text:
Media bias in abortion doc's trial?
Paul Moses April 13, 2013 - 3:46pm
There is a lively debate over whether major national news organizations have ignored or downplayed the trial of a Philadelphia abortion doctor who is charged with murder in the deaths of seven babies allegedly born alive and one mother. It's a case that has already contributed to restrictions on abortion providers and one that pro-lifers argue deserves much more attention.Details in the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell are certainly sensational enough. For example, one of Gosnell's assistants testified that she "snipped" the necks of at least 10 babies delivered alive. In one case, she testified, the doctor joked that the baby was big enough to have walked to the bus stop. But Gosnell denies that the victims were born alive and also denies what prosecutors say is their late gestational stage -- as much as 30 weeks for the victim the doctor allegedly joked about. (Pennsylvania law bars abortions after 24 weeks, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.) Gosnell's lawyer, meanwhile, charged that his client, who is black, is the victim of racism through a "prosecutorial lynching." He said Gosnell had performed 16,000 abortions in his career, and up to 1,000 a year. Gosnell could be sentenced to death by lethal injection if convicted of murdering the seven babies.With the sensational charges made by both sides, the intense emotions (many of the witnesses are dissolving into tears), the high stakes and the important social issues being raised, the Gosnell trial is clearly a national story. It has received that treatment from the largest U.S. news organization, the Associated Press, which has covered the trial daily and moved lengthy articles not only to regional clients but on the national wire as well. So daily, national coverage is available to those who want it. The New York Times, having done an article in 2011 on how Gosnell's squalid clinic had escaped state oversight, ran a story on the trial's opening arguments. (To review daily coverage of the trial, check the Philadelphia Inquirer.)But there are some major news organizations, especially the television networks, showing no interest in the trial. Is that because of bias? Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple questioned some of the national outlets, including his own. That led Martin Baron, the editor of the Post, to respond: "We believe the story is deserving of coverage by our own staff, and we intend to send a reporter for the resumption of the trial next week. In retrospect, we should have sent a reporter sooner."Yes, the Gosnell trial is news. National news, available from the AP wire.But I would expect to see few news organizations from outside the region staff the trial on a daily basis. The Gosnell trial was projected to last six to eight weeks. It's rare for a trial to receive day-to-day national coverage nowadays. It's expensive, especially for the TV networks, which have to dispatch a crew for an extended period of time. (It's much easier to assail the media for not doing the coverage than it is to report on a two-month trial yourself.)With that said, media bias in coverage of abortion was established long ago when David Shaw delved into it in a 1990 series in the Los Angeles Times. He found that, often subconsciously, news organizations reported on abortion from the pro-choice perspective. This was especially so at the TV networks. It's not hard to make sure an individual story is balanced, and a good copy editor can remove the phrases that give away the reporter's frame of reference. But deciding what's news and what's not is subjective. Nearly a quarter-century later, Shaw's reporting still holds in that regard.
Commenting Guidelines
David N. --Your last stataement is mainly about the meanings and uses of words and what certain people or groups "believe". I don't think that the Gosnell uproar is about words and beliefs. What do you think is the main point to be made about the Gosness case? is is a moral one? If so, what is that point?
He is, it seems, a serial killer. The details are extremely gory, almost unbelievable. I would like to compare with how serial killers are covered.The Kevorkian trials were covered, although I imagine most media are pro-assisted suicide. Why the difference, I wonder.
I read Friedersdorf's story in The Atlantic about the coverage and was intrigued. Thanks for providing more context and links.FWIW, I went to ABC, NBC, and CBS evening news broadcast sites and plugged "gosnell" into the search engines. My little cursory investigation indicates that each of the networks broadcast a story about the clinic in January, 2011, but since the trial started has updated its Web site frequently (in the case of ABC and NBC, almost daily) since it started.Would the increasing number of Americans know that the trial coverage was ongoing from looking at the home page? Hard to say b/c that content changes so frequently, but as of a few minutes ago, I saw no link to a story about Gosnell on NBC Nightly News, ABC World News, or CBS Evening News home pages.So the networks haven't run updates on the broadcasts, and anybody who wanted info about that story would have to search for it actively. The more interesting question, of course, is whether there is still a pro-choice bias--and whether it is at work in the Gosnell trial coverage. I can think of several reasons why this story would not get as much play as others when weighed on the news values of impact, magnitude, conflict, oddity, proximity, or prominence. Moreover, Shaw's reportage is stellar, but it is 23 years old. Since 1990, many states have imposed stricter abortion laws, a sign that Americans are increasingly uncomfortable with unrestricted abortion. Could it be that the success of stricter abortion legislation has reduced the pro-choice pressures on coverage?
From the little I've read about this, it seems that it's asserted that the reason the trial wasn't being covered was because of a pro-choice bias in the press. But I don't know if that's really accurate - Gosnell's acts and trial are no more a good example of the pro-choice movement than, for instance, the acts and trials of those who murdered abortion providers would be a good example of the pro-life movement.
Rep. Chris Smith (Rep, NJ) gave a speech yesterday on the floor of the House of Representatives. He accused the national news media of a cover-up of the brutality and violence of abortion methods. If Dr. Gosnell had walked into a nursery and shot seven infants with an AR-15, it would be national news and the subject of presidential hand-wringing.What a nasty comment politicizing the horror of Gosnells abortion clinic!
It seems to me that the basic issue about the reporting or non-reporting of the Gosnell case has been articulated best by Gordon Sekulow and Matthew Clark in the Washington Post:"But the question remains: How can killing a newborn infant be illegal and shocking to the collective conscience, yet ending that same life moments, days or weeks before be perfectly legal and socially acceptable as long as the baby is still in the womb?"Yes, Dr. Gosnell seems to be a psychopath -- he kills easily and without concern for the dead. But the question is not "how can a person be such psychopath?", the relevant question is the one that Sekulow and Clark are approaching: what's the difference between ending the life of a child in a womb and ending the child's life outside of a womb? The ending of the child's life is the central moral issue, not the mental health of the person who kills.
Prof. Kaveny,Every abortionist is a serial killer.
Over two years ago over at Slate, Will Saletan and Amanda Marcotte wrote about the grand jury report on the Gosnell case. Saletan took some heat for it from liberal reporters, or so says this article..http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/04/12/kermit_gosnell_the_alleged_... Gosnell is found guilty, it seems to me that this question should be raised: can such a person possibly be sane?By the way, the District Attorney of Philadelphia who persisted in forcing the sexual abuse cases into court, was none other than Seth Williams. I assume he is the same Seth Williams who is behind this prosecution of Gosnell. If he is the same person, I say make that man the Attorney-General of the USA. Also by the way, Williams is African=American, which undercuts Gosnell's claim the case is racially inspired.
Thorin --What you say is true -- all abortionists are serial killers in a literal sense. But if they do not think they are killing human beings, then they are not murderers. It is unjust to call them and other pro-choice people murderers. No, you haven't done that, but the qualification should be made, or it will seal off the minds of such people against persuasion that they are wrong. We don't change minds by calling unjustified names.
A few things ...It is my understanding that the judge in this case long ago put a gag order on attorneys on both sides, presumably to ensure a fair trial for the accused. I suppose it doesn't matter now.When I did a search for this story as conservatives were breaking it earlier this week, I learned the trial has been going on for about 3-4 weeks, and that indeed outlets like The Nation and Slate have been covering it.As for the corporate media, I find it hard to think of them as little more than pawns for the Selling of Product. This case is disgusting, but it doesn't seem to have an attractive set of victims--only poor and desperate women who were preyed upon because a GOP governor thought that abortion clinics didn't need to be bothered with regulations.It seems there's a lot of blame to pass around on this horror, but I'm not sure conservative, corporate Americans are going to want their helping of it.
The Judi Arias murder trial is on 24 /7 on HLN i think for three weeks. ..
From Operation Rescue:"The conclusion drawn by the few media outlets that have bothered to cover the grisly Gosnell case is that this never happens elsewhere. Not according to Alisa LaPolt Snow, a lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, who made headlines just last week with her testimony in opposition to a bill before the Florida legislature that would protect infants born alive during abortions.Florida State Rep. Jim Boyd, R-Bradenton, had asked Snow, If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?Snows shocking response was that at Planned Parenthood, We believe that any decision thats made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician."http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exception-or-the-rule-gosnells-house-of...
Every abortionist is a serial killer.Thorin,If this is true, then it makes little sense for pro-lifers to complain that the Gosnell trial should be getting more national coverage (which I think it should be). They should instead be saying, "Why even put Gosnell on trial? He's just doing what other abortionists are doing. Maybe he's doing it a few months later, but they are all serial killers."In a way, those who are anti-abortion are, I think, hurting their own case against abortion, since they believe that an abortion at 9 weeks is just as much murder as abortion at 30 weeks. To make such a fuss about late-term abortions can't help but give the impression that if they are especially heinous, early abortions are not so bad.
The conclusion drawn by the few media outlets that have bothered to cover the grisly Gosnell case is that this never happens elsewhere. Not according to Alisa LaPolt Snow . . . Ann,This is egregiously unfair propaganda. I had an exchange with Charles Camosy about this on Catholic Moral Theology, which I am not going to repeat here. Snow was not there opposing medical care for born-alive infants, but two provisions of the bill that had little or nothing to do with its core provisions. She was asked questions she clearly was not prepared to answer, and even in the video that so many pro-lifers find so damning, she spends most of her time backing away from her initial statement. And finally, Planned Parenthood put out a clarifying statement about their position that made Snow's testimony irrelevant. One of the things that was so frustrating about the alleged reporting of this story was that there was actually no attempt to put the video clip in any kind of context. If you google the story, you see site after site repeating exactly the same thing in exactly the same words.
" But if they do not think they are killing human beings, then they are not murderers."Ann, by that logic Nazis ought not be called murderers, since they were convinced their victims were sub-humans.
