This article was crossposted on The Daily Kos

I recently had what to seemed to me an epiphany about foreign policy.  After watching this old video of Jon Stewart reacting to the September 11th attacks, I started thinking about his closing argument (transcript here):

You know, all this talk about "These guys are criminal masterminds. They got together and their extraordinary guile and their wit and their skill. . ." It's all a lie. Any fool can blow something up. Any fool can destroy. But to see these guys, these firefighters and these policemen and people from all over the country, literally with buckets, rebuilding. . . that’s extraordinary. And that's why we have already won. . . they can't. . . it's light. It's democracy. They can't shut that down.

Jon Stewart is arguing that the terrorists cannot destroy us because we choose not to be destroyed, which got me thinking.

Let me explain. In World War I, the Allied Forces defeated the Second Reich in 1918. The Weimar Republic was established in its place, intending to function as a democracy in America's Image. We defeated the German Empire, and established the fruits of democracy in central Europe. President Wilson declared it to be "the War to end all Wars."

Only fifteen years later, Adolph Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany. A month later, the Reichstag was burned, giving Hitler's government an excuse to clamp down on German civil liberties. German unhappiness with the inferior status placed upon them by the victorious powers, coupled with a crippled economy (it took 1 trillion Marks to equal one U.S. Dollar,) allowed the charismatic Hitler to convince the Germans they needed a nationalist leader, and they gladly accepted him as Führer of the Third Reich.

A Milkman walks through ruble to deliver milk. Image from JAMD

Hoping to destroy the most powerful naval power in the world, Hitler began a four-month bombing campaign on Great Britain, targeting both air force bases and later, civilian targets. Hitler hoped to destroy the Royal Air Force to allow for a naval invasion, but he also hoped to break the morale of the British people, who were struggling as the last European power opposing Hitler. Undaunted, the Brits went about their daily lives, refusing to be torn down by the Germans and handing them their first major military defeat. They went on to become our closest ally in the war.

After we defeated the Third Reich in 1945, we learned from our mistakes of World War I, and did not cripple the Germans. They saw the horrors of World War II, and chose to not travel down that road again, and unlike the interwar years, the Allies helped them rebuild their troubled economy. Fascist sentiment died, and the German people did not recreate the Nazi government. In other words, the Germans stayed peaceful and democratic only because they chose to, not because of our military victory.

Fast forward 46 years, when Al-Qaeda pulled off the deadliest terrorist attack in history. Terrorists have never succeeded in destroying our nation, or any nation, because the people have always determined to remain united. The best they can hope for is that the people will be so afraid that they will give up their civil liberties in the hopes of security, otherwise, people will dig themselves out of the ashes and rebuild themselves.

We are doing the same thing in Iraq. We crushed the Iraqi military with absurd ease, but now face a stubborn and corrosive wave of militants determined to establish a conservative theocracy. Our biggest mistake was to think we could waltz in, dispose of Saddam Hussein, and the freedom-loving intellectuals in Iraq would rise up and establish a happy, peaceful democracy in America's image. Our failure to engage in any sort of diplomacy with middle-eastern countries has allowed nationalist sentiment to continue fueling anti-Americanism, preventing our soldiers from accomplishing anything beyond stasis. We've been here before. Let's try and learn this time.

Photo from the The Associated Press

There's been a lot of talk about the photos of Barack Obama wearing traditional Somali while on a visit to Kenya. Most of the controversy is focused on whether the emails were forwarded by members of Hillary Clinton's campaign as a smear. I doubt Clinton had anything to do with it, and if she did, then shame on her, but that isn't my point here.

What scares me about this is that people still consider this to be such a negative thing. That Americans still consider association with Islam to a negative factor in 2008 shows how vulnerable our nation is to racial and religious prejudices. We marginalize gays, wax misogynistic about the first potential female president, and think references to lynching African-Americans can be made casually. Have the lessons of the Civil Rights Era been lost on us already?

Remember back when Keith Ellison wanted to be sworn in on the Quran and the conservatives had a fit over it because it somehow "undermines American civilization?" Remember when Barack Obama had to struggle to defend himself against allegations that he was a Muslim? He stood by his Christian convictions, and the controversy has largely died away, but it still angers me that people feel such hatred toward Muslims that the idea of him being a Muslim would even be a issue.

