I am an addict

"Let's face it, they're in the business to kill babies for profit," she said. "First and foremost, they get young girls hooked on their birth control pills, which don't work," Hanks said.

Oh, how I love it.

The issue- Planned Parenthood purchased land in Stapleton to build a new headquarters there. They kept the purchase under wraps, purchasing it under another name (nothing unusual there, even for companies that suffer from a lot less controversy than PP). Now, the plans have been announced and people like the lovely Leslie Hanks appear out of the woodwork.

First off, my mother, a very non-liberal Roman Catholic was the first person who ever told me to go to Planned Parenthood. She had gone to PP when she was younger than I am (I am 26 for the record) to go on birth control when she was engaged and then married to my father. While she may have broken the Church’s missives, she felt what she was doing was the right and intelligent choice.

Secondly, Ms. Hanks is not only grossly misinformed, but she proudly shows her outright ignorance. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit corporation. Seriously, my last appointment there I paid $30 for the visit with the NP and $25 for my prescription. The script was $5 more than what I pay on a co-pay through my insurance. Profit? What profit? And might I also add that I indulge my ‘addiction’ every day at 10 am, and thus far, indulging my addiction (since they were the ones who turned me into an addict, my boyfriend and I had no choice in this matter whatsoever. We did not discuss it beforehand and make the decision ourselves, we let ourselves be brainwashed by the evil corporation.) has prevented me from becoming pregnant. Hmmm, imagine that…

I somewhat wish that was all Ms. Hanks had to say on the issue, but she was determined to wow the reporter (and subsequently the readers) with her sheer intellect. In response to the halting of construction on a PP clinic in Austin four years ago, due to protesters convincing contractors to walk off the job or face future boycotts:

"We might think along the lines of trying to do something like that," Hanks said. "Companies in the business of trying to build a death camp need to be exposed."

They are building a death camp? Please explain, Ms. Hanks. Have you ever set foot in one of their clinics? Their focus is not on death, but on life. These folks would rather see you either prevent an unwanted pregnancy or have a child rather than perform an abortion. You think they’re doing this to get their jollies? And they offer services for low to middle income women that they may not otherwise have access to, including yearly exams that every woman should have! They probably prevent more death than they ultimately cause!

Case in point there, the numbers in the article- PP saw 125,000 women over the past year; only 8,800 of those women were seen for an abortion. That means Planned Parenthood could technically be said to have prevented 116,200 deaths (assuming each and every woman who went to Planned Parenthood would have chosen abortion as an option if they were to get pregnant, which is absolute nonsense, but something that seems would be right on track with Ms. Hanks’ views.). Abortions accounted for 7% of the services performed. Seven Percent.

Which brings us to Lolita Hanks, who as an African-American woman finds it “disturbing that their clinics that do abortions tend to be in African-American neighborhoods." Which brings up another set of numbers and another point. The numbers- only 7% of abortions were performed on African-American women. That is 616 abortions. 55.5%, or 4,884 were performed on Caucasian women. As for locations, well, as sad and horrible as it is, those tend to be lower income neighborhoods with lower property values. Seeing as Planned Parenthood is a non-profit corporation, money is at a premium. They are likely to go for a location that costs less simply to preserve funds for their mission of providing health services to women. This is not a difficult concept and also explains why you don’t see a Planned Parenthood in a posh, upscale area with high property values. There are two locations here in the Den of Villainy- one located on the westside of the Den, in what is a lower income area, and the second, newer location is located in a strip mall right next to a non-denom church, in a primarily middle income area (I grew up in this area!). (That has always just amazed me since the first time I went there. Planned Parenthood is literally right next to the church offices.) Ironically, there is more potential of being greeted by a protester at the westside location than at the one next to a church.

to be continued...

easy-bake nightmares...