If Gosnell is found guilty, it seems to me that this question should be raised: can such a person possibly be sane?
This, of course, gets into the thorny issue of mental illness and what is considered a mental illness, strictly speaking. From a psychiatric point of view, there is no evidence that Gosnell suffers from a psychiatric disorder that would make him not criminally responsible (like for example the young man who shot Giffords in Arizona and quite possibly the young man who shot up the theatre in Colarado).I heard a forensic psychiatrist one time explaining psychopathy and he did lay out the criteria, and it sounds like Gosnell. He may suffer from that clinical syndrome but that does not make him insane the way most people understand that term. FWIW, I think that there is no question that the lack of coverage is because of concern over the implications of this case on the pro-choice side. And, it does therefore raise the question of media bias.
Richard S. --If that were true of any of the Nazis, then they would not be murderers. But is that true -- did they really think they weren't dealing with human beings? I find that difficult to believe. Too many Jews have distinguished themselves in all their intellectual pursuits to think they're an inferior group. But it is also true taht we are sometimes responsible for our ignorance. If we suspect we are wrong about a serious mater, and we don't look into it to try to establish the truth, then we're responsible for our ignorance and at least to some degree we are then responsible for the consequences of our ignorance. If, say, you are hunting and you don't know if that thing ahead is a deer or a human being, but you suspect it is a human, but you don't try to find out. If you then shoot the thing and kill it, then you are responsible for the person's death. But if we don't know we're ignorant,if, say, if from where the hunter stands, the thing doesn't look like a person, and he honestly thinks, "That's a deer!", if he shoots it, he has made a terrible mistake, but he has not sinned.
David N. --That's one way to look at it. Another way is to think that, Yes, she said it because she meant it, and she know what she was talking about. But when she realized that it would shock others, she and Planned Parenthood tried to spin it to.My question is: why would she say such a thing if she didn't mean it? The question was clear, and so was her answer.
Mr. Nickol,No, it's not unfair propaganda. It is a clear expression of the first instincts of the Planned Parenthood representative, an instinct that is perfectly consistent with what Planned Parenthood believes--that babies can be disposed of whenever they are deemed inconvenient.The fact that all abortion is evil does not excuse Gonsell's actions, and no pro-lifer would argue that it does. The reason the Gonsell story should be getting attention, and hasn't been, is that it provides clear proof of what pro-lifers have long argued--that abortion logically leads to infanticide.
I also notice that the liberal press seems to be ignoring the main moral question: why is it wrong to kill a 20 week old fetus in a womb, but not outside of a womb? At least I haven't seen any of the liberal press get into the question. True, the AP reported on the trial daily, the Washington Post did have that one article about it. Slate tried to raise the issue at the beginning of the trial, and there have been a few other reports on the trial. But many of us (including both conservatives and some liberals) think that the *main* moral issue (the morality of choosing to kill and killing 20 week old fetuses) has not been addressed.We can also interpret all this blah-blahing about coverage/non-coverage of the story as a way of distracting the public from the central issue. True, we don't really know the motives of the reporters or the media companies, and not doubt some of the reporters didn't know there was a huge story going on, but surely some of them must have seen the daily AP wire reports. It's quite obvious that an extremely important story has mainly, though not entirely, been ignored by the liberal press. And even Fox picked up on it 3 weeks or so after the trial began.
"what Planned Parenthood believesthat babies can be disposed of whenever they are deemed inconvenient."Really? Why then do they offer pre-natal care? I've known people who worked at a Planned Parenthood - they were nice normal people, not baby-hating monsters.
Thorin, it is homicide under the law of PA to kill babies born alive-that is why Gosnell can be tried. Even people who assume abortion is unjustifiable homicide should not say that all abortionists are serial killers. Not even all mass murderers are serial killers. It is a special category bringing in motive and manner, not just body count. But Gosnell was, it seems to me.He reveled in cruelty, and took souvenirs (baby feet). So the question for me is what sort of attention do the papers give to other serial killers? This thread is about the coverage by the press- and that seems to me to be the salient comparison
" I can think of several reasons why this story would not get as much play as others when weighed on the news values of impact, magnitude, conflict, oddity, proximity, or prominence."Jean - to what extent do business criteria drive editorial decisions?I would think that the arc of the Gosnell story wouldn't be attractive to upscale young women, whom I perceive to be the uber-demographic - They have disposable income! They shop! They're susceptible to advertising! - for newspapers and television networks, and who of course are relatively pro-choice.
Ms. Olivier,You are exactly right about the main moral issue in the Gosnell case, and you are exactly right about why the media has ignored it.Ms. Watson,Planned Parenthood kills hundreds of thousands of unborn children every year, and it lobbies to kill even more around the world. It is a thoroughly evil institution. Prof. Kaveny,Yes, all abortionists are serial killers. That's what they do--they kill large numbers of unborn children for a living. They may not believe they are killing human beings, but they are, whether they believe it or not. Thankfully, the Catholic Church teaches clearly and authoritatively that abortion is the taking of human life, and the Church deserves great credit for its strong and prophetic voice on behalf of the unborn being done to death by the millions by abortionists around the world.
'I also notice that the liberal press seems to be ignoring the main moral question: why is it wrong to kill a 20 week old fetus in a womb, but not outside of a womb??"OOPS -- I must learn to edit better. This should have been:Why is it wrong to kill a 20 week old fetus OUTSIDE a womb, but not wrong to kill it INSIDE a womb?
Ann, it's a good question but you have to add several weeks to your example to make it meaningful. Apparently 20-week old fetuses who are live outside the womb do not exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterm_birth
By the way, while we are considering the grisly "details" of the Gosnell case, should we not also consider the grisly details of killing 20 week old fetuses inside the mother by tearing them apart, sucking out their brains, or sort of pickling them with saline solution?Someone also remarked that because we don't like to think about abortion, we don't, and that includes journalists. Hence the Gosnell "boycott".
My question is: why would she say such a thing if she didnt mean it? The question was clear, and so was her answer.Ann,Alisa LaPolt Snow was asked a question about abortion she was unprepared for, and she answered with the mantra of the pro-choice movementdecisions should be left to the mother and her doctor. If it is actually her position, and the position of Planned Parenthood, that an abortionist should have the right to kill an infant born alive as the result of an abortion, why did she back away from it, and why did Planned Parenthood issue a statement saying the opposite? If Snow was there representing the position of Planned Parenthood, do you think as a lobbyist she took it upon herself, or was instructed in advance, to back down if Planned Parenthood's position seemed to trouble the legislators?What kind of abortion advocacy group would Planned Parenthood be if its true position was that born-alive infants could be killed, but it keeps its true position to itself and denies it when there is a controversy? Planned Parenthood clinics don't do late-term abortions, and almost nobody else does, either. It is impossible to find accurate data on how many late-term abortions are performed (and I mean here abortions at the point which an aborted baby would be able to be saved by the best technology), but one estimate from Guttmacher was 0.8%, or a little over a thousand per year. Why would Planned Parenthood even have a policy on what happens if abortionists, outside their own clinics, performing 0.8% of the nations abortions, "botch" the job and the baby is born alive? It's important to remember that Snow was testifying in Florida, and it is already Florida law that if an abortion is performed past the point of viability, the doctor is obliged to use the abortion technique most likely to permit the baby to survive, and is further obliged to give the baby lifesaving care if it is born alive. That is the current law, not the proposed law. So Snow was being asked purely hypothetical questions. Even if she and Planned Parenthood were trying to defeat the new bill, it is already Florida law that doctors are obliged to save viable babies born alive as the result of abortion. Why in the world would Snow have not only opposed the new bill, but testified to the legislature that existing abortion law should be thrown out?
Many pro-lifers want to blur the distinction between abortion and infanticide. If they want to argue that there is no moral difference between killing in the womb and killing outside the womb, then it seems to me that's a perfectly legitimate position. But to argue that abortion is infanticide is to ignore the definitions of the two. I think that perhaps if there is a "political" reason why there is less coverage of the Gosnell trial in many major media outlets than one might expect, it is because there is a fear that pro-lifers will use a trial about infanticide as anti-abortion propaganda. If so, shame on the media. But it is not because the media is pro-infanticide.
"Planned Parenthood ... is a thoroughly evil institution. "I think it's easier for some people to dismiss all those at PP as evil - it's too much effort to try to figure out how normal people might work there. The fact is that just a fraction (3%) of what PP does has to do with abortion, and those abortions would not happen if women did not come there to get them. Maybe you might ask why so many women, about 20% of them Catholic women, decide to get abortions, instead of demonizing the doctors they go to.
"Ive known people who worked at a Planned Parenthood they were nice normal people, not baby-hating monsters."Crystal, this is an interesting distinction. It reminds me of a radio interview I once heard during the waning days of apartheid, in which a veteran South African journalist remarked that it could be difficult for a journalist, or anyone, to reconcile the charming and cultured beneficiaries of apartheid with the gross injustice of the system.We've seen the same sort of reconciliation difficulty (category error?) here on dotCom in the past, when considering how teachers unions subvert school reform in failing school systems, and yet so many teachers we know, including members of our own families, are talented and dedicated professionals who give generously to their children.People who seem normal enough are capable of banding together, organizing, and foisting monstrous injustices on victims. And their participation in these systems of injustice really is culpable to one degree or another.
The fact is that it has not been demonstrated that the fetus is a human person. There is no science to it. Human DNA yes but not a human person. Nor is this de fide. This doctor is being used to paint a broad brush over all abortions. The frequent posts for a weekend show the attraction of this issue---the constant easing of the Catholic conscience while avoiding those live children dying in squalor.
