The Heretik

Viva La Difference or Eat Sh*t and Die

BARBIE SAYS "Math Is Hard."
The War of Words and What They Mean

FROM THE INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE: Remarks at a conference by Lawrence Summers, Harvard's president, suggesting that innate differences between the sexes might explain why women do less well than men in careers in mathematics and science, continued to resonate on campus and across the nation, triggering often furious reactions.

FROM JOHN CARROLL @PREPOSTEROUS UNIVERSE: But it's hard to miss the fact that Summers' defenders and critics are mostly talking past each other. As one of the critics, I'm especially baffled/annoyed at the tack taken by most of the defenders. The basic line seems to be that Summers was simply offering a scientific hypothesis, one that is worth investigating, and if you are in any way offended you must be letting political correctness compromise your interest in finding the truth. This seems to miss the point entirely, so perhaps it's worth just a little more blather on the subject.

ARE THERE ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN?
Is the way men and women discuss this issue itself a sign of their difference in makeup or difference in attitude?  What difference does any of this make?
The Heretik Joe Ivory Mattingly wants to know what you think.

Lost Soul: A Heretik View on the Murky "Conscience Clause"

LOST SOUL: CIVIL DISCUSSION OR CIVIL WAR?
Something is lost in society when we stop talking to each other.  That other guy? He must be crazy. Or in the case of my sister: she must be crazy.The danger is that the other viewpoint and the person who holds that view becomes The Other, unworthy of respect, always suspected of something.  What starts out as suspicion of bad thinking and thought often soon devolves to suspicion of bad actions.  Suspicion leads to action, bad action.  Are we living in a bad time to be The Other.

Some will say so what?  Shouldn't we be ready for those who would subvert our way of life? A caveat here.  An overt warning.  Whenever discussion sinks to the point where "subversion of a way of life" is on the table and worse in the air, the Terrible Times are not far behind. Strong civil societies can not be subverted by free discussion among varying views. Let's talk genetics.  *Shiver.*

The Sacred Cow of the Last Century rises to take a death trot.

I bring up genetics, the invocation of which brought us eugenics, involuntary sterilization, and death camps a go go, not as some litany of infinite loss (although it is). I bring it up because genetic scientific theory (and facts) support the conclusion that  the most diverse genetic populations within a species are the most healthy.  For having burned at the stake in several lifetimes, The Heretik can confirm that this is personally true.

Did I mention facts, theories, science?  Tough times to be those bitch ideas in This Most Manly Age. Did I mention faith and transcendent belief in the love and power of a higher being? Nobody shows well when pot shot pea shooter pick off what they think are the Witless Wonder Believers.

Before we begin again The Tag Team Tango Terriblay, The Heretik would like two offer too ideas, make that to offer two ideas. 

The first idea is about two ideas, two opposing ideas. The term is dichotomy. Coke vs Pepsi.  Ford vs GM (Whoever does those pee on the other brand decals should be killed! Or not.) Black/white. Good/Evil.   It may be simplistic, but we forever seek to separate and categorize.  What is gained and what is lost?  Oh sure, there are Pepsi people and Coke people (not so many Coke people since the go go come come all over me Eighties), but--  But what?

First it seems the curse of human existence that some people have no one strong central governing belief. Second that people think themselves noble when the recognize other people's central beliefs as they whip out the wank units to pee all over this second idea.  I hate the taste of Pepsi.  Coke blows monkey dick, dude.

What is gained? What is lost? Cola drinkers are more alike than they realize.  Cola dominates the fun fizzed world and lemon lime soda drinkers know it. Ah, Cola/ Lemon lime.  Another seeming dichotomy. Dark Soda/light soda.  Good soda/suck soda (according to a cola drinker).  Germany vs France part 666. Germany and France both suck (from some African nation where questions about soda are not likely to arise when the children are falling dead unnoticed to disease while whitey just enjoys his bubbly, alcoholic and non.