Now, I have to say, I begged, and begged, and begged for an easy-bake oven growing up. Never got one. We did however get the boys equivilent which baked up those little latex bugs (and gummi ones too!). That had to have been worse than the easy-bake because for one, those bugs were made in these cast-metal molds, and the first thing you had to do upon removing them was douse the thing in a waiting pan of cold water. I never recall us burning ourselves (probably because until I was 12 my mother would never let us play with it out of her sight. Go in the backyard and do archery or play darts int he basement without supervision, but make latex bugs? God forbid!) or, as this little tidbit provides, sticking our hands inside the oven!

The Easy-Bake Slash And Burn

The comments are wonderful. :) and I'm glad to see other people as amazed at the idiocy of today's youth and their parents as I am.

woman of child-bearing age

#1 Dinosaur has a great post regarding contraceptives, the treatement of women of child-bearing age, and the influence of religious beliefs on helathcare (read the link in the top of the post and read the commentary on Dino's post)

The line(s) I love:

If you don't like the law of the land (ie legal abortion) go move someplace where your views are enshrined in law. But please, quit inflicting your views on unsuspecting patients under the guise of "freedom of religion.

Seriously. I agree wholeheartedly... and that goes for more than just in the practice of medicine.

REAL Sex Ed Saves Lives!

In the past 10 years, Congress has wasted more than $1 billion on dangerous abstinence-only programs that deny teenagers vital information about birth control and responsible decision-making.

The Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act will provide funds for medically accurate, age-appropriate sex education in schools. It has been introduced in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, but it needs your support!

Urge your member of Congress to stop wasting money on abstinence-only programs and to support REAL sex education instead.

THANK GOD FOR RITTER!

Ritter signed into law the EC law requiring Ers to provide information about the morning-after pill, and that pharmacies post signs notifying customers if they do not carry it. This, added to Kroger & Walgreens stances is a very good thing.

http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_5438600

sometimes, good things happen

Kroger is going to make their phamacists dispense EC if a woman requests it.
Yeah, we can hear the fundamentalists screaming now.

"We believe that medication is a private patient matter," said Meghan Glynn, a Kroger spokeswoman. "Our role as a pharmacy operator is to furnish medication in accordance with the doctor's prescription or as requested by a patient."

Damn straight! Look, it's a service industry. If their job duties don;t mesh with their personal beliefes, then perhaps they should find another job. Companies should not allow their employees to force their personal beliefes on the customers. And this note at the end of the article makes me feel that much better about it:

Major pharmacy chains such as CVS Corp., Rite-Aid Corp. and Walgreen Co. also have pledged to ensure that customers can buy Plan B, even if one employee declines to provide service for reasons of conscience.

---

Last month we had Glamour covering Purity Balls (I feel dirty every time I use those two words together), and now, we have ABC News picking up the story (thankfully, not here in my fair city this time). MSM coverage of this? For once, I approve.

ABC had a poll going on their story, about the purity balls. They could have worded their options better, because as it was, I was torn. One option was 'No. Instead of being taught abstinence, girls should be taught about birth control and STDs.' and the other was 'Yes. Girls should learn to respect themselves by remaining abstinent until they're married.', the third choice was 'I don't know'. Personally, I think abstinence should be stressed to both girls AND boys, but face it, they're hormonally-driven teenagers. Teach them how to protect themselves if something does happen. Also, and I'm sure the fundamnetalists will decry it as the liberal slant of the media, the poll resulted in the people in favour of teaching girls about birth control and all that marginally beating out the people who thought abstinence was the only way. Close issue, but, even a small margin can make a big point.

Okay, you're kidding, right?

BeneTint is Nipple Tint?

Saw this over on Feministing where all I could do is laugh.

Sorry, gals, but it is funny. And the outrage! Okay, isn't this taking it a little too far? Yeah, I agree the whole paint your boob thing is corny, but detrimental?

Not only is this just, well, ick...it also sets the nipple beauty ideal as light skinned. I mean, you have to be pretty fair to have "rosy" nipples, no? Anyway, ick.

Now, let me say something that noone ever wanted to know- I am one of those fair, pale, ghostly looking people. I have no pigmentation there to really speak of. Rosy? You can forget it. And since I became aware of fashion, beauty and sex, all I have ever seen, heard, or read is women who were rosy, ripe, or dark. Where does that leave me? Not that I would use this stuff, but its not setting a new idal, its reinforcing an old one.