Jean to what extent do business criteria drive editorial decisions?I would think that the arc of the Gosnell story wouldnt be attractive to upscale young women, whom I perceive to be the uber-demographic They have disposable income! They shop! Theyre susceptible to advertising! for newspapers and television networks, and who of course are relatively pro-choice.Jim - Young women are not the demographic for commercial evening news broadcasts, which were the focus of my comment. (The best indicator of audience is the commercials, and evening news broadcasts are rife with ads for arthritis, constipation, ED, and low-T nostrums--things that appeal to folks my age). A North Korea with a nutbar leader and nuclear warhead (maybe); gun violence that continues in the wake of Sandy Hook. and the attendant political debates about gun control roiling in a dysfunctional Congress; the civil war in Syria with hundreds of thousand of people dead or forced into refugee camps and that continues to hold out the possibility of U.S. military intervention--all these stories arguably have more magnitude and impact to demographic of these programs than an abortion clinic in Pennsylvania.I don't want to talk with Catholics on here about abortion per se, though I do follow and think prayerfully about what I read on these threads. So, just sticking to the issue of coverage, I will say that I think it is very easy for news outlets to dismiss Gosnell's operation as a "rogue clinic" and not typical of most clinics that offer a variety of reproductive control services because a) it was run by a black doctor, b) the employees were largely foreign, and c) the clientele was largely poor and non-white. No, that doesn't say anything very flattering about editorial decisions, but I think trying to chalk up lack of coverage to pressure from the pro-choice contingent (which seems to be less able to block abortion restriction laws) fails to look at all the angles and complexities here.Sorry for the length of the post.
Clarification: "variety of reproductive control services" is not meant euphemistically but to acknowledge that most abortion clinics also offer condoms, diaphragm fittings, pelvic examinations, and prescriptions for birth control pills. The fact that Gosnell's clinic seems to have offered only abortions, and many of those to women desperate to circumvent Pennsylvania's 20-week limit, makes it very different from most other clinics of this type.
Crystal, this is an interesting distinction. It reminds me of a radio interview I once heard during the waning days of apartheid . . . Jim, Please note that Crystal was responding to a statement that Planned Parenthood believes "that babies can be disposed of whenever they are deemed inconvenient. First of all, how do we even determine what Planned Parenthood believes? Is there any official document from Planned Parenthood saying that "babies can be disposed of whenever they are deemed inconvenient"? Does anyone suppose there are secret, internal documents that say such a thing? Does Planned Parenthood believe that if parents want to go out for dinner and a movie and can't find a babysitter, they can dispose of their baby?While it's certainly correct that nice people can band together and support evil causes, considering the preposterous statement by Thorin that Crystal was responding to, her response was a reasonable one.
While it seems true that people can self-deceive for various reasons (we pro-lifers are quick to point out the incongruity of PP (for example) "caring" for women, yet ready to steer them to permit greater profitability for the medical and pharmaceutical establishment) the same is also true for many people who oppose abortion, even for very good reasons.The challenge to be able to oppose abortion, yet be willing to work, and yes, even sacrifice, for those people who find their life choices very limited by poverty or any host of issues is a valid one thrown back at the pro-life movement, especially its political arm.People have been accusing pro-lifers, and often wrongly, of not caring for babies after they are born. The way to address this perception is not to stomp our ideological foot and yell, "Do too!" The option is to enter into dialoguye and discussion. Not for the purpose of converting or being converted. But simply to understand.And if one considers pro-life neighbors to be the enemy, it would make more sense to get a better handle on why so many tens of millions of Americans can look the other way while hundreds of thousands of fetuses are being aborted.Playing the Shoah card hasn't worked too well the past forty years. Isn't it time to find another approach?
People have been accusing pro-lifers, and often wrongly, of not caring for babies after they are born. Todd,In my very biased, bleeding-heart liberal opinion, this charge is fair when made against political pro-lifers. We see a lot of emphasis from pro-life politicians on putting roadblocks in the way of women seeking abortions, but we do not see a "fair and balanced" approach from them to helping women with unplanned pregnancies. To be fair, I haven't done a survey of all the anti-abortion bills introduced in states recently, but I would be amazed if a significant number of them on the one hand make abortions harder to get, but on the other hand have provisions to help women with unplanned pregnancies, or to help prevent unplanned pregnancies in the first place.The pro-life movement in general bends over backwards to absolve women who procure abortions of any culpability for their actions. Such women are acknowledged to be "between a rock and a hard place," and absolved (of course) as dupes and victims of the abortion industry. No pro-lifer will suggest a woman who has an abortion should be held legally responsible in any way whatsoever. Such understanding and compassion may be commendable, but when pro-lifers realize what a difficult position women with unplanned pregnancies are in, and then offer no other solution than making it ever more difficult to procure an abortion, one has to question whether what appears to be compassion for women in difficult situations is merely political expediency. The American people simply will not accept holding women legally accountable for procuring abortions, pro-lifers know it, and so they claim sympathy and compassion for women in difficult situations but propose nothing whatsoever to help them.
Mr. Nickol,No, my comment isn't preposterous. Planned Parenthood's slogan is "evey child a wanted child." If you want to figure out what Planned Parenthood thinks should happen to children who aren't wanted, I suggest examining the severed limbs of unborn children that Planned Parenthood consigns to the garbage after it is done killing them. That is what Planned Parenthood does; that is what Planned Parenthood believes. (And, yes, it is appropriate to refer to the human beings killed by Planned Parenthood as "babies" or "children." Normal people refer to an unborn child as a baby unless a decision has been made to kill it; it is only then that it becomes a "fetus" or an "embryo" or a "product of conception" or whatever euphemism will be used to mask reality).
Mr. Mazzella,Pope Francis disagrees with you: "The moral problem of abortion is of a pre-religious nature because the genetic code is written in a person at the moment of conception. A human being is there. I separate the topic of abortion from any specifically religious notions. It is a scientific problem. Not to allow the further development of a being which already has all the genetic code of a human being is not ethical. The right to life is the first among human rights. To abort a child is to kill someone who cannot defend himself."
This is a conflicting subject for me. I don't like killing or suffering. I'm pretty much a pacifist, I'm against the death penalty, I'm a vegetarian, and if I find a bug in the house, I catch it and put it safely outside. I don't like the idea of abortion and I support what I think will keep people from wanting or needing one - contraception and sex ed and prenatal care. But I think PP is a good place - it helps poor women get cancer screenings and birth control and treatment for infections - that's 90+% of what they do. Maybe closing down all the PPs in the country will lessen professionally done legal abortions, but it won't do away with abortion and women will suffer, especially poor women. PP is not the origin of abortion, it's a response to a desire/need that many people just don't seem to want to address straightforwardly.
Thorin,To the extent that it makes sense to say what Planned Parenthood "believes," I have no objection to saying the organization believes in abortion. But in the context of a discussion of the Gosnell trial or any other legal aspect of abortion it is indeed preposterous to say Planned Parenthood believes that babies can be disposed of whenever they are deemed inconvenient. It is to blur, either willfully or through fuzzy thinking, the distinction between abortion and infanticide. As I said above, even if you wish to claim abortion and infanticide are morally equivalent, they are not identical. As much as you may object to the distinction, killing an unborn child is abortion, and killing a child that has been born is infanticide. There is no evidence to claim that Planned Parenthood "believes in" infanticide, and no evidence that the promote or excuse it. If you want to invent your own definition of infanticide, go ahead, but make it clear that it is your own definition and not the definition as understood by the law, by dictionaries, or by the average person. I personally think your rhetoric alienates people who would like to support at least part of the pro-life agenda but who do not want to be seen as aligning themselves with those who make extreme statements and wild accusations.
Ann,It seems to me that the Gosnell case, looked at dispassionatelywhich is admittedly difficult for almost anyone to doshows that just like any other medical providers, abortion clinics need to be watched by state and local health authorities, and when there are complaints about them, those complaints should be investigated. Gosnell's clinic wasn't inspected for 17 years, and complaints against it were ignored. In New York City, 26,000 restaurants and other food establishments are inspected yearly, and each one must display the grade it received prominently in its front window (provided it is not shut down). How hard can it be to inspect abortion clinics?Unquestionably Gosnell was doing ghoulish things that should never happen anywhere. But he was breaking the law. I think many pro-lifers would like to see extensive media coverage so they could say, "See! This is the abortion industry!" But of course Gosnell is in no way representative of abortion providers in the United States. Many pro-lifers, in my opinion, want to make pro-life, anti-abortion propaganda out of the Gosnell case, and there really is no rational basis for doing so. The way people use words is relevant, because abortion is not infanticide. I don't want to get into the debate again about whether or not it is legitimate to call an unborn child a child or a baby. In some cases it is perfectly natural to do so. But I hope think you may agree that when pro-lifers call abortionists "baby killers," they have crossed a line and are no longer engaging in civil, rational discourse. And abortion is not infanticide, no matter how some pro-lifers want to confuse the two. Exactly why Gosnell got away with what he did (or allegedly did, since he has not yet been convicted) is a separate question, I think, than the lessons from the Gosnell trial. If pro-choice officials didn't want to expose abuses in the abortion industry because they were concerned it would hurt their cause, than that is reprehensible. But I do think there is some truth to the idea that the pro-life movement, by demonizing abortionists, caused many doctors to shun abortion not for their own moral reasons, but because they feared the pro-life movement, and that is partly responsible for the fact that women go to "abortion mills" rather than put themselves in the care of their own obstetricians and gynecologists.
In today's NYT Ross Douthat reflects on two conflicting ideals of the American journalism profession: the necessity to remain neutral in presenting stories with more than one side and the necessity to crusade for the truth of one side or another. He thinks that the Gospel reporting/non-reporting brouhaha is a product of this tension.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/opinion/sunday/douthat-media-balance-a... is it the function of the press, including reporters, to report *both* on the facts of a story and on the purported morality involved in the story? Is the choice whether or not to report on a story *itself* a moral decision?