Are we not all just the Boys of Binary Bay?  Isn't it true that all things must be one thing or another?  Well, yes, of course you're right on on that.  One thing or another! That's it.  We take this view whenever we make judgements on others.  Innocent or guilty?  Guilty!  Hang 'em.  Give them the sizzle.  Or guillty!  Give them life!  Life in prision.

Life in prison?  Are you daft?  No murderer can be rehabilitated . Everyone can be rehabilitated.  Even the people who say no one can be rehabilitated.  Are you crazy?  Who are you calling crazy?

Whosoever looks in the honest mirror in the morning sees both good and bad in his reflection.  Why the rest of the world is black and white is the curse of our existence.   A most mundane thought perhaps, but the implications are somewhat more profound.  We inflict our white on others' perceived black, our belief in Pepsi on someone else who is quite happy with Coke.  Coke? Are you crazy?

 

from PAUL KRUGMAN@NYTimes: WHAT'S GOING ON?
Democratic societies have a hard time dealing with extremists in their midst. The desire to show respect for other people's beliefs all too easily turns into denial: nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself.

Another thing that's going on is the rise of politicians willing to violate the spirit of the law, if not yet the letter, to cater to the religious right.

 

THE CONSCIENCE CLAUSE: I'M SORRY? WHO DID YOU SAY WAS ON DRUGS?
Increasingly religous belief for some has great impact on all.  Framed as an recognition of religious freedom, does a  "conscience clause" place a proper,  higher value on the beliefs of some?  Or does it destroy a sense of commonwealth and service for all?

The current skirmish line in this civil war is over pharmacist's and filling prescriptions.

No big deal, you say?

Let's see where we hope what is a civil discusion goes. Comments requested.

IF I WANT TO BE PREACHED AT, I'LL GO TO CHURCH. IF I'M IN A PHARMACY, WHAT I WANT IS MY PRESCRIPTION FILLED.

from BITCH Ph.d.

I've blogged on the issue of pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions before; now there's a WaPo article that gives me an opportunity to do so again. "He's a devout Roman Catholic and believes participating in any action that inhibits or prohibits human life is a sin," said Aden of the Christian Legal Society. "The rights of pharmacists like him should be respected." Yeah? What about my right to fill my goddamn prescription? If you have a problem providing health care to anyone, on moral grounds, then do something else for a living. Wisconsin is one of at least 11 states considering "conscience clause" laws that would protect pharmacists [who refuse to do their jobs]. Four states already have laws that specifically allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions that violate their beliefs. 

from RIGGSVEDA at The American Street: CONSCIENCE CLAWS

Sometime ago, here at American Street, I noted the Conscience Clause trend amongst pharmacists. Withholding prescriptions most often because they assert birth control pills kill embryos, they have become a worriesome growth industry of the religious right. Legislatures across the states are working on ways to deal with it; some more interested in protecting the pharmacists, some the patients. As usual with this sort of thing, women are the victims, and especially women in sparsely-populated rural areas with few alternate options.

THE HERETIK ON THE PRICE OF A CONSCIENCE:

The relativistic slide of hypocrisy continues. A pharmacist in a small town refuses to fill a prescription. Somebody else can do it. Except that somebody else is one hundred miles away and the person who needs the prescription immediately doesn't have a car.

Mercy, mercy me, where is a man with a conscience today?
Where are our artists with strong voices? Probably not on a Clear Channel station. That venue is reserved for the likes of Britney "I Just Think We Should Trust Our President In Everything He Does" Spears.
Oy. So should we all just sell out? The Heretik would in a heartbeat, but for the price you pay when you give away your soul.

A Look at the PHARMACISTS' CODE OF ETHICS follows:

I. A pharmacist respects the covenantal relationship between the patient and pharmacist. …a pharmacist promises to help individuals achieve optimum benefit from their medications, to be committed to their welfare, and to maintain their trust.

II. A pharmacist promotes the good of every patient in a caring, compassionate, and confidential manner.

…A pharmacist is dedicated to protecting the dignity of the patient. With a caring attitude and a compassionate spirit, a pharmacist focuses on serving the patient in a private and confidential manner.