Also, I would like to point out that these same standards with makeup can be said for ALL makeup, so why isn;t anyone crying foul and telling us to dtich our foundation, powder, mascera, blush, concealer, eyeshadow, lipstick, lipgloss, and everything else most women wear on a daily basis?

the times, they are a-chagin'

Bill puts science in school sex ed

Oh, finally, and please, please, please let this pass.

Two things from the article I'd like to address:

1) Apodaca was a 14-year-old middle schooler when she got pregnant, and she wishes she had been taught about condoms and birth-control pills and how to say no.
Okay... this just annoys me a bit because it falls into my no-no category of 'let's blame everyone but ourselves'. Yes, abstinence-only sex ed (or no sex ed) has a direct effect on the teenagers' understanding of sex. What gets me is that this girl is being used to push for science based sex ed, so she probably underwent sex ed that was abstinence-only, and the whole point of abstinence-only is 'just say no'. Yeah, your education or lack thereof played a part, but at least own up to your own actions.

2) But Rep. Michael Merrifield, a Colorado Springs Democrat who leads the Education Committee, equated the federal money to being "blackmailed" into providing kids with "misinformation and incomplete information" about sex.
Wow. For once, I am completely in agreement with Merrifield (rare, trust me.).

I consider myself lucky, seeing as I got through my mandatory sex ed course (under the PC name of 'Health') before the new federal mandates came down and the schools switched to abstinence-only to preserve their federal monies. Absitnence was stressed by our teacher, who reinforced that it was the one way to NOT get STDs via sex. And absitnence meant abstaining from all various types of sex. But, we were also taught about condoms, their usage, the Pill, its usage, and other forms of birth control. Waiting until marriage was stressed, but our teacher acknowledged that we were mere humans and humans in adolescence with raging hormones at that. What you should do doesn't always win out against biology.

Put science back into education, but like my teacher did, fully educate the students- abstinence is best, but if you do slip, here's what you can do to keep yourself safe.

Prepapring for life in the 'Real World' - stripper shoes

There is something about this that just disturbs me to no end.

Stripper shoe phones for young girls. I do mean young girls as some of the parents comment their girls are 8-10-years-old. They even say they have the phones in their bedrooms and all the child's friends loved it. For one, since when is giving a stripper shoe to a 3rd grader cute or even a good idea? And of course the kids love it! They love anything that makes them feel more adult. But a stripper shoe? Objectification much? And point number two, since when does a child that young need their own phone in their own room? Isn't that just like not watching them on the computer? The website's moto is so wrong in so many ways in regards to this phone... "Childhood Dreams Delivered."

Just another example of parents feeding their children sex and then wonder why they have 'issues' as teens.

there is something seriously wrong...

When not only one, but two women are denied medical access by police in two seperate events.

Story 1- A woman is arrested after calling the police because she was raped (turns out she had a warrant out for her, from four years ago, probably because of a paperwork error). She is denied emergency contraceptive once in jail despite having a prescription for it from the hospital because it was against the medical supervisor's religion.

Story 2- A woman is arrested for a traffic violation and is heard ON TAPE telling the arresting officers that she is bleeding and having a miscarriage. The reponse? The female officer involved asks, after the woman's NINTH request to go to the hospital, 'How is this my problem?'. The woman was held overnight in jail and delivered a premature baby the next day in the hospital, who died a short time later.

What does it say about our nation's police forces when incidents such as these happen?

responsibility is optional

This blows my mind- MySpace Hit With Online Predator Suits

Oh, and who's suing them? Why, the parents of kids, of course.

Four families have sued News Corp. and its MySpace social-networking site after their underage daughters were sexually abused by adults they met on the site, lawyers for the families said Thursday.

Well, I can understand why they would be upset at the events that happened, but...

"In our view, MySpace waited entirely too long to attempt to institute meaningful security measures that effectively increase the safety of their underage users," said Jason A. Itkin, an Arnold & Itkin lawyer.

