is a voluntary choice. No one asks to be placed in the circumstances that make them gay. He simply says that it is not mandatory. He is, in a strange kind of way, "pro-choice" about homosexuality. Even if you didn't choose to be gay in the first place, you can choose to change. Read this story if you don't believe it.

Unfortunately, the psychological establishment does not believe this so it can be hard to find the right kind of help. The NARTH web site has a lot of information. Groups like Courage and Exodus International are also good resources.

Some gay people will argue that they have tried to change and failed. They are probably right - no one says it is easy. Dr. Nicolosi simply says that change is possible. In this regard, changing a gay inclination is no different than any other type of abnormal behavior. Some people have an inclination to steal, or gamble, or drink too much, or whatever. We all have some kind of weakness. I know I have many of them. I try to do better, maybe I succeed for awhile, then I fall back into the same bad habits. It's easy to get discouraged and give up. An alcoholic could say "this is who I am, I might as well accept it and drink myself to death." The better choice, however, is to go to AA, try to change, and never give up no matter how many times you stumble. Ditto if you are gay and want to change.

Go here and change the calendar to 8/27/07 to download or listen to the interview with Dr. Nicolosi.

Not Chopped Liver

Imagine you are very sick. After suffering for years, doctors say you need a liver transplant or you will die very soon. Amazingly, more than two dozen people volunteer to donate part of their own livers to you. You can take your pick, right? Sweet.

This is exactly what happened to Bishop William Weigand. He did not celebrate his good fortune. Instead, he worried about the risk to the donor. In most cases the liver will regenerate itself, but the donor still faces a small chance of complications.

Here is a story about Dan Haverty, the Sacamento firefighter who was finally chosen as donor for Bishop Weigand.

The bishop required that the donor have neither children nor parents to care for and be financially secure, in the event of disability or death. He insisted that any donor have the support of his entire family.

To guarantee such support, the Havertys called a family meeting with their parents, three adult children and grandchildren. They showed medical data, graphs and photos. They described hypotheticals.

One daughter-in-law wondered what would happen if one of his grandchildren needed a liver in the future and there was nothing left to give. Haverty's mother said she had lost two daughters, one to cancer and another in a plane crash. She could not face losing another child, she said.

"We trust in the Lord," Haverty assured the assembled family. "If I should die, that's the sacrifice we are willing to make."

Eventually, the family came to share that perspective, he says. "There was a bit of faith involved."

By the fall of 2004, Weigand was growing weaker by the day. He could no longer work full time and had to turn over some of his responsibilities to others. When saying Mass, he needed other people to help him stand or hold the chalice. The toxins had begun to affect even his mental acuity and made him dizzy. He got up to use the bathroom one night and fell down the stairs.

Meanwhile, the search for a donor was narrowing. In February 2005, the bishop phoned Haverty to say the fire chief had been chosen.

"The Lord puts suffering in some people's lives so other people have the opportunity to show love and compassion," Haverty recalls the bishop saying.

It was tough, even then, for Weigand to accept such a gift. He was awestruck by the parishioner's generosity but wondered if he should jeopardize another man's life. What if something happened to Haverty, he worried. That would be worse than dying himself. MORE

What amazing faith and sacrifice in both men. God honored them with a complete success. Doctors took 73% of Haverty's liver to implant in the Bishop, who had practically no functioning liver left. Now both men have livers that are about 90% of their original size. Read the whole story. It's inspiring.

Hat tip: Orthometer

Funeral Rights?

A man named Cecil Howard Sinclair died recently. It is unclear what, if any, religious affiliation he had. His brother, however, is a janitor at High Point Church in Arlington, Texas. Somehow, plans were made for a funeral to be held at High Point.

The problem is that the deceased Mr. Sinclair was gay. The family says that church officials knew this at the time the funeral was scheduled. High Point's pastor denies it, saying they became aware that Mr. Sinclair was gay only when preparing a video tribute for the service which showed photos of men kissing and embracing each other. In any case, permission to hold the funeral at High Point was suddenly withdrawn because the church did not want to appear as if it endorsed the homosexual lifestyle.

I am not familiar with this church or its theology. Certainly they have the right to decide the conditions under which funerals can be held on their property. They are also correct that homosexual acts are sinful and churches should not condone them.

One thing that seems strange is why, if High Point is so firmly anti-gay, Mr. Sinclair's partner and family would want to hold his funeral there. Presumably Mr. Sinclair would have wished otherwise. We don't really know if the family accepted Mr. Sinclair's lifestyle. Maybe some did and some didn't, and the funeral arrangements involved compromises to keep everyone happy. It may also be that High Point Church does not have clear policies for such things. The whole thing sounds like a giant miscommunication to me.