My first newspaper editor used to say that there are two unheralded editors at every newspaper, Whim and Caprice. Fifty years in the business proved to me he was right. Back at 10:22 Jean Raber noted some decisive factors as far as conscious decision-making is involved in Gosnell coverage. I would add that a long court trial -- which the prestige media think they have to staff with their own people -- is no longer the fun it was during the 1930s. The bean counters mumble about hotel and restaurant bills, and readers no longer have an attention span, so the reporter has to keep repeating herself every day, at the cost of "precious" space.Ann Oliver's 5:57 question about the choice of whether to cover the story is a good one. That (as opposed to how the story is written if it is written) is where unconscious bias will lie. I have never seen either Whim or Caprice spend much time thinking about the morality of that decision.
"The moral problem of abortion is of a pre-religious nature because the genetic code is written in a person at the moment of conception."The genetic code is there, but conception does not automatically produce a single unique human being. Twins and multiples can form after conception. And twins can also fuse back into a single individual."A human being is there. I separate the topic of abortion from any specifically religious notions. It is a scientific problem. Not to allow the further development of a being which already has all the genetic code of a human being is not ethical. The right to life is the first among human rights. To abort a child is to kill someone who cannot defend himself.How do we define "human being"? Does it require brain activity as we might define it at the other end? That's 20-24 weeks. A heartbeat? That's eight to ten weeks. The sad truth of abortion is that people are desperate for many reasons. But abortion is a choice millions of women have made freely. How to persuade them not to in the future? It seems that pro-lifers, especially political pro-lifers may have a choice between being right and imposing that correctness by law, or by helping to create a society where it is easy and desirable to protect the innocent. Do they want to be right, or do they want to be successful?
I think Tom Blackburn raises a good point: The news biz is in a state of flux. Newspapers and news gathering syndicates (e.g., AP, Reuters, anybody remember UPI?) have fewer resources to pay for professional coverage.If you include the blogosphere and citizen journalists, there is far more opinion and analysis of many stories than there is actual reportage.Interesting sidebar: Checked the NCR home page. No links to the Gosnell trial that I saw. When I searched for "Gosnell" using the NCR search engine, I got two hits, one filed in January 2011, and the second one filed Friday (April 12). I don't know anything about NCR's budget resources or staff, but it strikes me as odd that a news outlet that claims it is a "source that stands as one of the few independent journalistic outlets for Catholics and others who struggle with the complex moral and societal issues of the day" would have less coverage than the secular commercial evening news broadcast media.
I think it's true, as Tom Blackburn says, that the cost of dispatching a reporter to Philadelphia for six to eight weeks would discourage some news organizations from covering this case. Also, having covered quite a few trials of national interest back in the 1980s, I think it would be more difficult to hold the public's attention nowadays for a lengthy case. That, too, would make it less likely that any trial will receive daily coverage, whether locally or nationally.Keep in mind, though, that the AP coverage is available to most American news organizations. A check of LexisNexis and Google News showed relatively few news organizations using the AP coverage. Also, Deacon Greg Kandra, an experienced TV newsman, notes that the networks can get footage from their Philadelphia affiliates: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2013/04/is-media-bias-tainting... Oliver, I think Ross Douthat misses the mark on this particular column. The tension he describes certainly exists, but it has nothing to do with the coverage of this story. It's a news story, to be covered in an evenhanded way so that readers can reach informed opinions of their own.
A really hot topic this one. Rightly so. I am not convinced it is at all possible to have a rational discussion of this one. Perhaps we can come closer to an understanding the real issues if we replace the terms "pro-life" with "unable to believe abortion is defensible in any circumstance" and"pro-choice" with "able to believe abortion is defensible in some circumstances".By "understanding" I mean we apply a bit more rationalization. Somewhat similar to the rationalizations that have allowed so many of us for more than half a century to defend the mutilation and killing of tens of thousands of utterly defenseless human beings in a matter of moments in the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. It usually goes like this: "Those were awful, tragic events but they saved so many lives".If one truly wishes to be taken seriously as "pro-life" one cannot expect anyone to allow them the luxury of choosing which lives they cherish. I wishI could in all honesty ascribe the term "pro-life" to myself. While I am obviously as capable of as much wishful self-perception as anyone, seeing myself as that remarkable is beyond even my arrogance.As for the fellow on trial, this is yet another media feast. He will be convicted or not.To my often confused mind the primary question this trial raises is how much more can we turn over to our voyeuristic selves the issue of justice. Trial in the public squareseems a reasonable notion. All that is needed is the conviction we are all perfectat all moments and in all places. We'll make up the rules as we go.Is there media bias on this topic? Yes. It is identified by its inconsistency.
"Its a news story, to be covered in an evenhanded way so that readers can reach informed opinions of their own."Paul M. --It is indeed it *is* a story to be covered. And the big question now is: why *hasn't* it been properly? Why have complaints about the clinic gone on for many, many years, but the clinic hasn't been inspected in 16 years. Even tatoo parlors are inspected every year. Hmmmm.Is Seth Williams, the DA who has pushed this case and the abuse case against the Philadelphia Archdiocese, the reason something is finally being done about it? Nobody else seems to have shown any real interest.
About the Author
Paul Moses, a professor of journalism at Brooklyn College/CUNY, is the author of The Saint and the Sultan: The Crusades, Islam and Francis of Assisi's Mission of Peace (Doubleday, 2009).


text:
The jury is still out on how tropical storms will change as climate warms, but rising sea levels will almost certainly place more coastal property at risk of flooding, says a team of scientists writing in the journal Nature.
Sea level
|Fields of interest
|Robert Sandstrom
|Graduate Student
|Paleo sea level reconstructions through coastal geomorphology and marine carbonate dating.
December 05, 2013
August 08, 2013
In the northern hemisphere, ice sheets ebb and flow in 100,000-year cycles, driven by varying amounts of sunlight falling on Earth's surface as its orbit and orientation toward the sun changes. But astronomical variations alone cannot explain why ice ages develop gradually but end quickly, in a few thousand years. Though the last ice age saw several peak-periods of sunlight, it was the last one—about 10,000 years ago—that caused the ice to withdraw from much of Europe and North America.
March 14, 2012
The seas are creeping higher as the planet warms, but scientists have not yet reached a consensus about how high they may go. Projections for the year 2100 range from inches to several feet, or more. The sub-tropical islands of Bermuda and the Bahamas contain important sites where researchers have gone looking for answers. By pinpointing where shorelines stood on cliffs and reefs there during an extremely warm period 400,000 years ago, they hope to narrow the range of global sea-level projections for the future.
September 15, 2011
The seas are rising, as they have during past periods of warming in earth's history. Estimates of how high they will go in the next few thousand years range from five meters, putting greater Miami underwater, to 40 meters, wiping most of Florida off the map. "The range of estimates is huge to the point of meaninglessness," says
, a climate scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
February 04, 2010
Scientists aboard the research ship the JOIDES Resolution recently drilled two kilometers into Earth's crust, setting a new record for the deepest hole drilled through the seafloor on a single expedition.
July 27, 2009
A new study of sea level fluctuations over the last 22,000 years is the latest to predict that rising seas could reach close to one meter by the end of this century, consistent with the most recent sea level projections made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
March 13, 2009
Warming Climate Drives Plankton and Penguins Poleward
Adélie penguins are flocking closer to the South Pole. A new study in the leading journal Science explains why: they're following the food supply, which is moving southward with changing climate.
September 04, 2008
North American Ice Sheet Dwindled Fast in Conditions Like Today's
In the face of warming climate, researchers have yet to agree on how much and how quickly melting of the Greenland ice sheet may contribute to sea level rise.
|Rebuilders: Solutions with Klaus Jacob
|Basal Plumbing for the Changing (ice) Masses
|Earth Science Colloquium
|CO2, Sea Level, and Isostasy: Looking to the Past to Predict the Future
|Earth Science Colloquium
|Antarctica's Leaky Basement
|Implications for Ice Sheet Dynamics, Paleoclimate Records and Microbiology
|NOVA | Secrets Beneath the Ice
|Featuring LDEO Scientist Robin Bell
|The Ice Beneath Their Feet
|Two Scientists, One Frigid Continent, and the Thrill of Discovery
|Polar Regions
|Polar Research at Lamont
|Changes in the Arctic and Antarctic
|Featuring LDEO scientist Robin Bell
|A Slippery Slope?
|The Water World Beneath the Changing Ice Sheets

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Location: LA 101
Hours: MW 10:00-11:00; F 8:00-9:00
Phone: 406 243-5793
Fax: 406 243-5313
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Curriculum Vita
"The aspects of things that are most important for us are hidden because of their simplicity and familiarity," wrote Wittgenstein.
Informed by respect for things hidden in plain sight, much of my work probes the fallacies of salience, the mystique of publicity, the slanting of attention itself. A paper in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, for example, investigates the use of public-relations techniques in cancer screening.
As a humanist, my field of inquiry ranges from literary history to medicine. I'm the author of a number of books, including three published by Northwestern University Press, as well as articles in venues recently including Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Journal of Medical Ethics, Salmagundi, Philosophy and Literature, Journal of the Historical Society, and Raritan. For Seeds of Mortality, a reflection on cancer and culture, I received the 2004 PEN Award for the Art of the Essay; for Fool's Paradise, a critical study of the pop psychology movement, the Popular Culture Association's award for the best book of 2005 by a single author. Each of my books published by Northwestern University Press will soon be available for electronic delivery.
A study of the placebo effect as seen through the eyes of a humanist—To Feel What Others Feel: Social Sources of the Placebo Effect—has recently been published by University of California Medical Humanities Press.
About this study Frederick Crews has written:
No other contemporary writer, as far as I know, is at once so steadily rational and so profoundly humane as Stewart Justman. He has given us a number of books that expertly combine social and medical history, literary analysis, and compelling moral reflection. To Feel What Others Feel is Justman at his very best. By illuminating the social dimension of the placebo effect, he resolves the paradoxes and exposes the hypocrisies that surround it. This brilliant work can be of use to every thoughtful person who administers care to others.