Pardon me, but what about the parents' responsibilities here? They're suing for millions of dollars because they lay all the responsibility for monitoring their childrens' activities on a website?! WTF?!

When I was a teen, admittedly the Net was young, but it was not withut its problems. In addition to monitoring my activities online (accomplished by standing behind me, reading over my shoulder, and demanding 'What are you doing?', since monitroing programs were still in their infancy), I was firmly instructed not to give out personal information online. Even in those days the knowledge existed that people may not always be who they seem. My parents had my passwords to any boards, forums, and chats I logged into. And yes, being a teenager I resented the intrusion of my privacy, but that was my parents' job- to intrude, to bear responsibility for what I was doing, and when I broke their rules, there were consequences. I don't ever recall my mother blaming ICQ for all the hormonally charged guys who tried to get my information from me or solicited me for things I should not be doing. Additionally, I was told and was bright enough to NOT give out my personal information to people I randomly met.

Yes, the crimes that resulted should be dealt with, MySpace needed to step up security, but, jeebus, I cannot believe the parents are suing when they have fault of their own. Absolutely ridiculous.

lo, how the mighty have fallen

New Life youth pastor resigns over sexual misconduct

There are two explinations:
1) They're jealous of the attention the Catholics were getting
2) There's something in the water up there...

All the Gazelle has atm is a short little story (three paragraphs barely qualifies as a story, really), but from that it boasts this wonderful little bite:
Rob Brendle, associate pastor for New Life, said Beard’s relationship was not with a minor, nor was it with the Rev. Ted Haggard

Well, I guess we should be relieved that Haggard wasn't doing it with his fellow ministers, but how the hell does one intelligently decide that that little statement is what you want to release to the media? Something is definately in the water.

:EDIT:
It seems they've updated the story now with a bit more. It seems he was let go due to an ongoing investigation by the same board who terminated Haggard's pastorship there (meaning they've become a wee bit paranoid about their ministers). The Overseers (the board or whatever, it is still the most awkward and evil sounding title possible) can't say if there will be even more fallout from their investigations. How long before they start investigating the congregation?

Our second tasty bite comes from this extended article:
Rev. Larry Stockstill- “This place is the apple of His eye,” he said. “He’s not going to let anything happen to it.”

Mighty confident in ourselves, aren't we? An excerpt from today's edition of 'This I Believe', from Richard Rohr on NPR struck me this morning, and seems even more applicable now:
But many religious folks insist on answers that are always true. We love closure, resolution and clarity, while thinking that we are people of "faith"! How strange that the very word "faith" has come to mean its exact opposite.

People who have really met the Holy are always humble. It's the people who don't know who usually pretend that they do. People who've had any genuine spiritual experience always know they don't know. They are utterly humbled before mystery. They are in awe before the abyss of it all, in wonder at eternity and depth, and a Love, which is incomprehensible to the mind. It is a litmus test for authentic God experience, and is -- quite sadly -- absent from much of our religious conversation today.

okay, who let the idiots out?

The Holiday season (which, of course, began back in July as soon as stores remove that pesky patriotic ephemera from their shelves. Because we must begin shopping for evergreen boughs and lights NOW, or we may never see any six months down the road.) is in full swing. The day after Halloween, the music began playing and the ads began rolling. Over the last week the folks and their red kettles began appearing, which will no doubt unleash the 'Target hates you!' e-mails form their dark inbox corners once more. Additionally, as seems to have become the tradition over the past few years, the verbal wars will also begin in this season of sharing, caring, love and peace.

How could a huge national retail chain DARE to have their employees say 'Happy Holidays!' instead of 'Merry Christmas!' (never mind that their ads are specifically Christmas centered) Why, I've got a grand idea! We should boycott them! They'll get the message when no self-respecting my-religion-is-holier-than-thou's Christian doesn't shop there! Nevermind we're a country that has MANY religions, who celebrate MANY DIFFERENT holidays at this time of year. Screw political correctness! We're offended by 'Happy Holidays!', so we insist that you switch back to 'Merry Christmas!' and blatantly ignore all other religions and offend them.