Women, gays, and minorities have suffered so much under our system of prejudice, and we learn nothing. Instead of ending the injustices, we blame rape victims and downplay the dangers gay youth face every day, and I'm getting sick of it. It's time we grew up.

You know, I am starting to think that American's are becoming a tad overconfident in our implementation of the "American Dream." You know the old American sentiment that in our nation, anyone can come from almost nothing and, through hard work and determination, be succesful and happy citizens. It's a great notion, but we aren't quite there yet. We haven't gotten to the point where some of our most impoverished citizens can break out. Why? Because of the belief in the American dream. Since everyone can be succesful and happy through hard work, the logical extension of that argument is that anyone who stuck sleeping under bridges or on park benches is lazy and lacks work ethic. Instead of trying to help homeless people, we pass laws that turn them into criminals, and find that we cannot legislate people out of existence any more than conservatives can eliminate gays.

This focus on the rags-to-riches tale in American culture prevents us from understanding that these stories are inspirational because they are so improbable. If it wasn't so difficult to escape poverty, people would do it all the time, because I guarantee that homeless people don't relish sleeping in freezing temperatures all night. This actually reminds me of an essay I read in English last semester. The late Marjorie Williams, a former Washington Post columnist, tells about her last few years of life after being diagnosed with an incurable form of liver cancer. Despite the depressing tone of the essay, her writting intrigued me like nothing else in that course, as she described the hollow encouragements of those around her:

We think our culture lauds the stubborn survivor, the one who says, "I will beat this cancer," and then promptly wins the Tour de France. But the truth is that there is a staggering vulnerability in asserting one's right to hope. (262)

...

Americans are so steeped in the message that we are what we think, and that a positive attitude can banish disease. (You'd be amazed how many people need to believe that only losers die of cancer.) (263)

The same thing goes on in discussions about immigration. We angrily rally against illegal immigrants for not coming in the legal way and then run a system stacked against immigrants living in impoverished conditions, many of whom have families to keep alive. We don't try and improve the economic situation in Mexico, we try and box them in.

I am tired of this. Americans need to recognize that our country has flaws, and that we need move away from criminalizing those whose presence is inconvenient, to helping them.

Works cited

Williams, Marjorie. "A Matter of Life and Death." The Best American Essays. The Best American Ser. 2006. Ed. Lauren Slater. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2006

I'm having a little moral dilemma here. It started with protestors at the 2007 Annual Rose Festival Parade downtown. The parade included delegations from the military, who decided to bring along giant tank with them. I suppose I shouldn't be so surprised that some people would be upset by this, but it still really irked me when people showed up carrying signs with pictures of burnt villages and proclaiming "Tanks Kill." I mean, I oppose the war and all, but I was enjoying the festivities, and I didn't really appreciate having them interrupted.

Fast forward to today, when I take a look at the protests that occurred at the 2007 commencement ceremony at UMass Amherst in response to the decision to award Andrew Card an honorary degree. In the days leading up to the ceremony, students, faculty, and other members of the UMass Amherst community staged massive protests calling for the Board of Trustees to rescind the offer to Card. Despite the vast majority of students and faculty opposing Andrew Card's degree, the Board would not back down and went ahead with the commencement.

Up to this point, I agree completely with the protestors. I am at a loss to explain why the board would consider awarding Bush's right-hand man with a degree meant for people "of great accomplishment and high ethical standards." Card has not demonstrated high ethical standards, nor has he really done any notable amount of public service. The university was never able to come up with any real reason for honoring him, and the community clearly did not want him at the commencement. I believe the Board of Trustees should have given more thought to the wishes of the community before sending him the letter.

However, I take issue with the decision to protest during the ceremony itself. When Card's name was announced, hundreds of students and faculty rose holding signs and booed Card continuously for at least a minute and a half, drowning out the provost's remarks. As angry as I would be to see this man honored at my university, the protests would really sour my enjoyment of what should otherwise be a happy occasion. Do people really need to spoil this occasion for everybody? I mean, I encourage people who disagree with something to work for change, but this just seems so...pointlessly rude? Could they not have simply turned their backs or something less disruptive?

Perhaps I get so riled at these people because of my thoughts toward conservative activists who picket pride rallies or stand outside schools with pictures of mutilated fetuses. It just seems so intrusive, not to mention distasteful. I really wish these people would stop it, but I don't think it's really fair to do the same thing.