Ivan R. Dee has written:
Stewart Justman, who is one of our national treasures as an intelligent layman confronting modern medicine, has written a book that is sure to provoke serious thought. His investigation of the social character of the placebo effect is a brilliant tour de force.
A companion volume on the nocebo effect is forthcoming, to be published by Palgrave. The Nocebo Effect: Overdiagnosis and Its Costs documents the transformation of normal problems into medical ones, bringing out the risks of this inflationary practice—high among them that people labeled as sick may find themselves living up to their sickness through the alchemy of the nocebo effect. As I argue, the practice of overdiagnosis is sustained by the climate of distorted attention and false salience in which medical information now circulates. This is the only study to consider the effects of diagnostic inflation on the diagnosed.
Selected Publications
"Deception and Transparency in Placebo Research," Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 86 (2013): 323-31. As words come to resemble therapeutic agents in their own right, it's only to be expected that experimenters would use language in subtly leading and misleading ways to elicit the effects they are looking for.
"Pills in a Pretty Box," forthcoming in Placebo Talks: Modern Perspectives on Placebos in Society, ed. Amir Raz and Cory Harris (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). In discussions of antidepressants it is sometimes overlooked that one who takes them does so in tandem with millions of others, as if swept up in a common wave.
"Placebos in the Clinic," Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 106 (2013): 208-09. The preference for placebos with an appearance of medical legitimacy suggests that doctors are uneasy with the practice of deception even if they are not about to abandon it.
To Feel as Others Feel: Social Sources of the Placebo Effect, University of California Medical Humanities Press, 2013. See http://escholarship-ucmedicalhumanities.lulu.com/spotlight. A humanist looks at the placebo effect, taking into account both its history and its ambiguity and bringing out the more questionable potential of some health fashions, trends and movements of our own time.
"Placebo: The Lie That Comes True?", Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (2013): 243-48. We should consider the placebo effect as a therapeutic benefit arising from the conscientious performance of the rituals of good medicine, not as a resource to be tapped by the use of trickery (with equivocations counting as trickery) or dispensed in the form of pills.
"Artificial Epidemics," published for e-readers by Now and Then Reader. In the absence of appropriately discerning methods, the screening of large populations is bound to create problems.
The Nocebo Effect: Overdiagnosis and Its Costs, forthcoming from Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. As normal conditions are branded as medical issues, they acquire powerful, suggestive labels that readily come to life in our minds and bodies.
"Pills in a Pretty Box," forthcoming in Placebo Talks: Modern Perspectives on Placebos in Society, ed. Amir Raz and Cory Harris (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). In discussions of antidepressants it is sometimes overlooked that one who takes them does so in tandem with millions of others, as if swept up in a common wave.
"The Medicalization of Misspelling: DSM and the Management of Life," forthcoming in Academic Questions. Published, Online First, July 25, 2015. To a hammer everything looks like a nail, and to the DSM everything, even misspelling, looks like a disorder.
"Trauma for Everyone: How PTSD Became the Malady of Millions," published for e-readers by Now and Then Reader, May 2015. PTSD comports uneasily with the DSM diagnostic system, and one doubts that the implications of mixing psychiatric diagnosis and oppositional polemics were well thought out at the time.
"ADHD: Diagnosis and Stereotypy," forthcoming in Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry. Like a stereotype, the ADHD diagnosis is highly connotative, distorts interpretation, replicates itself and marks its objects.
"The Finasteride Riddle," Journal of Symptoms and Signs 3 (2014): 154-59. It's because PSA testing grew into a mass movement, with the excesses inseparable from such a movement, that the urologists who set this phenomenon going are now looking for ways to rein in its harms.
"Can I Author Myself? The Limits of Transformation," forthcoming in Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. One reason you can't remake your life in the image of a story is that life is not to be mistaken for story in the first place.
"The Folly of Systems: The Satiric Tradition and Mental Disorders," Philosophy and Literature 37 (2013): 472-85. "Who can sufficiently speak of these symptoms?" asks Burton.
"Deceit and Transparency in Placebo Research," Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 86 (2013): 323-31. The trickery of placebo experimentation goes beyond straightforward lies to include the use of artful ambiguities, half-truths, and deliberate omissions in informational scripts and "verbal suggestions."
To Feel as Others Feel: Social Sources of the Placebo Effect, University of California Medical Humanities Press, 2012. The placebo effect can't be reduced to the expectation of a patient in a social vacuum like those engineered in many studies where placebos serve either as controls or the focus of research. It is a social phenomenon with a life of its own, just as a social movement served as the carrier of the mysterious energy known as Mesmerism—the object of the first scientific investigation of the placebo effect. Mesmerism drew followers as if socially magnetic.
"Artificial Epidemics," published for e-readers by Now and Then. In the absence of appropriately discerning methods, the screening of large populations is bound to create problems.
"Do No Harm: A Case in Point," Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 55 (2012): 291-98. As the transcript of a charged meeting shows, the principle of avoiding harm is far from an inert doctrine without application to medicine.
"Uninformed Consent: Mass Screening for Prostate Cancer," Bioethics 26 (2012): 143-48. The full implications of the harm to which ill-informed men have subjected themselves during the PSA era are now becoming manifest.
"What's Wrong with Chemoprevention of Prostate Cancer?", American Journal of Bioethics, December 2011. This article was posted as a "target" for commentaries, to which I reply in "Forfeited Health: A Reply to My Critics" (online only). If not for the unintended consequences of PSA testing, would we even be discussing the preventive use of drugs associated with aggressive cancer?
"To Feel What Others Feel: Two Episodes from 18th-Century Medicine," Medical Humanities 37 (2011): 34-37; published online in advance of print. Neither a tree nor water could be magnetized, but the followers of Mesmerism might still be magnetized to one another.
"The Power of Rhetoric: Two Healing Movements," Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 84 (2011): 15-25. By professing to be in touch with a power in the human body, both doctrines [EMDR and Mesmerism] acquire real power in the form of a following. An alternate text of this article is available from the author.
"From Medicine to Psychotherapy: The Placebo Effect," History of the Human Sciences 24 (2011): 95-107. Even as the routine use of placebos in medical practice lost legitimacy, the placebo effect in the form of suggestion flourished in the practice of psychotherapy.
"Lying About Placebos," Skeptic 16:2 (2011): 41-44. Can placebos survive unblinding?
"How Did the PSA System Arise?", Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 103 (2010): 309-12. If you search Amazon for "cancer awareness," you will find knee socks, pen, lanyards, and stickers, but no books.
"Imagination's Trickery: The Discovery of the Placebo Effect," Journal of the Historical Society 10 (2010): 57-73. We cannot afford to overlook our vulnerability to medical delusions, one of the discoveries of the Enlightenment.
"Reticence in Action: The Antisepsis Controversy," Journal of the Historical Society 9 (2009): 427-41. While hospitals could be likened to fields of death, the thought that not chance but the surgeon was killing patients was not so readily admitted.
"A Preventive Slippery Slope," Hastings Center Report, March-April 2009. When the PSA revolution got going twenty years ago no one could have intended the ensuing epidemic of prostate cancer.
Do No Harm: How a Magic Bullet for Prostate Cancer Became a Medical Quandary. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2008. The finasteride controversy is important not only in itself and as an omen of the future conundrums of chemoprevention but as an instance and marker of the trend toward population-based medicine. Reviewed in New England Journal of MedicineJune 5, 2008. [Note: On Dec. 1, 2010 the FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee recommended against the use of finasteride and dutasteride for chemoprevention. This book was cited in the course of discussion.]
Seeds of Mortality: The Public and Private Worlds of Cancer. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2003. Recipient of the 2004 PEN Award for the Art of the Essay. Polls showing that 90 percent of respondents would like to be told they are dying bring to mind elections where 99 percent vote for the anointed candidate.
"Abuse of the Dead: A Comment on 'American Despair in an Age of Hope,'" forthcoming in Salmagundi. Concerning the suicide of Col. Theodore S. Westhusing in Iraq, June 2005.
"Literature and Propaganda," Salamgundi 174-75 (2012): 203-21. Concurrently with the circulation of propaganda stories about Muhammad, the mobilization of military and intellectual power against Islam, and the attempt to argue the rival religion out of existence by the force of superior dialectic, Latin Europe engaged in commerce and cultural commerce with its adversary.
"From Aesop to Orwell: The Roots of Doubletalk," Connor Court Quarterly (Australia), April 2012. Chernyshevsky saturates with vagueness the most earthbound and detailed of all literary forms, a form which Orwell himself practiced and in whose tradition he was steeped: the novel.
"The Advertisement of Guilt," Soundings 93.1-2 (2010): 163-73. They protest not their innocence but their guilt, and they protest too much.
"Oriental Tales and Great Expectations," Dickens Quarterly, 27 (2010): 38-47. Some of the core tales of the Arabian Nights are devoid of the marvelous, except insofar as the extravagance of human delusions is marvelous in itself.
"Bibliotherapy: Literature as Exploration Reconsidered," Academic Questions 23 (2010): 125-35. The author dislikes "dogmatic ideas and fixed responses," except her own.
"Stiva's Idiotic Grin," Philosophy and Literature 33 (2009): 427-34. Nothing is better able to render the details and dynamics of the ego's fantasy life than fiction itself, capable though fiction may also be of playing with our minds and confusing our vision.
"Dr. Humbert," Raritan, Fall 2009: 33-39. A theoretically ideal patient, highly intelligent, well versed in the conventions of psychiatry, willing to tell all, an anthology of symptoms, is revealed as both ruthless and incurable.