For the love of pete, people! Go find something more worthwhile to whine about! Your life will not end because the cashier at the store wished you a 'Happy Holidays!' instead of a 'Merry Christmas!'. If this is such a big deal to you, perhaps you should take a deep look at your life and how you live it. As devout as you claim to be, and following in the footsteps of Jesus, do you think he'd throw a hissy fit and boycott a shop if the shopkeeper had wished him 'Happy Holidays'? Grow. A. Brain.

civil unions

So, regarding the recent elections, Lileks hits the nail on the head concerning civil unions (imho):

Anyway. Point is, I think the majority of Americans wouldn’t balk at civil unions, and I think the same majority would accept laws that afford gay couples the right to have the same benefits as unmarried hetero couples via medical visitation, insurance plans, etc. Unlike 50 years ago, most people know someone who’s out. That tends to soften hearts. I know some thing that every evangelical thinks Sorry, sis, I love you, but your godless practices must keep you from being present at your life partner's funeral, but somehow I suspect that is not the norm. But when the matter of civil unions gets twinned with redefining marriage, it appears people will vote against the redefinition regardless of the secondary consequences. Preserving the traditional definition trumps any vague sympathetic acquiescence to some flavor of statutory equality. Twenty years from now, attitudes may change – but they’ll run up against constitutional amendments that arose in reaction to the decisions of a few judges.

The amendment that would ban gay marriage passed. Obviously, many in our state felt that it wasn't enough to have a law on the books, but we needed to make it a part of the state constitution as well. Now we're doubly protected from the evils who would like us to allow people in couplehood of the same sex to get married. *rolls eyes* The referendum that would have given same sex couples basic legal rights and allowed civil unions failed. Neither was much a surprise as much as I would have wished otherwise.

What I loved about the lead-up to the election were the commercials for the referendum. IN the against column they produced a very vague commercial where a little boy wanders home seeing all these kdis playing and spending time with thier fathers. He gets hom, curls up, sadly, on a bench with his mom, while a voice informs us that he'd be happier if he had a daddy at home. He goes home to ONE woman- not, say, two, which would've definately set this commercial out as being against anything that would allow a same sex cuple to even consider being a couple. Instead, it was so vague that you could have assumed that she were a single divorced mom, or a single mom who made a mistake, or a single mom who did invitro, or a mom whose husband is in the military, or on a business trip, or in prison, or dead. So, by the end, one could assume they were against single motherhood (judging from the commercial) in any form. But, really, they were against same sex marriage and/or civil unions that would leave Timmy without a father. One could also surmise that maybe it'd be better, then, if Timmy had TWO daddies.

Nevermind, they probably wouldn't like me coming to that conclusion.

In the for coumn on the referndum, they ran an ad featuring a guy working in what I assumed was the clerk & recorders office (or DMV... it looked more like the DMV) saying 'next' and a voice asking if this (him signing a paper to, I guess, unite a same sex couple) looked anything like marriage. Well, with the absensence of a judge, it kinda looked like the courthouse cerimony my friend went through. I suppose that didn;t work as well as intended. I hated the commercials who wuld tout that same sex couples already had basic legal rights, but neglected to point out that they usually had to secure a lawyer, draw up paperwork, and go through a lot of drawn-out nonsense to get those rights. And even then, you realize that they could be overturned in court if someone else complained about them. God forbid that we allow someone dignity when their loved one is in need.

Hoefully, there will be another try to grant civil unions and legal rights to the portion of our populace who decides to do things a bit differntly in the bedroom. Next time they won't have the amendment on the ballot to deal with, unless the fundamentalist idjits try to amend the constitution to ban civil unions too (what, I have to ask, would that do to such institutions as common-law marriages?).

why are only little girls required to be 'pure'?

So, watch this (via feministing.com), listen closely, and learn some new things about ‘Purity Balls’.