Am I being too stubborn? Am I a hypocrite for criticizing the lack of political participation and then getting annoyed with protestors? Or perhaps I have grown too timid, too afraid of offending anyone with differing opinions from my own.

Other links

• Full video of the protests, taken from the audience.

I had an epiphany.

I've decided to avoid using the terms gay, straight, and bi to describe myself from now on. It isn't that I find the terms offensive, it is that I find them inaccurate. Human love and sexuality is a multifaceted, complex concept that cannot be described by a simple number, much less shoved into three distinct categories.

I mean, if a man falls in love with another man, and they later break up, he will probably fall out of love. Let's say after that, all the people he happens to fall in love with are women. Is he bisexual? Bi-curious? Ex-gay? Does it even matter?

People come up with more and more terms for people of varying sexualities, but I really think people are ignoring the real issue here. Trying to categorize sexualities is like trying to sort everyone in Spanish-colonized Latin-America into racial classifications, or trying to decide who was Jewish based on which relatives were Jewish. It really is missing the issue completely.

What is the real issue? Love. That's right, real, Grade-A love. Imagine, if you will, the complexities range of emotions one can feel when they fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. Nobody can really control them, or describe exactly the feelings. Now imagine you feel these same emotions toward somebody of the same sex. They are exactly the same. The fact that the target of the affections shares your genitalia does not make the feeling any less legitimate. I find it incredibly arrogant that anyone would claim to have the authority to determine what types of love are "real."

Really, does anybody really have any control whether they tend to prefer brunettes to blonds, smart girls to ditzes, big breasts to small? People just like certain types of people, and yet when somebody feels attracted to somebody of the same sex, it gets chalked up to infatuation, even perversion. This hasn't always been so. 100 years ago, people would consider the idea of black man and a white woman to be blasphemy. Nobody would never even consider the possibility that they could be love. It was just wrong.

I think the real reason homophobic conservatives use these terms is because it allows them to ignore the human aspect of their beliefs. If they truly allowed themselves to open their eyes and see love for what it really was, it would make it much harder to justify ongoing discrimination, shunning, and violence perpetrated everyday. By viewing same-sex attraction as "different" from opposite-sex attraction they feel themselves, they can oppose it more easily.

In writing this, I hope I am not offending those who choose to use these terms to describe themselves or others in good-faith. I am merely trying to get people to realize that, like many a term, it is merely that: a term.

So Not Ready for This

Yesterday, the mail arrived with our ballots. Of course, this happens every year, but this time was different. One of the envelopes had my name on it.

This may not seem like a big deal, but...wow. I can vote. Suddenly, I have a (minute) voice in my government. It's sorta cool, but now I have to actually really read the measures and vote responsibly. So let's take a look at them:

Measure 49

MODIFIES MEASURE 37; CLARIFIES RIGHT TO BUILD HOMES; LIMITS LARGE DEVELOPMENTS; PROTECTS FARMS, FORESTS, GROUNDWATER.

RESULT OF “YES” VOTE: “Yes” vote modifies Measure 37; clarifies private landowners’ rights to build homes; extends rights to surviving spouses; limits large developments; protects farmlands, forestlands, groundwater supplies.

RESULT OF “NO” VOTE: “No” vote leaves Measure 37 unchanged; allows claims to develop large subdivisions, commercial, industrial projects on lands now reserved for residential, farm and forest uses.

I am inclined to vote "yes" on this measure. Why? Measure 37 required that "Governments must pay owners, or forgo enforcement, when certain land use restrictions reduce property value." The measure was intended to protect families who bought some land in the 70s as a retirement investment, and now cannot use it as they please because land use restrictions prohibit such actions. I agree that this seems fair, but this law got sponsored mainly by large timber companies who got pissed off that they can no longer fuck up the environment as they please by creating huge developments on protected land. Notice that it says the government may either pay owners or "forgo enforcement?" The state does not have enough money to pay every lunatic that files a Measure 37 claim, so they basically have to let the property owners do whatever the hell they want.

Measure 49 is intended to fix that issue, by preserving the spirit of the measure, which was to protect small families from losing their investments, while keeping large companies from screwing up the wilderness. Measure 49 actually grants families more rights, by allowing them to transfer their right-to-build onto surviving spouses. Measure 37 doesn't allow for this.

Environmental regulations were not invented to piss people off, they were invented to protect that which we love most about Oregon, its commitment to protect the environment and avoid urban sprawl. Measure 37 allows landowners to completely disregard important laws for their purpose, while degrading the land value for others. Measure 49 will fix this, so I will vote yes when Election Day comes around*.

*Er...Oregon is entirely vote-by-mail, so I really mean that I will fill in the little "yes" bubble on my answer sheet, stuff it in the "secrecy envelope," which I will stuff into the outer envelope, which I will sign and then either send it using actual mail, or have it dropped off at the Elections Office on Elections Day.

Measure 50

AMENDS CONSTITUTION: DEDICATES FUNDS TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE FOR CHILDREN, FUND TOBACCO PREVENTION, THROUGH INCREASED TOBACCO TAX.

RESULT OF “YES” VOTE: “Yes” vote dedicates funds to provide health care for children, low-income adults and medically underserved Oregonians, and fund tobacco prevention programs, through increased tobacco tax.

RESULT OF “NO” VOTE: “No” vote rejects proposal to dedicate funding for children’s health care, other health care programs, and tobacco prevention programs; maintains tobacco tax at current level.

You know, I am actually inclined to vote "no" on this measure, as much as I both support public health care and oppose smoking. I derive my opposition on mostly constitutional grounds.

I really hate the idea of modifying the our Constitution for something like this. I view a constitution as a document that should lay out the powers of the government and define citizen's rights, and although I am aware that the constitution has not always been used for that purpose, I think introducing a set tax for a specific item takes things a bit too far. Oregonians should learn to raise taxes in the legislature, but they require a 3/5^ths majority to raise taxes, while amending the Oregon Constitution requires a simple majority in a referendum. These measures end up providing a way to raise money when the legislature cannot get the job done. Imagine reading the revised constitution:

Section 8. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.

...

A tax equal to 42.25 mills is imposed upon the consumption of each cigarette in this state;

This isn't right. Voters are drawn to these measures because of sense of self-righteousness: the "evil" smokers get their just deserts by paying for sick kids. Fair's fair, right? We need to take a step back. Smoker's are not "evil," and the burden of providing health care should fall upon all of us. People support this measure because it relieves them of the burden paying for a necessary tax by simply shunting it onto someone else who "deserves it, any way." I cannot support this kind of law. We need to learn how to take responsibility for something rather than taxing someone else. What happens when some group repeatedly gets screwed because of this?

Besides, this law makes it smokers more beneficial to our society. If Measure 50 passed and I truly cared only for the kids, it would be in my best interest to get as many people addicted to cigarettes as possible, so that we can keep money for health care flowing in. By this system, if anti-smoking advocates got their wish, the fund would run dry unless we found someone else to tax.

One thing that disappointed me was Willamette Week's opinion on this. They wrote several paragraphs describing the various arguments against the measure, and then summed up their entire editorial with, "Reasonable concerns all. But if this measure insures only one additional kid and reduces the number of smokers, it will be worth supporting." OK, but I still want to hear your counter-arguments. There are other ways of solving this problem without setting a dangerous precedent for our legislature.

As much as I hate the idea of indirectly supporting the cigarette industry, I cannot support this measure with a clean conscience.

Measure 26-93

This is a measure that I get to vote on because I am a resident of the City of Portland, and therefore awesome. This measure says yes to the question, "Shall police and firefighters receive medical benefits from disability system for work-related injuries after retiring from active duty?" I agree with the drafters, but I am too lazy to do a big fancy write up for this measure, so check it out for yourself.

There is something creepy about Evangelical Christianity’s newest tactic, “Purity” Balls. The basic idea behind them is that too many girls are having sex and that the way to fix this is to take have them publicly promise their virginities to their fathers. But why should I tell you about it? Why don’t you just watch this one “trailer” for it?

What I do not understand is the ickyness people attach to human sexuality, especially to feminine sexuality. We are, at our core, sexual creatures. I cannot truly understand why people would seek to to pretend sexuality is this big, special thing, when it really isn’t.

My incomprehension aside, let me discuss why I find these programs offensive and creepy.