"Converts and the Novel," Philosophy and Literature 32 (2008): 359-72. The moral life of humanity is so complex, and the forces bearing on the convert so strong and so many--including threats, enticements, and the alluring prospect, or at least hope, of being embraced rather than despised by one's fellow creatures--that for whatever is known about Jews who embraced Christianity, more must remain unknown if not unknowable.
"Tolstoy's Wisdom and Folly: A Review of Gary Saul Morson's Anna Karenina in Our Time: Seeing More Wisely," Literary Imagination 10 (2008): 352-57. In every question of interpretation Morson's appeal is to the text--sometimes to a passage perceptibly inflected with irony, sometimes to a clause folded in the middle of a sentence, sometimes to an explicit editorial comment, sometimes to entire patterns, but in any case to the page itself.
"Literature and the Turn from History," Literary Imagination 10 (2008): 25-35. While no one would deny that many things are excluded from representation in Jane Austen's pages, the same is true of any work of fiction.
"The Secularism of Fiction: A Medieval Source," Literary Imagination 10 (2008): 127-41. Although our terminology disposes us to think of Christian civilization and Islamic civilization as walled kingdoms, each complete unto itself and a stranger to the other, these worlds were not hermetically sealed.
"The Uncaged Bird: Pop Psychology and Its Sources," Salmagundi, Winter 2008. In the very things that distinguish it from traditional advice literature--its tone of accusation and rhetoric of rights, both derivatives of the 1960s--pop psychology as we know it bears the sign of its origin.
Shakespeare: The Drama of Generations. Delhi: Macmillan, 2007. The flash of brilliance, the leap out of the ordinary, the break with existing practice, the violation of norms, the sudden discontinuity--all exert a powerful attraction.
Literature and Human Equality. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2006. The elevation of commoners into positions of importance not only changed the appearance of literature but made possible new ways of constructing a tale.
Fool's Paradise: The Unreal World of Pop Psychology. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2005. Recipient of the Popular Culture Association's Ray and Pat Browne Award for the best book of 2005 by a single author. Martin Luther King proclaims that the time has come for freedom, Phil McGraw that that time has come for wellbeing.
"All Is Not As It Should Be: The Nature of Liberal Guilt," Salmagundi, Summer 2004. What can be more futile than fretting over the past?
The Springs of Liberty: The Satiric Tradition and Freedom of Speech. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1999. If the novel is unbound by the presuppositions of other genres (thus constituting a sort of supergenre), the freedom of satire is such that it overflows every generic boundary and its power such that it animates different genres in the first place.
The Psychological Mystique. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1998. Psychology is the clue to all things: he who understands the formation of ideas can reform the world.
"Freud and His Nephew," Social Research, Summer 1994: 457-76. "Bernays aspired to be a sort of practical Freud, emancipating people from the past and correcting the malfunctions of an industrial society." Cited as recommended reading in American Psychological Association Monitor, December 2009.
Online publications:
"Science in Wonderland: A Case in Point" published Nov. 25, 2008 on Butterfliesandwheels.com, a website devoted to "fighting fashionable nonsense." Prevention is so strongly associated with the utopian tradition, and utopian notions continue to exert such attraction, that even medical research may find itself drawn to utopianism by a kind of gravitational pull.
"Investment in the Placebo Effect" published August 3, 2008 on Butterfliesandwheels.com. Psychotherapy is a playground of placebo effects.
"Preventing the Risks of Prostate Cancer Screening," Bioethics Forum, 04/07/09. The more questionable mass screening for prostate cancer looks--and in the light of recent studies its benefits look dubious indeed--the better appears finasteride.
Position Papers
Storm Clouds: The "Warning Signs" Fallacy. The notion that shocking events are preceded by legible warnings, and could therefore have been prevented if only the warnings were heeded, obscures the self-evident truth that it's easier to predict events after they occur. To view, click HERE.
Dirty Hands: On Margarethe von Trotta's "Die Andere Frau." Guided by the film's leanings, we credit Vera with the superior truth--the authenticity--of one who has pierced the falsity of bourgeois existence. To view, click HERE.
Pills That Talk: Therapy and the Marketplace. Advertised drugs yield psychological rewards without the bother of psychotherapy. To view, click HERE.


text:
So long, Catholic Boy Scouts?
David Gibson January 28, 2013 - 3:53pm
Surprising news:
Boy Scouts of America Says Discussing End to Ban on Gay MembersBy REUTERSDALLAS (Reuters) - Boy Scouts of America is discussing ending a longstanding ban on gay members and whether to allow local organizations to decide their own policy, a spokesman said on Monday.Lifting the ban would mark a dramatic reversal for the 103-year-old organization, which only last summer reaffirmed its policy amid heavy criticism from gay rights groups and some parents of scouts."The BSA is discussing potentially removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation," spokesman Deron Smith said in an email to Reuters."The policy change under discussion would allow the religious, civic or educational organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting to determine how to address this issue," the spokesman said.The organization, which had more than 2.6 million youth members and more than 1 million adult members at the end of 2012, "would not, under any circumstances, dictate a position to units, members, or parents," Smith said.
That would effectively put an end to Catholic-sponsored scout troops, which account for 10 percent of all troops. Mormon-sponsored groups account for more than a third of all troops, and religious organizations sponsor two-thirds of all troops, according to this article.The Girl Scouts are already in the Catholic dock over charges (or an "urban legend," some say) that their cookies support contraception and abortion programs. (Catholics make up a quarter of the nations 3million Girl Scouts.)Is this the end of Catholic scouting? Or are there alternatives?
Commenting Guidelines
David, I don't understand this sentence: "That would effectively put an end to Catholic-sponsored scout troops". Perhaps I am missing something, but why would permitting a gay teen to be a Boy Scout be something that a Catholic-sponsored troop couldn't do?
Oh gosh, just allow the gay scout troop leader to take the boys on weekend camping trips. As Hillary would say 'What difference does it make?' . . . do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Yeah whatever - what difference does it make?" Why is it so easy to get the great unwashed masses all worked up?;-)
As I commented on your RNS posting, why would this be the end of RC troops if the sponsoring organization could keep a no-gays policy, unjust though it may be?
Perhaps I am missing something, but why would permitting a gay teen to be a Boy Scout be something that a Catholic-sponsored troop couldnt do?Jim,One might also ask why permitting Catholic adoption agencies merely to consider same-sex couples as parents would be out of the question.
RC troops are small peanuts. The LDS stranglehold on BSA will be the determining factor.If religious sponsors can't enter the 21st century when it comes to not discriminating based on sexual orientation, then they should NOT be allowed to sponsor BSA troops, Girl Scouts or Cub Scout Packs.
I was just wondering the other day what the bishops learned from their investigation of the Girl Scouts. I don't see why parents want their children to be in "troops" and wear uniforms. But it's nice to see that the Boy Scouts may reverse its discrimination policy. I wonder if they will now celebrate the gift of homosexuality which their founder, many believe, had received.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/opinion/scoutings-gay-founder.html?_r=0
Eugene Pagano (and Jim P), pardon the cut-and-paste (!) but as I just responded over at RNS, in the case of the RC Church, the bishops have opposed cooperating with groups that promote positions they consider morally wrong, so affiliating with the BSA -- if the gay ban is dropped -- would be problematic. Moreover, Catholic leaders have supported the BSA's gay ban. So it's hard to see how they could keep their ties in the event of a change. I can provide some links later, but in recent years there has been a long-running battle to ensure that the church severs any ties with agencies or organizations that have any ties whatsoever to other agencies that endorse or allow contraception, abortion, or gay rights. The CCHD has been a big target, as well as separate Catholic ministries for immigrants, the homeless, etc, where the church might partner with an offending group.
David G - right; but simply allowing a gay teen to be a boy scout doesn't seem to be the same sort of thing as paying for abortions in the developing world.Gay teens attend Catholic high schools. Gay parishioners belong to Catholic parishes. A gay teen joining the Boy Scouts doesn't seem any different to me.
Thank you, Mr. Gibson.
Jim P, I agree. But those distinctions are not often made these days. Of course there is also the chance that this could lead to lifting the ban on gays as scout leaders (that doesn't seem to be part of the deliberations here) which would be a definite deal breaker, I think.
Oh Jim, we are toying with more than just the idea of pushing Catholic Boy Scout troops aside. As a society we are via the HHS mandate looking at closing Catholic schools, hospitals, charities and social services. Some states have already forced Catholic Church out of the adoption services. Catholic-owned businesses will have to work out some other arrangements; maybe shadow owners or something like that. Maybe the Vatican will help them by calling the Familglia de Medici for advice on how to be shrewd.While the abortion/contraception HHS thing is the biggest factor, as the normalization of homosexuality efforts proceed, if Leftists succeed in that, as a secondary factor, it will also hasten the exit of Catholic and other religious groups from social services like charities, schools and hospitals.After the court battles are fought and the government wins, I see it going more or less like this.1-The bishops will close the Catholic schools, hospitals, charities, etc..2-The communities will see they really needs the school desks, the hospital beds, etc..3-The government will urgently want/need to buy the buildings/facilities from the diocese and will pay whatever is necessary.4-The bishops will smile, try to be helpful, and will rake in the money on the many sales.5-The nuns will go back into the convents, and the bishops and priests will retreat behind the doors of churches and cathedrals and study Latin. On the bright side, this might facilitate more Latin in the Novus Ordo or maybe even more use of the Tridentine mass.In any case though, while the Leftists/Statists will naturally be overjoyed, and while some businessmen will make a bit of extra dinero on the situation and will be happy, in general the public will not be well served, and the price of all this will be very high.
