THECRANKYHOUSEWIFE.COM

Scaring Women for Non-Profit

2010-07-28T16:19:00Z

Annie Leonard is at it again... you remember "The Story of Stuff," which had been widely distributed and possibly shown to your children at school without your knowledge or consent? Well, here's "The Story of Cosmetics." It is Leonard's latest attempt to terrify you:

This is an interesting organization... very concerned about children's health, women's health - for instance, they take a swipe at Estee Lauder for supporting breast cancer research while (in Annie Leonard's opinion) filling women with toxins that will cause breast cancer. Now, remember. These are ultimately the zero population growth people that are producing these videos, so this isn't about saving you or your children. This is about putting an end to capitalism and replacing it with a strong centralized government that will control every aspect of your life... including your children and your ability to have children. Still, I can make an effort and take them at their word that all they care about is reducing cancer risks. I wonder if they know about the links between birth control and breast cancer? Hold on. Let me watch their video again. Nope. I didn't see any discussion concerning hormones and cancer with regard to birth control. I didn't notice them discussing how the hormones throw off a woman's natural cycle and then enter the water supply, which can cause problems with overall fertility for both men and women... and boys and girls.

Now let me watch this:

Very slick marketing campaign. This commercial uses beautiful, slender, near perfect women (that are all wearing cosmetics, by the way) to sell a physical ideal that won't be achieved by most of their customers to entice these women to use their product. It never once mentions that in using birth control, women might find it difficult to conceive when they are ready to have children. Neither does this commercial's disclaimers mention that the product might increase a woman's chances of breast and ovarian cancers. If you remember, women are no longer given hormone replacement therapy when they begin to show menopausal symptoms. Does anyone remember why that is? Does it make sense that hormone replacement can cause cancer in women over forty, but it would have no impact on a woman who is forcing hormones into her body to stop pregnancies from occurring?

Do you suppose that the next time Ms. Leonard produces a scary video that she will take on the contraceptive industry or does that fall outside her circle of expertise? Of course, maybe by encouraging women to forego the use of hygiene products, Annie Leonard is also reducing a woman's need for contraception. I'm just sayin'.

Alfonzo Rachel sings the Blues

2010-07-27T22:50:00Z

Alfonzo Rachel of PJTV skewers Charlie Rangel over tax evasion charges...

Alfonzo Rachel is truly one of the best conservative satirists of the 21st century. I often can't include his work on this site because Cranky Housewives are rated PG by nature, but he is worth following if you don't have a problem with language.

...

Ford Motor Company vs. UPS

2010-07-26T20:41:00Z

Two All-American companies... Ford and UPS. You know who they are. You know what they do. Let's take a quick peek at some basic philosophical differences between them. We'll start with UPS:

So, UPS took a bailout that you and I will pay for, and it will give them an unfair advantage over their primary competitor. Now let's take a look at Ford Motor Company:

I think its safe to say that the best thing Ford ever did was hire Alan Mulally away from Boeing. Why? Well, the first thing he did was put the company on sound financial footing by selling brands such as Jaguar, Land Rover, Aston Martin and Volvo. He focused resources on core product lines (Ford and Lincoln), began the process of consolidating dealers, and killed under-performing models like Five Hundred to bring back tried and true lines like Taurus (which seriously never should have been discontinued in the first place...but, I digress). He managed to refinance debt with banks to create the financial cushion that was needed to secure loans from private entities. This way he has able to refuse the bailouts which GM and Chrysler took from us (the taxpayers).

Alan Mulally is a brilliant Capitalist (Oooh! Yes, I did just call him that.) who saved Ford Motor Company from a slow, painful and completely untimely death. Here are my questions: Does Mulally deserve the same salary and bonus structure that Scott Davis of UPS gets and should the Federal Government have the right to make a law that would require that outcome?

JournoList. I'm sorry, but what did you expect?

2010-07-24T17:13:00Z

Conservatives are having the most ridiculous reaction to the exposure of this so called "JournoList ." For those of you who have been on vacation or sequestered or living in a monastery, "JournoList" was a private forum for impartial journalists who got together to discuss - well, you know... the usual:

And conservatives point to this as some kind of "smoking gun" evidence. "See, I knew it! They're conspiring!"

Really? This is what it took to open your eyes? Before this list came to light, you had your doubts? But now! Now it's all crystal clear! I mean, seriously. The only thing that ought to be surprising about "JournoList" is that more sites with even more damning evidence haven't been revealed. Yet.

But I suspect we'll be seeing more forums exposed. They'll have bigger names and more outrageous collusion. All with the same goal in mind. They're all looking to take over the world. One choreographed news story at a time. Follow this link to Big Journalism to keep yourself updated and informed.

What do Dr. David Blumenthal and John Cusack have in common?

2010-07-22T13:09:00Z

Dr. David Blumenthal is the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and explains how results of HIV tests and a history of an abortion can be excluded from the Electronic Medical Records that all patients will need to have by 2014 enacted as part of the... Stimulus Package? (Cranky eyebrows begin to furrow with confusion and mocking scorn.) When Dr. Blumenthal is asked what will need to be included in this system (database?) he replies:

Why am I not getting a warm and fuzzy feeling over that answer. Well, let's see. Could it be because this unparalleled intrusion into individual privacy became law surreptitiously as part of an economic stimulus plan? It required a lot of manipulation and subterfuge to get this passed. Once the system has been implemented, there will be no "undoing" it.

So, what shall we dub the Blumenthal's strategy? Say Something... Say Something Smart... Say Something Clever... Why! It's the...
Strategy... coming to a Doctor's Office near you.

Heritage - One Nation Under Arrest

2010-07-21T20:45:00Z

Here in this piece by John Stossel , Brian Walsh of the Heritage Foundation discusses the growing problem of overly vague laws, which are being used to imprison citizens:

Check out the book:

...

Glenn Beck's Response to the Big Lie

2010-07-21T00:23:00Z

Glenn Beck is featured in this 5 minute video, where he exposes the Big Lie that Liberal Propagandists are...propagating.

Let there be no doubt in your mind. We are living through an extraordinary period in American History, but how that history will be written depends wholly on who wins this age-old debate. Will you stand against the approaching storm of tyranny (tyranny is most certainly what we face) or will you collapse with withering fear that those who would enslave you might start things off by calling you a name?

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."

Same as it ever was

2010-07-19T21:38:00Z

PolitiZoid ... with pinpoint accuracy, they always manage to zero in on the political buffoonery (is that a word?) that thrives within this Administration. Check out their latest:

Ya gotta love it!

...

Atheism or whistling in the dark?

2010-07-18T21:53:00Z

The 2010 American Atheist Conference took an opportunity to "debaptize" any participants that would like to have the "stain" of what they deem to be mythology removed from their... souls? Okay, I guess I'm unclear from where it was to be removed.

What you think you are watching here are people who vehemently deny the existence of God and dualism. Perhaps you believe that you have witnessed those who are committing what we consider to be the highest blasphemy against God and the Holy Spirit that can be committed in the name of what they believe is reason and truth with staggering insensitivity to those who choose to believe in God and dualism. Indeed, not contented to simply estrange their own immortal souls with debaptism, they went one step further and performed the ceremony of debaptizing for Jesus Christ, the Son of God. You may be sickened or heartbroken. You may be enraged or incensed. You, perhaps, feel this way because these individuals coarsely mock the foundations and the principles of Judeo-Christian tradition and belittle what you hold dear.

Please, allow me to redirect your attention to the 500 pound gorilla in their Atheistic room:

One day when I was young, I lost a tooth and my parents told me there was a tooth fairy. They explained that I should go through a ritual of leaving my tooth under my pillow. I did this and next day there was a quarter under my pillow. It seemed to me to be miraculous. There was no reason to doubt that the tooth fairy was real. It all made sense.

When I was about seven, my parents told me the awful truth that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. It was very upsetting at the time. I got over it. Using logic and reason, I determined that there was little likelihood that fairies were coming into my room to take my teeth. It was more logical that my parents had staged the events.

Never once did I need to join a conference which snidely ridiculed those who advocate the "tooth fairy" methodology. Never once did I feel the need to be freed of the "stain" of this mythological creature or the rituals associated with it. If the tooth fairy isn't real then it is unreasonable to invest anymore time in it. Holding debates with "tooth fairy believers" would be illogical even if I felt that it was my "calling" to free the world of ritualistic tooth bartering. The tooth fairy simply doesn't exist. The tooth fairy has no power over me.

Therefore, logic holds that if you have no belief in God, you can just forget about Him. But this room full of people cannot forget about Him. What you are witnessing is a group of individuals who absolutely believe in God. They are being led by the angriest Christian that I have ever beheld with these two eyes in a ritual that is not meant to wipe away a stain, but to restain what had been washed away. They go to great lengths to mock every outward Christian and Jewish sign of faith, but after their raucous party ended, was God really wiped from their mind? Were they really free of Him, or did they smugly replay the event over and over in their own minds, which merely served the purpose of reaffirming God's existence?

You know what this reminds me of?

By far, this is the greatest scene of defiance and love ever put on film. Sorry about the subtitles. I work with what I've got.

As far as I can tell, the American Atheistic Conference is defying God to spank them and send them to their rooms. If he doesn't, this will be all the justification that they need to continue on with their version "truth and justice." I am very sorry for them, because I don't think this is going to turn out the way they had secretly hoped. Would it be inappropriate to pray for them?

Recovery Summer

2010-07-17T11:58:00Z

Another clever analysis from Andrew Klavan. This video sheds some light on what was promised to be "Recovery Summer":

Heritage takes on voter fraud

2010-07-15T22:29:00Z

It looks like this scandal will reach all the way to the White House...

Kathy Griffin Trashes Scott Brown and Family

2010-07-15T13:42:00Z

Kathy Griffin calls Scott Brown's children prostitutes and everyone just laughs and laughs. And really, what's not funny about that? This from a woman who's great moment in the spotlight was as a supporting cast member on Suddenly Susan... So, clearly she knows something about prostitution. Kathy, it's a real shame that you gave in and got that nose job. It was the only thing about you that showed any character.

Moral Relativism and the University of Illinois

2010-07-14T18:48:00Z

So let’s start with Dr. Kenneth Howell’s email. Dr. Howell is a Ph.D. (obviously, or he wouldn’t be called Dr.) and he is a Senior Fellow for the Institute of Catholic Thought. He converted to Catholicism in 1996 after serving as a Presbyterian Minister since 1978. He has a concentration in biblical languages and systematic theology. He has taught Greek, Hebrew and Latin. His resume goes on for about a mile. He is without question a highly educated man. If a State University is offering classes in religious theory, this guy looks like the one you would want teaching them (assuming that you are interested in actual instruction of how Catholicism works and why.)

I (obviously) have not taken Dr. Howell’s class, but the subject line of his email reads, ‘Utilitarianism and Sexuality (for those in 447 FYI)’

447. Maybe I'm wrong, but let’s just assume that this is not a 101 lecture hall series packed with a thousand students entitled “Catholicism Yea or Nay.” I believe, if this University follows every other University’s methodology when numbering their courses, that the 447 indicates 400 series, which is 4^th year. The students are there because they want to be there, not because they are fulfilling their Liberal Arts requirement.

I (obviously) have not taken Dr. Howell’s class, but I have read this email several times. I am looking for an indication that Dr. Howell was seeking to indoctrinate his 400 level students and convert them to Catholicism. What I see is that he is attempting to explain Utilitarianism, which is defined by him as a “moral theory that judges right or wrong by its practical outcome” vs. Natural Moral Law. He does not offer a precise definition for NML in this email. After some research, I will define it as: an ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong and whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. (Look at that. I didn’t even have to take a 400 level course to figure it out… hooray for me.) It appears to me that Dr. Howell is looking to use these definitions to help his students understand their meaning within the context of Catholicism (which is what the course is about and what the University pays him to do.) Right.

At no time in this email does Dr. Howell say, suggest or indicate that his students must subscribe to NML. He never says, suggests or indicates that their grade will be lowered if they don’t. This is what he does say:

“Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter. All I encourage is to make informed decisions. As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don’t arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality.” (This ought to say, “Catholics don’t necessarily arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion.” This is quite beside the point.)

Or to put this in “housewife” terms, unless you have studied this stuff for a long time, your probably don’t have enough information to make a moral judgment about homosexuality. Get the facts before you decide. Don’t make these decisions based on emotion or popular beliefs.

(Again… not one 400 level course was used to interpret this portion of Dr. Howell’s email. Hooray for me again!)

Okay now, let’s take a moment to discuss the spiritual founder of the National Education Association – John Dewey. Did I just give you whiplash? Sorry. Beginning in the 1890’s, there was a revolt against moral absolutism and laissez faire capitalism within the intellectual magisterium of the times. These intellectuals began their “war on education” for lack of a better phrase to ensure that their vision of “collectivist democracy” would take hold. This began a change in the student/teacher relationship which would insist that curriculum would become child-centered rather than content-centered. To quote Molding the Good Citizen

“Progressive educationalists advocated a radical transformation of American life, using the school as their instrument.”