First, its okay for a teenager to sit in her daddy’s lap as she shares her worries and woes about her schoolmates, and their attraction to boys. Dirty, evil, hormonal BOYS. They have cooties, or something. But, daddy’s little (big) girl isn’t attracted to those boy-things. Why not? Is it because she’s a liberated, independent girl-woman who doesn’t want to let herself be categorized by society’s standards of traditional romance? (is there something she isn’t telling daddy? Like she’s attracted to Kim, but Kim likes Tommy?) No! Why would you think that, silly? She isn’t interested in boys because she’s not looking for love and affection elsewhere, she already receives all her necessary attention and affection from her daddy!

(We pause now for a collective need to try and wrap our minds around the last sentence)

So… right… okay… She doesn’t need a boyfriend because she has daddy! On the plus side (there’s a plus side?) they’ve taken out the ‘high priest in the home’ line form the pledge. So that reduces the creepiness factor by… one-millionth of a percent? And both daddy and daughter take the pledge- daddy’s is to protect and preserve his daughter’s virginity and provide a shining moral example for her; daughter’s is to protect and preserve her virginity so she can give it her future husband and children as a wedding gift. But, wait… who are they protecting her virginity from?

Boys. Dirty, evil, smelly, hormonal BOYS.

But, didn’t daughter say she wasn’t interested in boys because she had her daddy? And, wait, daddy took a pledge to protect her too, but if there are no boys about, who is he protecting her from? O.o Oh, please, no, do not let me go to that conclusion.

What the hell is wrong with you people?

Its not the basic idea that I can’t accept. I do believe that one should remain abstinent until marriage, or at least until they are in that relationship that is going to end in marriage. Sometimes, it doesn’t work that way, and other things happen as well, circumstances which are out of our control. No, what bothers me is that the young men are not being held to the same self-accountability as the young women are. One might say this is just the view of a feminist, but it isn’t. Anyone could look at this and wonder how these young men are better prepared or equipped to resist biology and temptation and peer pressure than the young women are. Why aren’t we seeing mother-son purity balls where a son will sign a pledge to wait until marriage, and his mother will pledge to be a moral compass and keep him on the straight and narrow. Perhaps the evangelical-fundamentalists plying this concept on the populace believe that if they remove the young women from the equation by making them accountable for their actions, and making their fathers into ‘guardians’ of their bodies, that the young men will just fall into line and be docile, non-sexual creatures, waiting merely for the right time when they can pluck the fruit from the tree for themselves to enjoy- with everyone’s approval, of course. Anyone who has ever attended high school could attest that it might make a hell of a lot more sense to make the boys pledge their virginity. Even looking at common statistics, the opposite of the current purity ball idea would make sense. You’re much, much more likely to hear of a man forcing a woman into a sexual situation then you are to hear a woman forced a man. In cases or rape, female rapists, while there, are rare. Treating a woman as if she were a possession is outdated and morally, intellectually, and socially stupid. Giving men free reign to do as they please and see fit without holding them accountable is just as morally, intellectually, and socially stupid. If you insist on making parents responsible, at least make them equally responsible for ALL of their children, regardless of gender.

haggard haggard

(Yes, there's the meth as well, but the largest uproar is over the alleged sex, and that's what this is focused on)

Since yesterday’s news broke about the accusations lodged against Rev. Ted Haggard of New Life Church, there’s been no small amount of talk, and reports in the media, that this is merely political. Even the accuser himself says this is political, which he may very well find it to be, but in what sense? Colorado has two issues related to the state of marriage and the rights of homosexual couples. Whether you are for or against either issue, somehow, I don’t see legions of voters suddenly changing their minds at the polls to vote in the opposite of what they’ve already decided. Nor do I hear a sudden outcry of those who have voted early or absentee suddenly wishing that they had voted differently. What these charges have done is thrown a spotlight onto these issues, perhaps bringing them a bit more into the forefront.

Personally, I find the whole thing amusing. There was no way to see this coming, but it was also one of those things you knew would happen to someone in the fundamentalist community eventually. No guarantee who it would be or when, but it was going to happen. And here, now less than a week before mid-term elections, it has happened, and happened to a man who is one of the spiritual leaders of the evangelical movement, as well as being an influential character in the city he calls home. I’ve personally met him on a handful of occasions, most of them some 7-10 years ago. I’ve been to the church he built, and frankly, that place scares me for more than one reason. I had his books, which I read, and then I think my mother donated them to Goodwill. I think he’s a little skewed in his views, but boiled down he may be a decent man. Having an affair (excuse, being accused of having an affair.) does tarnish the moral armor, but being gay? No, that does nothing in my opinion to lower your level of decency.