III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient. …In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients.

VI. A pharmacist respects the values and abilities of colleagues and other health professionals.When appropriate, a pharmacist…refers the patient. A pharmacist acknowledges that colleagues and other health professionals may differ in the beliefs and values they apply to the care of the patient.

VIII. A pharmacist seeks justice in the distribution of health resources.When health resources are allocated, a pharmacist is fair and equitable, balancing the needs of patients and society.

Thanks to Riggsveda for bringing this topic to The Heretik's attention.  My remarks originally appeared as comment to his above post.  Riggsveda also writes at Corrente.  Thanks to the Bitch Prof Queen Bitch Ph.d for her inciteful insights.
This is comment week in the world or blogs so please further the discussion.  Dare I say it: comment strongly

AND ON THE NEXT FRONT OF THE SAME WAR.  If you have firm views, on the pharmacists conscience clause, what do you think about contraception?

from the DENVER CHANNEL:  CATHOLIC GOVERNOR FACES TOUGH DECISION

DENVER -- Gov. Bill Owens, a RomAn Catholic who has campaigned on conservative values, could face a tough choice when he decides whether to sign a bill that would force hospitals to tell rape victims about emergency contraception. His fellow Republicans say the bill, given final legislative approval Tuesday, violates Catholic hospitals' freedom of religion by forcing them to offer information about abortion. Democrats say the bill is not about abortion but offers help to women whose bodies have been violated. In the middle is Owens. He refused to take a position on the bill Tuesday, but his spokesman, Dan Hopkins, said he would "carefully consider" it. Republicans blocked similar versions of the bill over the past two years, when they were in charge. Democrats captured both the House and Senate last November and pushed the measure (House Bill 1042) through.

FROM TRISH WILSON: FILL OUT MY PRESCRIPTION, DAMN IT!

Bitch Ph.D is one of many bloggers writing about pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. She quotes a Washington Post article: "He's a devout Roman Catholic and believes participating in any action that inhibits or prohibits human life is a sin," said Aden of the Christian Legal Society. "The rights of pharmacists like him should be respected." What about my right to have my prescription filled? Your "moral issues" end where my health care begins. If you have a problem in your job filling out prescriptions because you find the person who wants to have the prescription filled "morally objectionable," get another job. I haven't heard any cases of pharmacists objecting to fill prescriptions of Viagra. Why not? How do you know these men aren't cheating on their wives? There have been reports that men taking Viagra have cheated on their wives. What about men who buy condoms? Will the pharmacist demand to see a marriage license to be sure these men aren't having affairs or sex out of wedlock? Is the pharmacist going to grill these men to find out if they are being unfaithful, and then refuse to fill the prescription or hand over the condoms on moral grounds? I don't think so. The bigger issue of pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions is really about men taking control of women's reproduction. The "moral police" are doing that by rolling back the availability of abortion as well. Welcome to "The Handmaid's Tale."

from Jesse@PANDAGON: ESSENTIAL

All I really have to say about this case is that if you're in the business of providing essential public services to people, and there is factual information you can give them about those essential public services, then it is your undeniable responsibility to give them that information. Delusion and dishonesty are not criteria of faith, as hard as so many conservatives are trying to prove otherwise. Where in the Bible does it say, "Do my work; deny reality"?

from Pam Spaulding @BigBrassBlog:

Woman Sues Over Tar Heel Anti-Cohabitation Law

Ass-backwards, redneck laws...It's A-OK for Kate and I to live together here in the Tar Heel state (guess they didn't have queer people in mind 200 years ago), but if you're straight and living with your opposite-sex partner, you're breaking the law. Even more insane, since many laws like this go unenforced, is that an employer actually had the Taliban cojones to pull it -- he gave a worker an ultimatum to marry her boyfriend, move, or give up her job. What the f*ck does it matter who you are living with when it comes to your freaking job?

CIVIL WAR OR CIVIL DISCUSSION?