John Dewey (think Dewey Decimal System) was a rigorous advocate of this philosophy. He believed strongly in using the educational system to promote what he called “collectivist liberalism.” He believed that the traditions of capitalism, competition and individualism in this country are “fundamentally defective.” The NEA decided that teachers and scholars “invariably make moral judgments and so should play a pivotal role in guiding the rest of us through the stage of transition to collectivist liberalism.”

Of course, many of my readers are conservative or libertarian and many of you have been to a university or college. I wonder how many of you conservatives and libertarians found yourselves being philosophically accosted when you attended your schools of higher learning because your moral compass was at odds with dominant group-think. I personally was offended multiple times by multiple professors and TAs over the course of my entire college career. Professors insist on letting students know that traditional conservatives are simply too stupid to breathe. “Conservatives need not attend” is the prevailing educational philosophy at nearly every university in this country.

As a Conservative or Libertarian, if you had the audacity to complain about this “educational hegemony,” you were most likely told by your advisor to grow up, because you were attending a college that would attempt to challenge your preconceived notions about the world. He or she would add that this was a part of the educational process. It is a way of making you a well-rounded student. Then he or she would pat you on the head, send you on your way and the matter would be dropped. You would finish the semester with an inconspicuous “B minus.” No professors would be fired. No professors would be reprimanded.

Now, when I read the letter of complaint written by a student that eventually caused Dr. Kenneth Howell to be fired, the first sentence pops out at me right away:

This past semester, a friend of mine took RLST 127: Introduction to Catholicism. (Let’s just breeze past the juvenile “my friend told me all about this” nonsense and get straight to the point.) “Hold on,” says I. I thought that the Howell email was intended to clarify points for an exam in a 400 level class. What has it even got to do with Introduction to Catholicism?

Do you like this part?

“Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another…”

Again, I reread the email.

“I have encountered many well-educated people who do not (or cannot?) make a distinction between persons and acts when engaging moral reasoning. I encourage you to read the final essay editorial I sent earlier to reflect on this. In short, to judge an action wrong is not to condemn a person.”

Perhaps our Intro to Catholicism student did not bother to access the final essay before his or her friend contacted Leslie Morrow, director of the LGBT Resource center, the Daily Illini and his former teacher and founder of the queer studies major.

“Queer studies” is a major? Do you suppose that there are heterosexual students who sit through those classes and are made embarrassed or uncomfortable by the subject matter? Do you wonder if there is a bias exhibited by the PhDs of Queer Studies or if they remain morally neutral at all times? Do you suppose that perhaps it is time for conservatives to audit these classes to make sure that no conservative students find themselves offended by professors who are attempting to “limit one’s world view and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation?”

When our phantom “friend” emailed Professor Robert Kim (head of the U of I Religion department) to complain on behalf of all relativists everywhere, Prof. Kim could have shown some intellectual integrity and told the student that the honest study of religious philosophy requires the discussion of natural law vs. moral relativism. Instead he began “disassociating our department, College and the university from the view expressed therein.”

But that is because, for all Catholicism’s problems and failings, the one thing it does insist on is moral absolutes within the tenets of its faith. For Catholics, there is “good.” There is “evil.” There is a Heaven and there is a Hell. This stands at odds with modern educational goals to mold students into “liberal collectivists” and “moral relativists.” Educators cannot allow students to be exposed to real diversity, because students may actually choose Natural Law over collectivist voodoo.

The taxpayers of Illinois have their monies confiscated in order to support the University of Illinois. Should you have at least the same say over who is hired and fired that the LGBT Resource Center and the University’s founder of Queer Studies have? Because I am a silly, conservative housewife, I suppose that’s not for me to say. Why don’t you decide?

Kenneth J. Howell
Director & Senior Fellow, Institute of Catholic Thought
kenneth.howell@sjcnc.org

Mike Hogan President of the University of Illinois

Text of a complaint by a University of Illinois Student

2010-07-14T12:36:00Z

Here is the text of the email from a student that led to the firing of Dr. Kenneth Howell:

Prof. McKim,

This past semester, a friend of mine took RLST 127: Introduction to Catholicism. Throughout the semester, he would consistently tell me how the teacher [Ken Howell], who I believe is a priest at the Newman Center, would preach (not teach) his ideology to the class. Many times, my friend (whom I wish to remain anonymous) said the instructor would say things that were inflammatory and downright insensitive to those who were not of the Catholic faith–it should be noted that my friend and I were both brought up Catholic. Anyways, my friend informed me that things got especially provocative when discussing homosexuality. He sent me the following e-mail, which I believe you will agree is downright absurd once you read it.