To its credit, High Point offered to pay for another facility to hold the service, produced the tribute video, and provided food for the family and friends. That was very kind of them, but Mr. Sinclair's survivors still sound displeased.

The real issue in this case is not the propriety of Mr. Sinclair's lifestyle. It is whether the funeral service would have placed the church in a position where it appeared to endorse something it believes to be wrong. Without knowing all the details, it is hard to make that judgment from afar. Sadly, it is kind of unusual nowadays for church leaders to expose themselves to public criticism just to defend a moral principle, so I am a little bit skeptical. I hope they were in fact trying to defend the Faith as they understand it. Yet I wonder if other factors were involved in the decision.

Another reason to question this story is that nondenominational megachurches, which is what High Point seems to be, are not exactly well-known for consistent teaching of Biblical morality. Suppose, for example, Mr. Sinclair was not gay. Suppose further that the service was to feature photos of him kissing a female with whom he had been living outside of marriage. That lifestyle is just as sinful as living with a gay partner. It would have made High Point appear to endorse immorality. Yet somehow I doubt High Point would have canceled a funeral under those circumstances.

The fact is we all live sinful lifestyles of one kind or another. Without the grace of God, none of us have any hope of redemption. We don't know Mr. Sinclair's fate. We should hope that, in the last moments of his Earthly life, he grew convicted of his sins and asked God for forgiveness and mercy. We should also hope that the confusion surrounding Mr. Sinclair's death will lead everyone involved to re-consider how they are living their own lives.

P.S. I found this story at the Texas Fred blog. You may recall that I have had disputes with Texas Fred in the past. I was pleased to see in his post on this subject - and another one today - that Fred seems to be taking an interest in the Bible. He even quoted some Scriptures.

Fred, if you are reading this I hope you will continue to explore the Bible and reflect on what it teaches us. Here is a passage you might find thought-provoking. Here's another one. And another.

One Blind Cat

You might think a blind cat is pretty useless. In fact, many people think ALL cats are useless. Not so. This one taught its owner some very valuable lessons.

Mali was neglected at birth by a Syracuse, NY shop owner and kept in a cage in a storefront. She received little attention or care. When she developed feline herpes, it went untreated and spread to her eyes. She was blinded as a result.

I heard about Mali from an angel of a woman in Syracuse who went out of her way to rescue animals in need. She saw Mali in the store and insisted that the owner surrender the cat. The little calico was taken to a vet and there she stayed in a larger cage, awaiting adoption.

But there were no takers for a blind cat. Truth to tell, Mali was not a great candidate for adoption. Her fur was not kept especially clean and her eyes had frequent discharges. There was concern that, because of these discharges, she could infect other cats with the herpes virus.

So when we were called about Mali--we had already rescued two cats from this woman--our leaning was to take a pass. We didn't want Gina and Ginger to possibly contract the virus.

But, I decided on my own--without telling anyone in the family--to visit Mali.

Read more.

Candidate for a Pardon?

He lied for what he thought was a good reason, just like Scooter Libby. I wonder if Bush would grant clemency in this case...

A father's attempt to cover for his son during a probation hearing in Williamson County ended with both men going to jail.

Timothy Earl Willett, 60, told 26th District Court Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield on Wednesday that he'd never seen his son, Timothy Jason Willett, driving a car, which would have violated his probation. The 33-year-old was on probation for his fourth DWI conviction when he was arrested in March in Volusia County, Fla., for driving with a suspended license.

The younger Willett has DWI convictions in Travis and Williamson counties, the most recent coming after a 2002 wreck on Williamson County Road 201.

Part of his probation required having an interlock device placed in his car, but Willett told his probation officer that he did not own or drive a vehicle, District Attorney John Bradley said. Such devices block a vehicle from being turned on if alcohol is detected.

A recording of a collect call from the Williamson County Jail played in court indicated that the two had talked about lying to the judge.

"I told (Timothy Jason Willett's girlfriend) if they point-blank ask me, I'm lying," Willett is heard telling his son.

On Wednesday, the elder Willett was charged with aggravated perjury, a third-degree felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Timothy Jason Willett was sentenced to 10 years in prison. He may also face charges of aggravated perjury.

"I've never seen this kind of a blatant disregard for the oath that I've seen here this afternoon," Stubblefield said. Source