Jim: You mean the local Brownie Troop is actually a front for international abortionists?
jbruns, I have heard the allegation that Girl Scouts and Brownies are fronting for the abortion agenda made seriously by the kind of every-week Mass-going Catholics upon whom the bishops are staking the future of the church. So don't laugh.I have also heard from a pastor that we can't support the Race for the Cure because it supports Planned Parenthood. I think I stood off that threat by pointing out that we would also have to boycott the electric company, the Ford Motor Company, the local newspaper, a TV station and other sponsors of the Race for the Cure -- to say nothing of the NFL teams with their pink shoes and pink towels.The Scouts seem to be moving toward a don't-ask-about-neighboring-troops set up for the Scouts. Catholic-sponsored Scouts could discriminate against gay kids or make them feel uncomfortable without losing their charters. My problem with that is that kids of Boy Scout age often don't know WHAT they are, sexually, and I don't think it is particularly brilliant to force them to choose one just to get into Scouting.
MEDIA STATEMENT Boy Scouts of America Monday, Jan. 28, 2013Attributable to: Deron Smith, Director of Public Relations For more than 100 years, Scoutings focus has been on working together to deliver the nations foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training. Scouting has always been in an ongoing dialogue with the Scouting family to determine what is in the best interest of the organization and the young people we serve. Currently, the BSA is discussing potentially removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation. This would mean there would no longer be any national policy regarding sexual orientation, and the chartered organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with each organizations mission, principles, or religious beliefs. BSA members and parents would be able to choose a local unit that best meets the needs of their families. The policy change under discussion would allow the religious, civic, or educational organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting to determine how to address this issue. The Boy Scouts would not, under any circumstances, dictate a position to units, members, or parents. Under this proposed policy, the BSA would not require any chartered organization to act in ways inconsistent with that organizations mission, principles, or religious beliefs. ###http://www.scouting.org/MembershipPolicy.aspx
There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue within the scouting community (I have been an active volunteer Scouter for over 20 years).The "between the lines" here is that a vote is going to be taken by the national board. With this "leak" I am sure all the voting members are going to get an ear-full from various constituencies. It is not a foregone conclusion that anything will actually change.
If normalization of homosexuals means allowing them to go to school, go to church, play football, join the Boy Scouts, and maybe after graduating, get a job or join the Navy, I guess I support that agenda.
After the court battles are fought and the government wins, I see it going more or less like thisKen,Could you give us a time frame? If none of this happens in, say, five or ten years, are you going to say, "Just wait. It's coming eventually."
So as not to put Ken on the spot, I will also give what I think is a reasonable timeframe for what is currently unfolding. I expect the liberals and the homosexuals to have destroyed the Catholic Church in America by 2018 or 2019that is, by the middle of Obama's third term.
...and the bishops and priests will retreat behind the doors of churches and cathedrals and study Latin.Well, Ken, if more folks are reading Plautus, Petronius, and Apuleius, then I'm all for it.
Ken --Once more, because you associate certain groups in your thinking about them, you infer that there is some causal relationship between them. That's illogical, Ken. Association is not causality.
Jim Pauwels wrote: "David, I dont understand this sentence: That would effectively put an end to Catholic-sponsored scout troops. Perhaps I am missing something, but why would permitting a gay teen to be a Boy Scout be something that a Catholic-sponsored troop couldnt do?"I agree. The "Media Statement" posted above says that individual troops that want to continue to exclude gay scouts and scout leaders can continue to do that. The difference is that they will have to accept individual responsibility for those decisions - they won't be able to claim that the national BSA is forcing them to do it. It will be interesting to see how individual Catholic Parishes and their scout troops will deal with this - and whether the USCCB will publish a statement on what they should do. Hopefully, not DADT.
As I see it, the American bishops are worse than the Vatican on the matter of gay rights. At least the Vatican continues to affirm the rights of gays (as the Vatican sees them, e.g., to jobs and housing). To affirm the right of gays to be part of a community is not the same thing as approving of gay sexual relationships. Further, straight people are not thrown out of the community for their sexual sins, why should the homosexual ones be ostracized? Sadly, too many Catholics would simply ostracize ALL gays out of unfounded fear. As far as the Boy Scouts are concerned, it is grossly unfair to assume that all gay men will be abusers of kids in their charge. My gay men friends are horrified by the abuse of kids, just as the decent straight ones are. Further, if the Scouts explicitly outlawed gay scoutmasters, that would be counter-productive. If they did, the predatory gay men will only pretend to be straight. I'll grant you, there are some. (Just look among the Catholic clergy.) But most aren't anymore than straight men.Grow up, Scouts and bishops!
Ken: do you live in Washington State? I suspect so because your post @ 4:49 reflects the effects of ample use of the newly-legalized weed."As I see it, the American bishops are worse than the Vatican on the matter of gay rights."Ann: the Vaticanes already have their place assured in clericalist heaven. The US wannabes still need to prove that they can be More Catholic than the Curialists ... in the worst possible way, of course.
Surely the invidious discrimination against gay teens was in contradiction with Catholic teaching?the contraception issue has created financial problems for bishops, but don't worry, money trumps morals every time: http://www.pressherald.com/news/uh-oh-bishop-what-have-you-gotten-yourse...
From the USCCB"Said Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, "The bishops hope the Boy Scouts will continue to work under the Judeo-Christian principles upon which they were founded and under which they have served youth well."http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BOY_SCOUTS_GAYS?SITE=RIPRJ&SEC... as if she was answering a question from the AP reporter - not as if the USCCB is mounting a big campaign - so far, at least.It raises the question as to whether excluding gay kids from scout troops is a Judeo-Christian principle.
Apparently, Southern Baptists are up there with Catholics, Mormons And United Methodists as sponsors of Scout troops:"Southern Baptist leaders who consider homosexuality a sin were furious about the possible change and said its approval might encourage Southern Baptist churches to support other boys' organizations instead of the BSA. The Southern Baptists are among the largest sponsors of Scout units, along with the Roman Catholic, Mormon and United Methodist churches."http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Under-pressure-Boy-Scouts-may-ea... believe I heard a Southern Baptist Minister on NPR this morning saying that the problem would be Scout gatherings, where different troops come together.
Southern Baptist leaders who consider homosexuality a sin were furious about the possible change and said its approval might encourage Southern Baptist churches to support other boys organizations instead of the BSA."Let's suppose, for the sake of discussion, that the Catholic bishops are not furious about the possible change and won't look for other boys' organizations to support.That means that there will not be perfect unity on this issue among the constellation of Christian denominations that frequently make common cause on social/sexual issues.In my view, it would be important for the Catholic Church to differentiate itself on this: to make it clear to the public that our views on homosexuality are not the same as that of Southern Baptists. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be perceived as being the same as 'all the other social conservative Christians' on this issue.
Jim,You said something above that I think would be helpful to seize on. You said, "If normalization of homosexuals means allowing them to go to school, go to church, play football, join the Boy Scouts, and maybe after graduating, get a job or join the Navy, I guess I support that agenda."What so many people are fearful of is the "normalization of homosexuality." That is different, or should be, than the "normalization of homosexuals." It seems to me the Catholic Church and many other groups who do not approve of homosexual behaviors have got to make a greater distinction between homosexuality and homosexuals. We disagree, I think, on the interpretation of the "no unjust discrimination" passage in the Catechism. I think you tend to interpret it to mean what I think it should mean but doesn't.
David Nickol, I don't think the church is opposed to either "homosexuals" (people) or "homosexuality" (the condition). It teaches that sex outside of sacramental marriage is wrong for all Catholics.Since heterosexual couples can receive sacramental marriage and homosexual couples cannot, that is obviously a much greater burden on some persons than others, but the basic principle is the same. Hopefully, most members of a Catholic Scout troop are not having sex with anyone, male or female. If some are encouraging others to become active sexually and persist after repeated warnings, I could see throwing them out, but I don't think it would depend on whether they were promoting sex with men or women. Obviously, anyone who forces himself on another person should be out quickly.
"What so many people are fearful of is the normalization of homosexuality. That is different, or should be, than the normalization of homosexuals. It seems to me the Catholic Church and many other groups who do not approve of homosexual behaviors have got to make a greater distinction between homosexuality and homosexuals."David - I'd like to hear your thoughts on the distinction you're calling out here. It seems to me that we have three different things to distinguish between: homosexuality (the inclination); homosexuals (the persons who have that inclination); and homosexual behavior (the behavior pursuant to the inclination by the people with that inclination).If my understanding of what the church teaches is accurate, it's only the last of these that the church considers sinful. And the church needs to stand, publicly, against discrimination and hatred directed against persons with the inclination. (I know I've said this before in these conversations, but in my view it's worth repeating).
"We disagree, I think, on the interpretation of the no unjust discrimination passage in the Catechism. I think you tend to interpret it to mean what I think it should mean but doesnt."As I have probably said before - I'd like to think that the church's specific views on this are evolving. (If I am wrong, then it's quite likely that we'll find out very quickly.)
And here's a disgusting little twist in case you didn't know it:http://www.tidewaterbsa.com/Tax%20Exemp%20FAQs.htm"TAX-EXEMPT STATUS OF BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA UNITS AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNITSFrequently Asked QuestionsIs our pack or troop considered tax-exempt by the IRS?That depends on who sponsors your pack, troop, or unit. The only time a unit can be considered tax-exempt is if its sponsoring organization is also tax-exempt.The BSA National Council grants a charter to religious organizations, service clubs, businesses, and others who want to sponsor a Scout unit. A unit is actually owned by its chartered organization. Chartered organizations vary widely in tax status, but the tax status of your unit is the same as that of your chartering partner. "So all of those nice little church sponsored discriminating BSA units will have donations to them being tax deductib.eNon-tax favored BSA troops that choose NOT to discriminate against gay boys and men do NOT have their donations considered as tax deductible.
If Catholics want "Catholic" Boy Scouts, form a parallel organization. Ditto for the LDS. The BSA is and should remain a secular organization that does not push a particular religious creed, doctrine or practice.