I am in no way a gay rights activist, but allowing this hate speech at a public university is entirely unacceptable. It sickens me to know that hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes. Once again, this is a public university and should thus have no religious affiliation. Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.

I can only imagine how ashamed and uncomfortable a gay student would feel if he/she were to take this course. I am a heterosexual male and I found this completely appalling. Also, my friend also told me that the teacher allowed little room for any opposition to Catholic dogma. Once again, he is guilty of limiting the marketplace of ideas and acting out of accord with this institution’s mission and principles.

I have Cc’d Leslie Morrow, director of the LGBT Resource Center, on this e-mail as well as (name redacted), former features editor at the Daily Illini (I’m sure they’d like to hear about this), and Siobhan Somerville, a former teacher of mine and the founder of the queer studies major.

I didn’t go to Notre Dame for a reason,

(name redacted)

Dr. Kenneth Howell - Text of his "Controversial E-Mail"

2010-07-14T12:19:00Z

I'm going to present things differently today. There will be a series of posts that will include the text from emails that were exchanged at the University of Illinois illustrating the maltreatment and termination of one of their professors for... well, doing his job.

Our first posting will offer you Dr. Howell's email to the students who were taking his class. The title is:

Utilitarianism and Sexuality (for those in 447 FYI) dated May 4, 2010

Dear Students:

Since there is a question on the final exam about utilitarianism (see the review sheet), I thought I would help with an example. I realized after my lectures on moral theory that even though I talked about the substance of utilitarianism, I did not identify it as such and so you may not have been able to see it.

It turns out that our discussion of homosexuality brings up the issue of utilitarianism. In class, our discussion of the morality of homosexual acts was very incomplete because any moral issue about which people disagree ALWAYS raises a more fundamental issue about criteria. In other words, by what criteria should we judge whether a given act is right or wrong?

Before looking at the issue of criteria, however, we have to remind ourselves of the ever-present tendency in all of us to judge morality by emotion. The most frequent reason I hear people supporting same-sex marriage is that they know some gay couples or individuals. Empathy is a noble human quality but right or wrong does not depend on who is doing the action or on how I feel about those people, just as judging an action wrong should not depend on disliking someone. This might seem obvious to a right thinking person but I have encountered many well-educated people who do not (or cannot?) make the distinction between persons and acts when engaging moral reasoning. I encourage you to read the final essay editorial I sent earlier to reflect on this. In short, to judge an action wrong is not to condemn a person. A person and his/her acts can be distinguished for the purposes of morality.

So, then, by what criterion should we judge whether sexual acts are right or wrong? This is where utilitarianism comes in. Utilitarianism in the popular sense is fundamentally a moral theory that judges right or wrong by its practical outcomes. It is somewhat akin to a cost/benefit analysis. So, when a woman is deciding whether it’s right to have an abortion, the utilitarian says it’s right or wrong based on what the best outcome is. Similarly, a man who is trying to decide whether he should cheat on his wife, if he is a utilitarian, will weigh the various consequences. If the cheating side of the ledger is better, he will conclude that it’s okay to cheat. If the faithful side is better, he will refrain from cheating.

I think it’s fair to say that many, maybe most Americans employ some type of utilitarianism in their moral decision making. But there are at least two problems. One is that to judge the best outcome can be very subjective. What may be judged good for the pregnant woman may not be good for the baby. What may be judged good for the about-to-cheat-husband may not good for his wife or his children. This problem of subjectivity is inherent in utilitarianism for a second reason. Utilitarianism counsels that moral decisions should NOT be based on the inherent meaning of acts. Acts are only good or bad relative to outcomes. The natural law theory that I expounded in class assumes that human acts have an inherent meaning (remember my fist vs. extended hand of friendship example).

One of the most common applications of utilitarianism to sexual morality is the criterion of mutual consent. It is said that any sexual act is okay if the two or more people involved agree. Now no one can (or should) deny that for a sexual act to be moral there must be consent. Certainly, this is one reason why rape is morally wrong. But the question is whether this is enough.

