SEX

I know, a catchy title.  A little unfair maybe, since there’s nothing particularly titillating in what follows.  Or maybe there is, depending on what–what’s the saying?–“pumps yer nads!”   But in view of Erich’s post about our newly appointed head of Family Planning, I thought this might be the time to indulge more than a little in a topic rather close to my heart (depending on where one locates said metaphorical organ).

Did you know that the last week of October is national Protection From Pornography Week?  Yes, indeed, signed into law by our illustrious president, Mr. Bush back in 2003.  I for one had no idea I needed to be protected from it.  How reassuring to know that we are being defended from dangers both real and imagined by the ever watchful gaze of our very own homegrown clerics.

We’ve spent tax dollars on this.  Here is the link to the official White House proclamation.

Seems innocuous enough, even homey.  All that stuff about the destructive effects of porn on children, who can argue?

Has it occurred to anyone throughout the last two decades (beginning, in my opinion, with Ed Meese–anyone remember him?) of the war on pornography that–like alcohol and tobacco–pornography is simply not for children?  It seems a ludicrously simple idea to me–it was never intended for them.  We manage to have reasonable laws about things not intended for children.  We don’t let them drive cars (except at amusement parks, in specially constructed rides), we don’t let …

Share

Continue ReadingSEX

Bush’s new head of family-planning programs opposes birth control

You didn't think it could get any loonier at the White House, did you?  According to this article by the Washington Post, Bush's new appointee in charge of family planning is opposed to all effective forms of family planning: The Bush administration has appointed a new chief of family-planning programs at…

Continue ReadingBush’s new head of family-planning programs opposes birth control

We are drowning in material goods, yet we crave ever more stuff.

See them floundering after their cherished possessions, like fish flopping in a river starved of water. 

Sutta Nipata 777 (From What Would Buddha Do? (1999)).

A friend of mine recently returned from an extended trip to Egypt.  He found it striking that the 18 million residents of Cairo lived in tightly packed conditions and that they owned so very few possessions.  Based on his own observations, the average resident of Cairo owned about 10% of the property owned by the average American family.  My friend’s estimate was about on the mark.  Most Americans would certainly describe most residents of Cairo to be “poor.” 

Amidst this material “poverty,” though, my friend noticed numerous signs of family togetherness and harmony that he doesn’t often see in the U.S.  Parents and children were spending time with each other, smiling at each other, playing together and apparently enjoying each others’ company.  How could this be, that people appeared to be so happy when they owned so little?  As my friend described what he saw, I couldn’t imagine Americans getting along that well if someone took away 90% of our possessions.  In fact, we’d become embittered and we’d be at each other’s throats.

My friend’s comments caused me to think of the enormous amount of material possessions that Americans have and crave.  We have shameful amounts of material possessions.  We have many times more stuff than we need.  Yet we work very hard to have ever more.

We are afflicted with the all-consuming epidemic “affluenza,” …

Share

Continue ReadingWe are drowning in material goods, yet we crave ever more stuff.

Is the tide turning?

This, from the Associated Press: In a triple setback for conservatives, South Dakota rejected a law that would have banned virtually all abortions, Arizona became the first state to defeat an amendment to ban gay marriage and Missouri approved a measure backing stem cell research. Perhaps the voters are expressing…

Continue ReadingIs the tide turning?

“I’m not an animal!” cried the human animal.

Go ask one of those opponents of stem cell research why it’s OK to donate a kidney.  They’ll look at you like you’re nuts.  They’ll tell there’s a person who’s about to die and another person with an extra kidney, and it’s all that simple.

In 2006 you won’t hear any protest that kidney donation is something Frankenstein would do. Stem cell research opponents won’t assert that the extra kidney constitutes a “human life” even though it is alive and human.  They won’t tell you that kidney transplants are morally wrong.  They won’t claim that a kidney has an invisible soul.

Instead, they will reassure you that a spare kidney is not a unique human being.  They will tell you that kidney cells are only “potential” human beings (reproductive cloning, illegal in most countries, could accomplish this).  As icing on the cake, they will assert that kidneys don’t feel any pain. 

At that point you’ll need to jump in. For starters, you might remind the stem cell research opponents that blastocysts (from which stem cells are harvested) are clumps of about 150 cells small enough to fit inside Roosevelt’s eye on a U.S. dime. 

howbig.JPG

You might then add that blastocysts are only five days old when the stem cells are harvested.  At this point in time, the stem cells are pluripotent: they can develop into all the different cell types in the body (except the placenta), but they have not yet developed into any specialized type of cell.  …

Share

Continue Reading“I’m not an animal!” cried the human animal.