They don’t work:

There is no data on whether girls who attend purity balls remain abstinent until marriage; chances are many do, given the tight-knit communities they live in. But there is striking evidence that more than half of teens who take virginity pledges—at, say, rallies or events—go on to have sex within three years, according to findings of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, the most comprehensive survey of teens ever taken. And 88 percent of the pledgers surveyed end up having sex before marriage. “No pledge can counter the fact that teenagers [and all people] are, in fact, sexual beings postpuberty [and prepuberty, in my opinion],” notes Cary Backenger, a clinical psychotherapist in Appleton, Wisconsin, who works with teens, including several who have taken virginity pledges. “You can’t turn that off.”

Disturbingly, the adolescent health study also found that STD rates were significantly higher in communities with a high proportion of pledgers. “Pledgers are less likely than nonpledgers to use condoms, so if they do have sex it is less safe,” says Peter Bearman, Ph.D., a Columbia University sociologist who helped design the study. For these teens, he believes, it’s a mind game: If you have condoms, you were planning to have sex. If you don’t, sex wasn’t premeditated, which makes it more OK. The study also found that even pledgers who remained virgins were highly likely to have oral and anal sex—risky behavior given that most probably didn’t use condoms to cut their risk.

Glamour

Really, would you honestly remain celibate solely because you had signed some contract to your father when you were four years old? Would you really care what you had said at some stupid ball? The “promise” was not really “yours,” so why keep it?

My complaint comes from the main premise behind this whole ceremony. The “contract” is essentially that a daughter’s “virginity” should be property of either her father or her husbands, but never of her own self. Just listen to the contract that a girl must sign:

I make a promise this day, to God, to you, to myself, to my future husband, to my children, to remain abstinent until the day I give myself as a wedding gift to my husband. I know that God requires this of me, that He loves me, and that He will reward me for my faithfulness in this life and the next.

Have these people been living in such a time warp that they still believe a daughter should be treated as a gift? Is her purpose nothing more than that of her man-folk’s sex puppet? Many of these people also criticize objectifying women, yet they see nothing wrong with treating their young daughters as gifts.

The completely overwhelming sexist nature of these events are apparent to those willing to take a step back and look at it carefully, yet no one participating in the balls seem to care that the daughter has been completely left out the equation, the father is in charge of finding the proper man, and the daughter is expected to consummate her relationship, in short, men are in charge of what goes into her vagina, but she is not. Does this not strike anyone as more than a little anachronistic?

Sexual stereotypes are further enforced in the premise that the man should protect and shelter his daughters from the evils of sexuality, and that woman must separate themselves completely from sexuality in order to remain whole. Men, on the other hand, are relatively free from any stigma relating to their sexual activities, and no one pays much attention to their coming-of-age. Some might argue that since the father is also required to also required to sign a contract promising to “be pure in [his] own life as a man, husband and father,” he is held to the same standards as the woman he protects. But I question why they wait till fatherhood to make this promise. Why have these people ever suggested having a “mother-son” purity ball? Are the boys not in need of protection from the femme fatales of the world? Should the mothers also not pledge to be pure and protective of their sons? One blogger theorizes that the principal difference is the thin piece of tissue known as the hymen, that will supposedly indicate whether or not the girl is a virgin (which is complete bull, I know, but symbols need not be realistic). The act of tearing it is a more concrete symbol than the emission of billions of sperm cells into its place.

I find the exaggerated sentimentalization of girlhood offensive. The idea behind these balls—that girls should remain as a child until they marry—is simply another form of the typical desire on the part of their parents to never see their young girls mature into women. Notice the language used by Susan Chess at the beginning of the video, where refers to the fathers as “daddy.” How more belittling can you get? Boys, on the other hand, seem to be expected to grow up as fast as possible. It is not coincidence that, until recently, women had two major titles, “Mrs.” and “Miss” but boys could get away with simply “Mr.” Girls need to grow at some point, or their bodies will get ahead of them.

Finally doesn’t anybody find it more than a little creepy that the fathers should have such a feverish obsession over their daughters’ sexuality? This isn’t really an argument, but it is something I noticed.

Please, tell me what you think

References:

• Video: Carenet Purity Ball DVD Preview (trailer) - Google Video
• Glamour article: Would you pledge your virginity to your father?
• The Father-Daughter Purity Ball

Sometimes it is hard to believe that in a developed nation like ours, we still find our schools dominated by religious zealots who try to close minds and turn us onto their ideology. And what is worse, these fanatics cannot truly defend their statements, so they rely on blatant propaganda to try and accomplish their aims. What am I talking about? Sex ed, of course. Specifically abstinence-only education, the standard our dear president supports.