If two men consent to engage in sexual acts, according to utilitarianism, such an act would be morally okay. But notice too that if a ten year old agrees to a sexual act with a 40 year old, such an act would also be moral if even it is illegal under the current law. Notice too that our concern is with morality, not law. So by the consent criterion, we would have to admit certain cases as moral which we presently would not approve of. The case of the 10 and 40 year olds might be excluded by adding a modification like “informed consent.” Then as long as both parties agree with sufficient knowledge, the act would be morally okay. A little reflection would show, I think, that “informed consent” might be more difficult to apply in practice than in theory. But another problem would be where to draw the line between moral and immoral acts using only informed consent. For example, if a dog consents to engage in a sexual act with its human master, such an act would also be moral according to the consent criterion. If this impresses you as far-fetched, the point is not whether it might occur but by what criterion we could say that it is wrong. I don’t think that it would be wrong according to the consent criterion.

But the more significant problem has to do with the fact that the consent criterion is not related in any way to the NATURE of the act itself. This is where Natural Moral Law (NML) objects. NML says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. Consent is important but there is more than consent needed.

One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the “woman” while the other acts as the “man.” In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don’t want to be too graphic so I won’t go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body.

Now recall that I mentioned in class the importance of gaining wisdom from the past. One part of wisdom we gain from such knowledge is how people today came to think of their bodies. I won’t go into details here but a survey of the last few centuries reveals that we have gradually been separating our sexual natures (reality) from our moral decisions. Thus, people tend to think that we can use our bodies sexually in whatever ways we choose without regard to their actual structure and meaning. This is also what lies behind the idea of sex change operations. We can manipulate our bodies to be whatever we want them to be.

If what I just said is true, then this disassociation of morality and sexual reality did not begin with homosexuality. It began long ago. But it took a huge leap forward in the wide spread use of artificial contraceptives. What this use allowed was for people to disassociate procreation and children from sexual activity. So, for people who have grown up only in a time when there is no inherent connection between procreation and sex –- notice not natural but manipulated by humans –- it follows “logically” that sex can mean anything we want it to mean.

Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex. Why? Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology. Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature.

I know this doesn’t answer all the questions in many of your minds. All I ask as your teacher is that you approach these questions as a thinking adult. That implies questioning what you have heard around you. Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter. All I encourage is to make informed decisions. As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don’t arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality.

Kenneth J. Howell Ph.D.

Director, St. John’s Institute of Catholic Thought

Adjunct Associate Professor of Religion, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Social Darwinists are on a roll

2010-07-13T00:56:00Z

"Maybe I could take care of this baby and maybe I would be good at it. And I could love it and I could be there for it. How awful it would be if I had the baby and I spent the rest of my life resenting him... or her."

Or maybe I could have the baby and put him or her up for adoption. Maybe I could make some desperate couple who has been longing for a baby so very happy. Maybe I could be selfless and think about someone other than myself. Because when it comes to killing my baby maybe not everything is about me.

(I missed that part of the story. Do you think it was cut because of time constraints? I'd hate to think that the writers of this show purposefully left out the adoption option as a way of emotionally manipulating young girls into thinking that there are only two choices available.)

Goodness! The Social Darwinists are having a good year. Margaret Sanger couldn't have written this script better herself!

Social Darwinists Strike Again!

2010-07-12T22:59:00Z

Right out of the Margaret Sanger play book. Democrats really are very resourceful. They like to use every part of a bad economy and let none of it go to waste. All that's missing here is a website for a printable "25% off your next abortion" coupon. (It would have to be for a limited time only. Act now and they'll throw in a free set of steak knives... or would coat hangers be more appropriate?)

How much do you think these two ladies have spent in hair treatments over the last 17 years? Yes, I suppose that would reduce the stress in their marriages. Thank goodness! We're finally getting away from the decades of greed that the 80's produced. It's so refreshing that we're no longer encouraging superficial materialism. Finally, we're starting to focus on what really is important. Three cheers for the "Early Show" for acting as a beacon of truth in these difficult economic times. Thank you for reminding your audience to hold on to what is truly important... Clairol Nice and Easy.

Of course I'm kidding. They wouldn't demean themselves and actually do their own hair. Can you imagine the stress that could create in their lives? It might cause problems in their marriages.

I need to remind myself to thank God that I'm a Republican... every day for the rest of my life.

Let me be clear

2010-07-10T13:00:00Z

The President will not rest...