Being homosexual does not change the fact that you are a human being, and in being a human being and being a citizen of our country, you are entitled to the same rights and privileges as the rest of us. Or so it should be, but what’s different scares us. What we don’t understand scares us. Frankly, what happens in your bed at night is your business. If you are doing something that is clearly morally wrong or outright criminal (abuse, rape, murder, the pets…), then I have a problem with it, and want to see it stopped. However, if you choose to get it on with someone of the same sex, what’s the problem? No, the human body wasn’t intended to reproduce asexually, but if that’s what you feel driven to do, fine. Its not what I’m driven to do, but your life is yours and mine is mine. What all these family foundations should truly be concerned about is the divorce rate, abuse, affairs, and other aspects that affect families in greater numbers. I’d be more worried if Timmy had a dad beating his mom and having his parents going through a nasty divorce than if he had two mommies or daddies who loved him and were giving him a stable home in which to grow up in.

I’d feel more comfortable around someone who had tolerance, and was working to preserve and further their rights to equality and freedom than I would with someone who is trying to stop any change they don’t like. You don’t see homosexuals going door-to-door handing out pamphlets and trying to convert people to be gay or lesbian. You do however see evangelicals of all creeds on your doorstep, persistently littering your stoop with flyers, pamphlets, and ringing your doorbell and trying to get you to pray to become just like them. They aren’t deterred either if you tell them you already have a religion and you’re quite happy with it. I’m Catholic. I tell the evangelicals/Mormans/Jehovah’s Witnesses that every time they show up on my doorstep and I deign to answer the door. I’m happy with my faith and my relationship with the deity above. They’re persistent. They assure me that they can do better than I can. They leave me with armfuls of literature and promise to return at a later date to follow up and see if they’ve changed my mind yet. I have yet to have a same sex couple show up on my porch and try to convince me to go to bed with them, or their nice friend Matilda.

I’m waiting this one out. I find it funny, but I can’t say whether or not Haggard is innocent of any indiscretions or if he’s simply being used as a tool to bring the issues at hand in the elections into a brighter light. Not all the facts are in, and there’s that saying about ‘judge not lest ye be judged’. If he did have an affair with this man from the Denver, the wrongdoing and sin in this comes from having an affair, not with whom he is supposed to have had one with. It does strike one as odd and a bit guilty when the accused steps down from his posts within hours of the accusations being aired, and canceling a rally in support of him. Pre-emptive or no, pending investigation or no, its just that much off. For better or worse, we’ll have to see how this one plays out. If nothing else comes of it, at least it will have gotten people talking.

---

The Gazelle follows up today with Haggard's admission to buying meth, and seeing Mr. jones for a massage, saying eh was referred to him. Even before this morning's admissions, there was a familliar note in this whole thing. Something that was similar to a certain former President and his definitions of things and that he 'Did not inhale'.

I love all the commentary going on at the Gazelle online. Its also refreshing to find out that there are non-psycho christians speaking out and trying to get people to stop lumping us all in one group. Look, people like me are more than a bit ashamed of how some of our fellow Christians act. Some of us can and do think for ourselves, which ostracizes us from both sides of the political and religious debate. The middle of the road can be an awfully lonely and/or dangerous place to be on the highway of life in these United States.

Still watching, still waiting, still amused.

don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys... or something

It cracks me up. The Gazelle ran an article today about evangelical churches worrying over the fact that only 4% (seriously, this is what they said, and its a bit hard to swallow) of youth brought up in a evangelical church setting choose to remain evangelical after they become adults (aka graduate HS and attend college). Somehow, since these churches seem to only be GROWING and not SHRINKING, this is a little hard to believe. Additionally, it seems the only ones who have opinions (and leave them in the comments area) and read the paper seem to overwhelmingly find this as amusing and ridiculous as I do.