What got me thinking about this (again) was the discovery of yet another wonderful program called Sex Respect. It contains all the standard elements of an abstinence-only program: a nauseous over-sentimentalizing of virginity, a statement that any sexual activity outside of marriage inevitably leads to trouble, testimonials from the "good" boys and girls, gender stereotypes presented as fact, and all of this repeated ad nauseam. What follows is an example of some of the more interesting parts:

Won’t teenagers laugh at a class on virginity?

I’ve found overwhelming interest and response in this class. A freshman girl from St. Louis responded, “I think the SEX RESPECT course is a great idea. I really enjoyed reading the part on how there is nothing wrong with being a virgin.”

This made me laugh more than anything else. I refuse to believe that a sane girl would honestly say that.

Anyway, if she tried this at Catlin, she would be chased off campus. And then we would laugh.

What are some of the side effects of premarital sex besides pregnancy?

Premarital sex breaks up couples or pushes them into bad marriages. It fools people into marrying the wrong person. It leads to unhappiness, divorce, extramarital affairs, and dissatisfaction. It denies the couples bonding experience.

The anxiety of getting pregnant or catching a sexual transmitted disease can lead to depression. Some 400,000 teens annually have abortions, a source of depression, even suicide. Teens who marry because of pregnancy are three times more likely to divorce than women who wait until their twenties to conceive. Pregnant girls are likely to drop out of school. Teen moms earn half of those who wait. Sixty-seven percent of pregnant teens are poor.

Standard-issue DOOM! DOOM! DOOM! message required of all abstinence programs. I also like how she continued to talk about pregnancy despite the question.

Is your chastity message some church-related or religious drive?

This program has been used in both public and parochial schools. Ms. Jo Jean Morris, a principal, observed that she “could find nothing in the SEX RESPECT program that any parent, depending on their own choice of lifestyle, would be offended by. “I don’t see how anyone could object to it.”

Then you clearly were not reading the website, Jo. I found lots of examples. Like here. Or here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Or this one. I don't see quite what the last one has to do with anything, but it is a nauseating kitsch version of a great text.

Now let's read some excerpts from the Six Ms.

Modesty: Avoid the problem of provoking the eye of lustful men with your clothing as you grow in womanhood and beauty. Show him your skin, his hormones rush in! Enhance feminine beauty without looking sexy so men will see you as a person rather than a body with parts he likes. The purpose of a bra is to support, protect and cover, not entice. Disrobing is only for the honeymoon, not before. She must work to keep her mind pure from sexy movies, magazines and TV shows. Her modesty protects her purity and chastity.

Yes, women, make sure you don't indicate that you are sexual beings in any way. This is the your responsibility, not the guys. You must remain pure until marriage. Watch out for those sexy movies.

OK, now where can find these sexy movies.

Mary, our model of meekness: The Blessed Virgin Mary is a role model for women. She was not aggressive, obnoxious or gossipy. Remind your daughter that she will see many girls become louder and more immature when they physically develop if they do not know that a girl has to work spiritually to become virtuous. Meekness is inner strength without impulsiveness. Look to Mary, your heavenly mother, for guidance.

How do you know she didn't gossip?

Now let's journey over to the boys section...

Form a conscience well, and go to Confession regularly (every two to four weeks). Hopefully, Dad is the leader in this. Don’t let your soul get wimpy because it’s full of venial sins. Seek your confessor’s advice on doubts or temptations. Avoid 'occasions of sin.'

Man, why must are you so insistent that we feel perpetually guilty about ourselves?

Your job is to train yourself to keep your mind pure by turning your head away from these ads, avoiding those magazines and movies and being quick with the TV remote control to turn off any images of immodest women. Control your curiosity because you love God. Be quick to turn your eyes away from a girl who is dressed immodestly, too, and you will gain for Christ, 'custody of your eyes.'

Tee hee...a little late for that...

I wonder if this woman realizes that this will only make these boys less able to resist it when it comes. Arousal is like sleep, in that way. Go without it for too long, and you will no be able to stop it.