I know that I will sleep better at night just hearing that. Let me be perfectly clear. Our President has one of those rare gifts for oration. He attempts to lull (lull? anesthetize?) us into a state of forgetfulness. Forgetting that this Administration has taken what was slated to be a mild recession and has turned it into the Great Depression...the sequel.

The Siege in Alton, Illinois

2010-07-09T16:11:00Z

Alton, Illinois. July 4, 2010.

Residents of the Oakwood Housing Complex attacked members of the Alton Fire Department. A fire truck had been sent to put out a dumpster fire that had been purposefully set at the 700 block of Oakwood. When the firefighters arrived, they were attacked with bottle rockets by the horde that had set the dumpster fire. Police officers were dispatched to control the crowd. They too were attacked with bottle rockets. The officers pursued their attackers with pepper-ball guns and were able to hold off what was described as a “mob” until the firefighters were able to extinguish the fire that had been set in the dumpster. The police officers then made no arrests and left the scene.

By then it was July 5^th. Firefighters and officers responded to another call at the Oakwood Housing Complex. There were reports that a truck had been set on fire. When they arrived they saw that it was only a box. They were attacked again. Officers fled the scene when their pepper-ball guns ran out of ammunition. No arrests were made. When the Police Chief David Hayes called the Alton Housing Authority, they responded that they shared Hayes’s “horror” over the incident.

Predictably, all news accounts that I have read focus on how terrible it is that individuals who have been charged with the duty of protecting the public would be lured repeatedly into this kind of trap. Every news account mentions that it is illegal to possess fireworks in the state of Illinois. The stories touch on the fact that the mob was made up of adults and children. It is also noted in the stories that these kinds have events have happened in years past and continue to escalate in their violence. Everyone is left scratching heads and wondering what can be done about the contemptuous behavior that started this whole mess.

Everyone except me. You know what I’m wondering? I’m wondering about the fireworks.

Which are illegal.

In Illinois.

I’m wondering about the terms “Housing Authority” and “housing complex.”

When I read the terms “Housing Authority” and “housing complex,” a little light bulb goes off in my brain and I say, “Hmmm. Section 8 housing?”

Per Wikipedia:

The Housing Choice Voucher Program is a type of Federal assistance provided by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) dedicated to sponsoring subsidized housing for low-income families and individuals. It is more commonly known as Section 8, in reference to the portion of the U.S. Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 under which the original subsidy program was authorized. The United States Code (the compilation of current U.S. federal laws) covers this program in Title 42, Chapter 8, Section 1437f.

Federal assistance. Please keep that term fresh in your mind for a moment. I’ll get back to it in a minute.

My first question:

If this housing complex is indeed Section 8, then ought not the ATF be called in to protect the firefighters while they are performing their duties? I seem to remember that there were no qualms about using them to bring down the Branch Davidian Complex in Waco, TX. As far as I know, the Branch Davidian Complex was not even Section 8.

My second question:

In order to obtain illegal fireworks in Illinois, someone from the Oakwood Housing Complex who is receiving Federal assistance went out of state to purchase them… so they must own a car. If they can afford a car, why do they need Federal assistance for their housing?

My third question:

Do any of you have a general idea of how much money it takes to purchase fireworks? This siege took place over several hours. We’re not talking about a pack of Roman Candles. We’re talking thousands and thousands of dollars that were used to purchase illegal fireworks out of state. Again, if they can afford thousands and thousands of dollars to purchase illegal fireworks, why do they need Federal assistance in the form of Section 8 housing?

Finally, my fourth and last question:

If this is indeed Section 8 housing, should HUD be involved in reassessing who is receiving Federal assistance in order to live at the Oakwood Housing Complex of Alton, Illinois? Is HUD at all curious whether there are individuals receiving Federal assistance when they can afford thousands and thousands of dollars to purchase illegal fireworks…? I would deem illegal fireworks to be an extreme luxury and a waste of money – ya know, especially in this economy. (Ya know, where regular taxpayers who receive no Federal assistance to pay for their housing are struggling to make ends meet because of the confiscatory taxes which have been levied on them in order to support Section 8 housing for the people who cannot afford even the necessities, never mind the occasional luxury.) (Was that a run-on sentence? Sorry.)

I’m just asking.

The Leftist View of Capitalism

2010-07-08T22:28:00Z

When academia critiques free market economies, it behooves us all to take a moment and listen. Remember, these intellectuals are teaching your children...