In the current age, in the matter of the conscience clause, is it possible we have forgotten some of the most basic concepts our country was found upon.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Constitution, the recognition of all our freedoms. is also the base of all discord in our society. A country forged from the fire of war for independence should expect no less.  The Founders knew freedom is a struggle, something never given, but inherent to each individual, something that must be guarded.  Ours will always be a country of many voices.  No one may speak for all.

Those who speak for a conscience clause seem to focus on the part of the Constitution  that emphasizes the part of the Preamble above that says secure the Blessings of Liberty.  You hear that a lot from people who are not so inclined toward securing the blessings of liberty for others who disagree with them.  These same people would be quite happy imposing their version of domestic tranquility on the rest of us.  That would be their more perfect union.

Some would disagree.  Some would have a different idea of the blessings of liberty, domestic tranquility, and what our country is. The irony of a country founded by slaveowners and those who abided that abomination as they spoke of all men being created equal is profound.  It is also absurd. Ours is a country of contradictions, minor and majestic in their descent.  What we forget is that we are all in this together.

What the current powers that be seem to have forgotten in their ceaseless agendas of selective freedoms for some at home and abroad is the part of the Constitution that says to promote the general Welfare.  The general Welfare!  How noble and rife is that little phrase. For in it are bound liberty and responsibility.  The Free have a responsibility to all.  We will guard our country and all our freedoms within the context of community.  All will guard the rights of the individual. The individual will defend all. Somewhere in this scene lurks the person who brings up the conscience clause.  That person is a vigilante.

teresa s: a mispelled contemtplation of what has a spell on us all

Lost Soul: What is a Culture of Life Part One

 

RIGHT CLICK HERE FOR SOME APPROPRIATE VIBE.
courtesy of the Joy Junkie We Know as Rox Populi

THIS POST BEGINS AN IMPORTANT THREAD: How Language Frames the Picture

Jeanne D'Arc at Body and Soul offers some interesting thoughts on the joining of Evangelical Christians and Catholics in the language they use about The Culture of Life. But what it means for one means something entirely different for another.
Your comments are welcome, indeed, they are required.  Thank you !

From Body and Sou: LIFE AND OTHER FALSE COGNATES

Listening to right-wing evangelicals talk about a "culture of life" is a lot like hearing George Bush talk about "human rights." They're using words I've used all my life, but there seems to be no connection between what I mean when I use them and what they mean when they use them. I keep thinking of the way, when you're learning a foreign language, you can get tripped up by words that sound familiar but have an unexpected meaning. In Italian, parenti are relatives, not parents, a libreria is a bookstore not a library, a camera is a room. False cognates. Evangelical "life" is not life. Bushy "human rights" are inhumane wrongs.

THE HERETIK WAS RAISED CATHOLIC IN HIS LAST LIFE 
His mother was something of a saint, his dad freaked out when The Heretik's sister came home converted to an evangelical group.

THE HERETIK'S NIECE IS A CHILD OF TWO CULTURES
Jewish mother, Catholic dad.  The evangelical sister returned to the home flock.  She gives her Jewish niece Christian gifts, with the hope that the niece might see some light that will never go off in her head.  My evangelical sister hears my niece wants to work for NARAl when she graduates from Hamilton.  My sister, a lost child of god, doesn't hear what my niece says.  My sister tells my niece she could help my niece.  If she were on the other side of the abotion issue.  The divide in America is a divide in my family.  Everyone talks, but no one listens.  Fun times at the the Thanksgiving Day table.
Is this a divide forever unbridged?

LOST SOUL: Trish Wilson Takes Off With the Kids in Custody Civil War

RIGHT CLICK HERE FOR SOME APPROPRIATE VIBE.
courtesy of the Joy Junkie We Know as Rox Populi

Feeling like a Lost Soul yourself? This second post in the series picks up the thread that started here.

A civil society demands civil discussion. When civil discussion ends, civil war ensues.  Or is it, when civil war ends, civil discussion can begin?  Said it once and The Heretik will say it again.  Civil war? Nothing is civil about war.  That phrase must have been invented by the first and greatest Oxy Moron of all time. On the Custody Issue:  Carla of PreEmptiveKarma has had her say.  Some readers have weighed in. Today Trish Wilson responds.  The Heretik would say Trish Wilson weighs in, but suspects this is a poor choice of phrase even with the most heavy of topics.  The weight issue, you know, is best left to another series, right? Carla from PreEmptive Karma is whispering something to me. What?  Heretik, shut up?  Let Trish Wilson have her say?  Of course. Sorry.  Lo siento mucho. Muchisimo.  Not for  me to get in the way of Trish Wilson.  Woman got an argument like a runaway freight train packed in her pocket. Okay, let's go.  Let's go crazy.
Your comments are welcome, indeed, they are required.  Thank you !

From Trish Wilson: THE TRUTH ABOUT JOINT CUSTODY

Carla from Preemptive Karma posted a couple of links in my comments that I thought needed to be mentioned here. These two links are often cited by fathers' rights activists. She posted them in support of joint custody, but I know more about those links that show how much they don't support joint custody. This is what I wrote in comments: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/child/2002-03-25-joint-custody.htm As does this:http://www.gocrc.com/research/jcbib.html
CUSTODY IS A BIG ISSUE FOR TRISH WILSON.  IT TIES INTO SO MANY OTHER TROUBLESOME AREA.  CONSIDER ONE WADE HORN

Wade Horn is the Assistant Secretary of Children and Families in the Administration for Children and Families at the DHHS.

Horn is better known for promoting marriage and "responsible" fatherhood. He is one of the founders of The National Fatherhood Initiative, which has printed out "Father Facts." Those"facts" were lists of flimsy statistics that blamed "fatherlessness" (code for single and divorced mother homes) for a host of social problems such as juvenile delinquency, low S. A. T. scores, drug and alcohol addiction, and teen pregnancy. These statistics malign single and divorced mother homes. They also oversimplify and misrepresent problems exacerbated by poverty and lack of adequate support systems by insinuating that these families can rise out of poverty if the father is present in the home. Preferably, that father should marry the mother. Hence, the arrival of marriage initiatives promoted by Gallagher and McManus, funded by DHHS.

WAS THE HERETIK HOPING FOR A CATFIGHT HERE? 
Sadly no.  Like all guys, The Heretik loves catfights, but this is not the place for one.

NO CATFIGHT HERE
Not today. Maybe tomorrow.  Come back for the catfight tomorrow, you dogs. Here we have the beginning of a civil discussion. When civil discussion begins, civil war ends.  Or is it, when civil war ends, civil discussion can begin?  Said it once and The Heretik will say it again.  Civil war? Nothing is Civil about war.

LOST SOUL: Civil Wars Sought

RIGHT CLICK HERE FOR SOME APPROPRIATE VIBE.
courtesy of the Joy Junkie We Know as Rox Populi

A civil society demands civil discussion. When civil discussion ends, civil war ensues.  Or is it, when civil war ends, civil discussion can begin?  Said it once and The Heretik will say it again.  Civil war? Nothing isCivil about war.  That phrase must have been invented by the first and greatest Oxy Moron of all time.  The Heretik today would like to know what topics are most worthy of discussion for this new series.
Your comments are requested !

Here is a possible example served up by from that slaughterhouse of cows sacred: Preemptive Karma:

The very well written blog run by Trish Wilson has been doing a series of posts on custody issues. Specifically the rights of men and women to have custody of the children in the event of a divorce. . . .

A couple of commentors on the blog have made statements that to me, are troublesome.  This is the most egregious, in my opinion:

Well I consider ANY father that attempts to get custody from a child's mother as abusive, by definition, UNLESS he does it because abuse or neglect is involved...

I strongly disagree with this statement.
Carla at PreEmpitive Karma has boldly taken the above stand.  Where do you stand and why?

Coming Soon From The Heretik: Lost Soul, a new series