Seriously, Luce, Haggard, and the rest- faith is a personal thing. Spirituality is a personal thing. If you feel better by surrounding yourself with hundreds or thousands of other drones in a mega-church each weekend to be able to experience your faith, that's fine. If someone who grew up with that chooses to seperate from that and persue a different path for their faith, it does not mean they've abandoned God. Perhaps you should reconsider the direction of your own faith if you're more concerned with the amount of gold in your coffers rather than people being able to believe in and worship God as they feel is right for them.

who owns YOUR virginity?

granted, the city I live in has become the center of the 'conservative christian movement (yes, it does have quotes because as of late I've had issues with them calling themselves conservatives. I'm conservative in my morals and values, they go beyond that and tread into the territory of fundamentalism.). Dobson came, and they followed. Now the city is populated with non-denominational christian mega churches (one literally in my backyard, which causes no small amount of traffic congestion on Sundays). Not only here this version of christianity has made its way beyond the churches and into such places as government, but that's another post.

The mega-uber-non-denom-'conservative'(fundamentalist)-christians have come up with something new- the Father-Daughter Purity Ball. Fine. At first glance it seems all well and good- make the girls feel special, have a date with daddy (every little girl loves to do something special with her daddy), and pledge her abstinence. Fine. Whatever. I have no argument with abstinence. I myself took an abstinence pledge through the Church when I was 14. Granted, ours was done with much less grandeur- youth mass, then all the kids headed downstairs to the church basement where cookies, punch, and pledges to protect our virginity waited. Of course, more emphasis was placed on the girls protecting their virginity (lest we use our wiles and wile a boy into taking it) than on the biys, but, we all ended up signing. Great! We got a pledge! We got a ring! We'll be virgins til we're married! And it was our promise and our responsibility.

Not so with the Purity Ball.

In a throw back to a much less modern era, when women weren't people, but property, the Purity Ball trend has daddy and daughter dancing the night away, then daddy pledgeing to protect his daughter's virginity. I am not kidding. Read the pledge (clicking will take you to a local church who started these things up here):

I, (DAUGHTER'S NAME)'S FATHER, CHOOSE BEFORE GOD TO COVER MY DAUGHTER AS HER AUTHORITY AND PROTECTION IN THE AREA OF PURITY. I WILL BE PURE IN MY OWN LIFE AS A MAN, HUSBAND AND FATHER. I WILL BE A MAN OF INTEGRITY AND ACCOUNTABLITY AS I LEAD, GUIDE AND PRAY OVER MY DAUGHTER AND MY FAMILY AS THE HIGH PRIEST IN MY HOME. THIS COVERING WILL BE USED BY GOD TO INFLUENCE GENERATIONS TO COME.

Daddy should sign a pledge to be moral and a light on that path, but the daughter should be the one signing to take responsibility for her virginity. I also take issue (more than likely due to my upbringing) with 'the high priest in my home'. No. It doesn't work that way. If you take this in a different light (along with some of the pics on the site) you end up with a very paganistic looking ritual- girls in white dresses carrying roses, rehearsed and scripted dances, pledges of fathers to protect their daughter's viginity as the 'high priest'... you get the idea. (the editor of the website should also chek their skills since it comes off beyond creepy as they describe the fathers and daughters as they take the pledge 'The fathers place their hands on their daughters'. The picture shows daddy's hand on daughter's shoulder, but y'know, explaining that might help, and make it a little less creepy.)

If daddy can't attend, the girls can bring 'Grandfathers, brothers, uncles, and cousins to escort the young ladies.' Mommy can come too, if she likes, but she might feel left out unless she convinces Grandpa to come as her date, considering her husband will be a little busy with their daughter. (wait... that didn;t come out right...). But, by god, don't bring your boyfriend because HE IS OUT TO TAKE YOUR VIRGINITY AWAY FROM YOUR DADDY!

Does anyone else find that just a little odd? Your virginity is your responsibility, let's keep it that way.