Posted by: bridget | 27 February 2007


News reports are filled with statistics about how many women are infected with the HPV virus (approximately one in four between ages 15 and 59), which can cause cervical cancer. Check out the headlines: “1 in 4 US Women Infected With Cervical Cancer Virus;” and “Millions In US Infected With HPV Virus.” Buried in these articles is the fact that the viruses rarely cause cervical cancer, and the vaccine does not prevent all incidents of cervical cancer.

Krispy Kreme has introduced a new glazed donut – this time in whole wheat, for its health-conscious consumers. (Hear that, J. Kaiser?) It has 10% fewer calories than the non-whole wheat variety.

The Supreme Court will review the constitutionality of an election system which allows the top two winners in the primaries to advance, even if they are of the same political party. The Supreme Court initially struck down a similar scheme, holding that it violates the rights of “political parties.” The pachyderm hates to ask: Where in the Constitution do political parties have rights? States are quite free, under the Constitution, to fashion electoral systems as they please, so long as they do not disenfranchise people.

A man who raped a woman in the early ’80s tracked her down and apologised to her. She contacted the local police; as felonies do not have a statute of limitations in Virginia, he was prosecuted. Despite an email stating, “I raped you,” prosecutors allowed him to plead guilty to aggravated sexual assault. Christians who heard about the case say that she should forgive him; she says that forgiveness does not preclude justice.

If men who confess to raping women only get two years, how can we really be a society that treats rape as the crime it is – second only to murder? Also, when are forgiveness and regulation of civilised life mutually exclusive?



  1. Infected with HPV Virus:
    It is a sad day when we cannot rely on the press to report honestly and completely on any topic. Sad indeed.

    I love Krispy Kreme!

    The Supreme Court should have term limits. The Madmouser hates to ask: where in the Constitution does the Supreme Court have the right to legislate any issue?

    Our court system is currently failing us and needs an overhaul. A society without justice, fairness and consequences; is a society sinking into the depths of hell.

  2. I’m not sure that the Supreme Court should have term limits. Justices are allowed to serve time during good behaviour, and I would not like to see the inevitable Congressional/Presidential rigging of the Court if they could modify term limits at will.

    I do, however, fully support what the Federalist Society is doing and has done in terms of ensuring that Justices will be conservative while on the bench. Alito’s appointment was a big win for that side: he has a 15-year track record of conservative jurisprudence.

    The Supreme Court does NOT have the right to legislate an issue, nor do they decide if it is wise. They may strike down legislation if it is so utterly irrational as to be tyrannical, or if it violates the “floor” of rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

    The Court will be more rational (and deferential to states) when the 17th Amendment is repealed. If Senators are beholden to their State governments, they will be less inclined to approve judges who would strip power from the states (i.e. law-making bodies), either by imposing non-constitutional limits on their actions or by giving power to Congress and regulatory agencies.

  3. “forgiveness does not preclude justice”

    That is correct. Loving your neighbor also means protecting them from rapists and other bad guys.

  4. This is the same thing that always ticked me off about Carla Faye Tucker. A Christian should recognize that spiritual salvation, forgiveness, and redemption are one thing–justice in this world and submission of oneself to just laws is another. In other words, Christ has jurisdiction over your soul, but your butt belongs to the State.

  5. Lewd,
    Render unto to Ceasar that which is Ceasers still applies..good point.

    Bridget, In discussion with my sister in law, she pointed out that treatment for many STD’s and related disease is focused on women, after the fact, rather than men, whom she says spread disease in the first place. HVP was her prime example.

    She groused about birth control as well. I know your not Dear Abby, but any idea why drugs are developed and given to women, rather than men?

    My fav KK donut is dipped in glaze ,then 1/2 covered in chocolate. When you take a bite, it’s so sweet, pain develops in the rear of my jaws, and my fillings hurt, and I whince.

    Other than that, they’re wonderful.


  6. Faye Tucker – or Tookie Williams, who wrote children’s books in prison – or any of the others who think that being happy after committing heinous crimes somehow lets them off the hook.

    Thanks for commenting, y’all! :)

    Loving your neighbor also means protecting them from rapists and other bad guys.

    Christ has jurisdiction over your soul, but your butt belongs to the State.

    Great points. I may quote you on that.

    Hank, I know that the HPV vaccine has only been tested on women, although giving it to men would stop the spread of disease. There’s also some evidence that HPV can increase the risk of certain cancers in men.

    Someone is doing clinical trials on a male Pill, and the reaction from a lot of men is that they don’t want to put it in their bodies and mess things up. Likewise, men are often unwilling to undergo vascetomies, leaving their wives to spend years on the Pill or undergo the far more invasive procedure for tubal ligations. (“Men” being somewhat of a misnomer, as guys who don’t step up to the plate in that area aren’t really men, IMHO….)

    As for “Why?” When my stepmom was in high school, they made all of the girls take care of an egg for a week. They couldn’t let it out of their sight, had to always have someone watching it, and had to return it unscathed. Boys didn’t have to do the same, as only girls can get pregnant. (My comment was that only men pay child support, so they should have had to cough up their lunch money.) Nevertheless, it’s woman who get pregnant and get cervical cancer, so it’s seen as a woman’s problem. The ready availability of abortion doesn’t help, either: most unwanted pregnancies end in abortion, so it’s not like men have an incentive to prevent pregnancy on their own. From the ’60s onward, women were thrilled and empowered to take the Pill. None of this really sets up a market incentive to develop male-based birth control.