Concentrate on developing your character: Apply the virtues and character traits to your studies, sports, skills and home life. Diligence, patience, honesty, kindness and self-control are good places to start. Changes in your body will turn you into a physical man. You must work each day to become a better man spiritually and emotionally. Develop your will power by doing things that are challenging. Seek out hard work, tough sports, large mountains to climb; look at bad weather as a chance to get tough, not to stay inside; do more difficult tasks to help out at home, never complaining or being disagreeable. Strengthen your body and your will power and flee from laziness.

Control your behavior, no matter what your emotions are feeling. Emotional maturity is the ability to THINK before you act. Human beings have this capability. As Christians, we have the grace of God to help us. Angry feelings should not lead to violence…passionate feelings should not lead to lust…jealousy or hatred should not lead to revenge. Just because you like a girl doesn’t mean that you have to take her out or kiss her. Do not act impulsively or ‘however you feel.’ Practice the strength of self-control and pray that God will help you desire only those things which help you become a strong Christian.

Choose to take care of the body God gave you. You have been a temple of the Holy Spirit since Baptism. You will be growing to physical adulthood over the next ten years. Eat wholesome foods, avoid junk and excess sweets. Avoid temptations to smoke or to drink alcohol.

Good advice perhaps, but I cannot help but wonder why this only applies to boys.

Here are some modesty guidelines for the "classy lady." Check out the rest of it if you have time.

Shirts:
-the neck line should be no lower than 4 fingers below collar bone
- no very thin or sheer material
-may not be tight in the bust area
- should not allow the shape of bra to be seen in the back (if you can it’s too tight)
-can not be spandex or very tight shirts
- the backs should be modest" i.e.: no strappy backs, halter or missing backs!

Pants:
-should not be too tight" especially in the seat or the thigh area
-should fit well, but not be skin-tight" one should be able to pull them away from the leg
-shorts should be modest- no very short and/or tight shorts; if you put your arms down straight at the side" and the bottom of the shorts is higher than your longest finger, then the shorts are too short.
(Remember" we will be on an elevated runway" and everything will look a bit shorter to the audience. )

Skirts and Dresses:
-can not be very tight fitting (follow shirt guidelines)
-should not have too thin of material and if needed a slip should be worn.
-can be no shorter that 4 fingers above the top of the kneecap
-Dresses only:
-must have a modest neck line (no lower than 4 fingers below collar bone )
-no thin straps (such as spaghetti straps)
if necessary a dress with straps two fingers wide may be worn, if the whole dress is very modest and no bra straps can be showing, but must be worn!

This woman would have a field day at Catlin. A field day or a heart attack.

I'm going to miss wearing my spaghetti straps. And going braless.

Finally, in case you were wondering how kind you were, she has a quiz, which I failed, most likely because I do not do completely ridiculous stuff like "listen patiently when someone launches for the fifth time into the same tired old story or the same stale jokes."

Well, that is about all I can say regarding this. It is times like these that make me really glad I go to Catlin.

I support our troops. Believe when I say that I the deepest amount of respect for those who will willingly put their lives in danger for their country. They do deserve respect. But they also deserve something else, something the current Administration has been slow to admit.

When we send the selfless soldiers out in potentially lethally situations such as keeping the peace in Iraq, we have signed a contract. Not one of ink and paper, but an implied moral contract. We agree that we have carefully considered the risks and benefits of sending them abroad. We must have a clear and pressing reason for using military force. We must make sure our intelligence is correct, that is, we should carefully evaluate the veracity of each source. The current administration has failed to adequately do so.

Furthermore, the Administration has refused any acknowledgment of its own errors. We initially invaded the country to get the supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction, but when we could not find them, suddenly we had invaded Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein and bring the blessings of democracy to the poor Muslims. That the army would make a mistake concerning the presence of WMDs is one thing, that they would try and cover up their mistake by changing the issue is almost unforgivable.

The current Administration has refused to see issues in grayscale, preferring instead to label everyone as either against the terrorists, or with them. Besides the obvious insulting nature of characterizing someone like me as a supporter of terrorists, if anything, they have it backwards. I cannot understand how the Administration's have accomplished anything beyond increasing the anger among potential terrorists. The nation itself is no more secure than before.

I am sick of having my patriotism called into question by one who I feel has done little to bring respect to my country.

—Em "the Patriot" Ess