Jim McCrea: I've learned this from having my sons (formerly) in Scouts: the core Scout material isn't religion-specific, although they do have a sort of non-denominational honor-a-higher-being thing. But there is supplementary material for various faiths, e.g. there are Catholic badges that Catholic scouts can earn, Lutheran badges for Lutheran scouts, etc.
I feel I have special standing to speak about this issue, since I myself was a Cub Scout in the early 1950s. We drank lots of Coke, and none of us were obese. And we ate potato chips, too. I still love Coke (no matter what Mark Bittman and Mayor Bloomberg say) and potato chips. My Den Mother was one of the prettiest women in the world, or at least that's how I remember her. Our pack (or was it a troop) met in a condemned church. That is, the building was condemned for use as a church, but it was apparently stable enough for a troop of Cub Scouts. We were rather small and, as I said, not obese, so we didn't weigh very much. I distinctly remember once they were going to call us all up to the front. I was not sure for what, but there were cardboard boxes that said "Candles" on the sides, so I assumed they were going to burn our hair off the sides and give us Mohawk haircuts. I always look back on that and wonder why I wasn't frightened. There were no rules against gay people back then, because nobody had ever heard of them, as they had not yet begun appearing on the David Susskind show.
I do not understand this blog at all. We Catholics do not consider gays as un-persons, and there is nothing in the sponsor-troop relationship that requires or even empowers the sponsor to police the sexual orientation of troop membership.
David A. --On this blog you will find many different sorts of opinions, including many shades of an opinion. Read the ones above carefully and I think you'll find that is the case.
Jesus did not say "Let only the straight children come to me."
"So as not to put Ken on the spot, I will also give what I think is a reasonable timeframe for what is currently unfolding. I expect the liberals and the homosexuals to have destroyed the Catholic Church in America by 2018 or 2019that is, by the middle of Obamas third term."David Nickol, I can't figure out if you're being facetious or not. In case you're playing it (dare I say) straight, may I remind you that some decidedly un-liberal cardinals named Law, Mahony and Finn, among others, have done a pretty good job of damaging the Church without help.
A commenter over on First Things has suggested that gay people form their own scouting organization.
"A commenter over on First Things has suggested that gay people form their own scouting organization"Separate but Equal?If the BSA makes this official next week, the USCCB should have a press release ready to release the same day announcing that gay kids are welcome in Catholic Scout troops - just as they are welcome in all of our parish activities. If they don't, Mary Ann Walsh is going to have to wing it when she gets the calls from reporters.
Anyone who would sever ties with an organization for not expelling a gay kid doesn't know Jesus. That people think that the bishops would do this means they need to consider why they have such a wicked reputation.
The NYTimes does some catch-up on this story talking to local leaders and parents.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us/proposed-policy-shift-on-gays-divid..."The real world, Ms. Kreider said, just isnt that simple.It will be the small troops that decide they dont want to have a homosexual leader, and then where do they go for help? she asked. If they get sued by the A.C.L.U. or whatever organization decides to come after them, they wont have the resources or the backing of the Boy Scouts of America because of this policy. It will be the destruction of the Boy Scouts."Some people who support a new policy are worried, too.We are here for the kids, said Val Carolin, the scoutmaster of Troop 467 in Atlanta, which meets in the scout hut behind Peachtree Road United Methodist Church. Mr. Carolin said that he thought inclusion was the right value for the Scouts to pursue, and that fighting over whether to welcome gay scouts or leaders would be a distraction, or worse. If this thing comes down and causes a split, that would be very bad for scouting, he said."Other scout leaders said that because so many troops are affiliated with churches, a fractious local debate over gay membership could propel issues of faith and religion even more to the fore of scouting than they already are."
Inscrutable:"What role the churches might play in the end is uncertain. The chairman of the National Catholic Committee on Scouting, John J. Halloran Jr., said his group would make a statement only if the Boy Scouts board approved the change. Our Catholic faith remains our conscience and our guide, he said in an e-mail."http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us/proposed-policy-shift-on-gays-divid...
Other than using a church facility as a meeting place, I have never seen religious influence in scouting activities. Most troops will do absolutely nothing because they don't need to. If your church lets a troop use its basement or hall as a meeting place do you know if it actually tracks issues like this as a condition for allowing such use? I am really scratching my head here. Literally, my child's troop has zero interaction with the church that "sponsors" it. There is no religiously themed program or activities. And if you stop and think about it, you understand why: the troop includes Sikhs, Jews and Hindus among the adherents to different Christian denominations, as well as the non-aligned. Maybe it's different in smaller communities, but my husband was also a scout in a small town and they also had no religiously oriented activities because the differences there between Baptist and Methodist were seen to be as big as the differences between Hindus and Catholics are around here. It almost seems like the BSA is hiding behind the involvement of churches, while the parents are hiding behind the BSA guidelines.
" The chairman of the National Catholic Committee on Scouting, John J. Halloran Jr., said his group would make a statement only if the Boy Scouts board approved the change. Our Catholic faith remains our conscience and our guide, he said in an e-mail."This group has a website, on which I've spent a little time looking around. I've been unable to find any indication of a formal link to the USCCB. I assume it is an independent lay apostolate.
In days of yore, when I was a Girl Scout, there was a huge ceremony at which troops from all over the city received the Marian Badge from the bishop. And the Boy Scouts had a similar event at which they received the Ad Altare Dei medal. Catholic stuff is still sold in the Boy Scout shop. Page 2 is particularly interesting, imho.http://www.scoutstuff.org/bsa/literature-media/religion.html
Gerelyn - right. As it happens, this weekend is designated Scout Sunday at our parish, and because my boys were involved at one time, I seem to be the designated guy-to-do-the-scout-recognition. There are Catholic badges that scouts can earn, and there are boys in our parish who earn them every year. Our parish doesn't sponsor a pack - nor do we have a school - so the boys and their parents pursue them independently while affililating with the local packs, which in almost all cases are sponsored by public schools.
About the Author
David Gibson is a national reporter for Religion News Service and author of The Coming Catholic Church (HarperOne) and The Rule of Benedict (HarperOne). He blogs at dotCommonweal.


text:
14 Super Awkward Celebrity Kisses
Goldie Hawn & Kurt Russell
14 of 14
As Goldie Hawn layed one on Kurt Russell at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, we had proof that a good kiss is not all lip. [India Times]
Tags: celeb couples
Also, David Faustino wants to reboot "Married With Children."…
According to TMZ, four-fingered former baseball player Jose Canseco says that on his upcoming reality show, "Spend The Day With Jose," he'll be showing his support for Caitlyn Jenner by "living as a woman" for a week. While it's nice and all that Canseco is supportive of Jenner and her recent gender transition, my first instinct upon seeing…
Young women: femininity is powerful. Your speech patterns are powerful. The slang and vocal patterns of teenage girls are so powerful that they've been dissected and analyzed by linguistic scientists: uptalk, vocal fry, even the "Valley Girl" stereotype all point to specific speech patterns utilized by some women. A piece published in The Guardian yesterday…


text:
Frequently Asked Questions about Small Business Finance
This document sketches the ecosystem or life-cycle of small business financing.
The State of Georgia Small Business 2011
Prepared by the Georgia Small Business Developmet Center Network Department of Applied Research.
How to Pay Business Debts You Can't Afford - A Do-It-Yourself Guide
The 27 Biggest Mistakes to Avoid when Negotiating Business Debt
These Webinars are sponsored by the Association of Small Business Development Centers and Corporate Turnaround.
Guide to Health Insurance Options for Small Businesses
As a small business owner, you might think that offering health insurance coverage to your employees is beyond your reach, but it may be easier than you realize. This Guide is intended to help you find out.
First Stop Business Guide
Invaluable resource for entrepreneurs from Karen Handel, Secretary of State.
Economic Development Finance Programs
Published by the Georgia Department of Community Affairs. This document contains information about various federal, state, and local financing programs that directly or indirectly benefit Georgia businesses or those businesses interested in making Georgia their home. Many of these programs may also directly benefit local governments. They have also included information on the Secretary of State's First Stop Business Information Center. The Center should be helpful to persons who are considering starting a new business or who need information on where to obtain licensing and permits. This packet also contains a section on the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA provides a number of programs that are useful to potential and existing business owners.
Business Start-up Basics
Georgia SBDC Network FAQ's
The 2012 Georgia Minority Supplier Directory The Georgia Minority Supplier Directory has proven to be an efficient tool for the identification of minority-owned subcontractors and suppliers. To include your minority-owned business in the next publication, Click Here to download an application.
IRS Tax Center
Georgia Department of Revenue Forms
IRS Business Valuation Standards
Georgia Income Tax Guide
Personal Financial Statement
Financing On the Internet
Nontraditional Financial Sources
Location change brings home the bacon for South Georgia BBQ owner
- Jeremiah Johnson, owner
The University of Georgia
Chicopee Complex
1180 East Broad Street
Athens, GA 30602-5412
Funded in part through a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Small Business
Copyright © 2014 All Rights Reserved | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy |
Site Map A Public Service and Outreach Unit of the University of Georgia


text:
Jones County mirrored the state of Georgia with Romney the victor as expected by a margin 64 to 35 percent.
In the Jones County Board of Commissioners race, Chairman Preston Hawkins (R) retained his seat with a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent for Democratic challenger Chuck Baker. In the county's only other contested race, Commission District 4, however, incumbent Bert Liston, who has held the seat for eight years, lost to challenger Daylon Martin (D) with a margin of 53 to 47 percent.
For more information, login to the e-Edition at http://ee.jcnews.com or pickup a copy of the newspaper in stores Wednesday morning!


text: Our DriFire® Short Sleeve Tee is the perfect foundation for any high-performance outfit. Built with flame-resistant DriFire fabric that's tough but also lightweight, this men's shirt offers protection as well as comfort. And like your favorite New Balance workout gear, our military apparel wicks moisture and fights odor to help keep you cool and fresh no matter what challenges you face.