    Personally, I like the original glazed, but only as they come off the conveyor belt, steaming hot, right after the waterfall of sugar. I’m still a Dunkin Donuts girl, having spent most of my life in New England. (Got one of my friends addicted to them after she flew out to MA to make a cross-country road trip with me. As we were driving through El Paso, she saw one and started salivating and made me pull over.)

  7. Thanks for the shout out. I don’t like KK donuts though. When I am going to indulge Dunkin Donuts are my sweet of choice. :-)

    “Where in the Constitution do political parties have rights?”

    I’ll take this one. NOWHERE!

  8. Such insightful comments. I’ll just add that I agree that in your stepmom’s high school egg experiement, yes, the boys should have been coughing up lunch money no doubt:)

    We have no Krispe Kremes around here (thank God) but by golly if we get the chance to drop in on one when traveling, Tieki Rae and I love their sour cream cake donuts. Hubby will eat any donut — not choosy :)

  9. Ooooh, another Dunkin’s addict!

    J. Kaiser wins, “Finding Rights in the Constitution for $100.” Bing! (You’re welcome for the shout-out.)

    If the boys coughed up lunch money, they would probably be a lot less inclined to view screwing around as a “manly” activity.

    I’ve never tried the sour cream cake donuts. Sounds either really good (and artery-clogging) or really bad. Are you doing to get Hubby some Krispy Kremes while in Denver?

  10. Many of us boys would be less likely to screw around if we couldn’t so easily say, “well just have it aborted” or “why weren’t you on the pill.” I know those are scummy positions to take, but give a person an out, and they will take it.

    How do we teach them responsibility now? Gonna be hard with whole bunches of them growing up without daddies in the first place. But, and I know this might make some angry, girls need to improve their self esteem so they aren’t laying down with these knuckleheads. Rape accounts for a VERY small percentage of unwanted pregnancies- two people tangoed- and unfortunately it seems that one of the people who bears the biological responsibility for the effects of said tango should have thought it through more.

    This shouldn’t absolve the moron male who walks away. But come women have to take this into their own hands as most men don’t seem ready to change.

    J. Kaiser

  11. BTW sorry if I offended anyone with my above posting. :-)

    I just look at the situation through a pragmatic lens. I view crime the same way, we can’t expect criminals to change so we should be prepared and adapt. Not comparing men to criminals, or maybe I am, anyway you get my drift.

    -J. Kaiser

  12. I’ll agree. It’s hard, though, as a woman, to refuse sex – because men deem it their fundamental right and something that healthy young women should want to do – it supposedly being fun and all.

    I disagree that the person who is biologically responsible should have thought it through more, simply because they already DO think it through. I mean, it’s not like men don’t know that sex causes pregnancy. 70% of women who abort did not use any form of birth control.

    Neil made a good comment once that there used to be an unspoken contract between women that they would force men to act better by not sleeping around. Even for girls with a healthy self-esteem, it is very hard to convince men to act right.

    I guess I disagree with the “biological responsibility” thing, because men are also biologically responsible. That baby has half its genes, and whether or not he likes it, he’s a father once sperm and egg meet. I think men will be ready to change once we start focusing the discussion on men.

  13. No offense taken at all. I’m all for healthy disagreement! :)

    I see it as a pragmatic issue as well, but I think that, socially, we’re about 90% of the way there with women and like 5% of the way there with men, so, pragmatically, we can make the most gains if we focus on male behaviour.

    I’m hoping for the day when we can tell males that manliness isn’t about screwing around so much as about responsibility and having the balls to do the right thing by a woman.

    As much as the Left hates the Christian notions of men protecting women, it at least gives men a positive, responsible role in male-female relations. Men who see it as their perogative to be irreponsible will not act nearly as well as men who see it as their masculine duty to be a protector.

    If that makes any sense…. hopefully! :)

  14. By biological responsibility, I meant that a woman is left with a human being growing inside her while the man is free to walk away and ignore the consequences.

    I am on board with regard to men. I am a no sex till marriage guy myself.

  15. Hi Bridget,

    I think hubby would rather have something like Famous Dave’s barbeque or Red Lobster while in Denver. Crab legs sound yummy at the moment. I’m thinking those Krispy Kremes might be a little too greasy just waking up from surgery … for him, not me :)

  16. J. Kaiser ~

    Well, the man is off the hook for nine months. I agree re: waiting for marriage – the idea of producing a child with a guy who can walk away from it just underscores how senseless the modern “sex = recreation” dogma really is.

    Hi Tammi,

    LOL. Yeah, KK might be a little too greasy… and sugary… and fatty. You don’t want him having a heart attack. There’s always to-go boxes for Red Lobster, right?

  17. “My comment was that only men pay child support, so they should have had to cough up their lunch money.”

    LOL. You are onto something there. Guys need to understand that there are life-long consequences to sex. Perhaps there are some exercises that could help drive this point home.

    I meet a whole range of guys – some are the typical guys running away from their responsibilities. But some love their kids but have to fight like crazy to see them. The scorned ladies keep them from seeing the kids in a lame attempt to get back at the guys.

    Why is it so hard for people to see that sex has consequences, even if no one gets pregnant or a disease?

  18. Neil,

    Why is it so hard for people to see that sex has consequences, even if no one gets pregnant or a disease?

    Yeah, I don’t know. Physical harm is the most obvious form of harm and the most preventable (modern technology having yet to preclude heartache), but somewhere, it became the only harm.

    The scorned ladies keep them from seeing the kids in a lame attempt to get back at the guys.

    Not that it’s right (because kids deserve a dad, and a man who wants to be a father should be able to see his kids), but I can kind of understand the situation. Really, though, what else do you think happens when you screw around with someone who isn’t trustworthy and doesn’t have your best interests at heart?

    Thanks for stopping in. :)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: