A Warning to Every Man

.


A client needed my help in criminal court. Her son had come at her with a butcher knife. She grabbed a steak knife from her place-setting and got lucky, bloodying his arm and deterring his attack.

But, the great rule of law enforcement and criminal court is, "Bleeders always win." Police, prosecutors and judges would deny that, but by-and-large it is simply true. If you are the one who bled, you are much more comfortably poised to succeed in court. The reasons why this is true are twofold: Laziness and embarrassment, the two great forces running the system. Police, prosecutors and judges see a bleeder and they think, "Hmmm, there is one who is obviously eligible to be labeled 'victim.'" Once they do that, the work ends. Once they do that, the press can't run an embarrassing article asking why the system sided with the non-bleeder.

Some criminals are aware of this, and so if arrest is inevitable they carefully bloody themselves with an injury before police arrive.

In any event, because my client, the true victim, got lucky in her effort to deter the attack, while she suffered no injury, she was arrested, while the son, the attacker, was interviewed as a victim.

So, my client was in a difficult position.

As I waited for the prosecutor to arrive for trial, I planned my discussion with the prosecutor in this tricky case. On the case list I saw that the prosecutor was a young lady I had not worked with for about three years. When she walked into the courtroom, I immediately saw that beautiful Dana suddenly had quite a substantial belly.

"DANA!," I exclaimed, putting out my hand, "HOW ARE YOU DOING?" And the next five words slipped-out of my mouth, before I could stop myself...

"WHAT IS YOUR DUE DATE?"

Dana's answer: "What due date?"


.

Incomplete Analysis of Gay Scout or Gay Priest Issue = "Lying"

Years ago, when The Philadelphia Inquirer first began to rail against priests molesting young men and boys, Inquirer articles would persistently call the priests "pedophiles." One would always see the word "pedophiles" 10 or 20 times in any given article -- but never, ever the word "homosexuals."

Finally, the Inquirer began to (a) criticize the Catholic Church for "pedophile priests," AT THE SAME TIME it (b) criticized the Catholic Church for adopting a policy of banning "homosexuals" from the seminary.

I thought, "That's it! I'm sick of this!"

I e-mailed the writer of an article criticizing "pedophile priests," telling him that pedophiles prefer female victims 9-to-1, whereas the guilty priests clearly preferred male victims 9-to-1, which made it 9 x 9 or 81 times more likely that the average priest WASN'T a "pedophile," but simply "gay" -- a homosexual. I cited him two on-line investigations verifying that the priest who was the subject of the writer's most recent article was "doing" an ADULT male while he "did" juvenile males, and I said, "Do you know what that is called? That is called 'homosexual.'" I then pointed-out ANOTHER prominent case where investigation showed that the priest offender was "doing" ADULT males WHILE he "did" juvenile males, and I said, "Do you know what you'll find if you investigate every priest? You'll find that virtually ALL of them are simply homosexual.

"So," I continued, "When the Inquirer runs articles CRITICIZING the Church for banning homosexuals from the seminaries, and then CRITICIZES the existence of 'pedophile priests,' it is really telling the Catholic Church to go 'north' and 'south' at the same time."

The Inquirer article writer responded, "Gee! Good point! I never thought of that!," and then he continued calling offender priests "pedophiles" without ever mentioning the word "homosexuals" or "homosexual conduct" in future articles.

The Court system is in on the contradiction, too, in the case of Boy Scouts of America.

Both the media and the courts also go after the Boy Scouts from both ends of the issue.

Suppose the Scouts were to announce a policy of Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts in the same tents at night during camping trips.

The country would justifiably go wild. People would ask, in anger, "Have they flipped? Are they crazy?"

Simple question: Why isn't knowingly putting a gay boy or a gay Scout leader in the same tent with another male THE EXACT SAME THING?

There's good evidence that putting gays in tents with other males is even worse than mixing boys and girls in tents. Various studies have found that male homosexuals are enormously promiscuous. A 2004 University of Chicago study recorded a promiscuity problem that was so bad that "chaste" was defined as "15 partners or less." Only 12.3% of those questioned had had 15 partners or less. 60% had had more than 30 partners. More than 40% had had more than 60 partners. Sex with 60 people of the same gender.

One psychologist proposed that male-male sex involved "two grazers," whereas male-female sex involved "one grazer and one person seeking a stable relationship."

The media and the courts, after they support lawsuits against the Boy Scouts for "bias against gays," support lawsuits for sexual molestation of boys and young men in the Scouts, the same way they go after the Church on this.

The American media, and the courts, need to get their policies straight.

Even this morning, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran an article criticizing the Boy Scouts for feeding into bias against homosexuals, but, as usual, says nothing -- not a single word -- about the problem of mixing heterosexuals and promiscuity-prone effeminate males in the same tents.

Right now, when the media and the courts refuse to talk about male homosexual promiscuity, and support infusion of homosexuals into the position of priest or Scout leaders or Scouts, in effect they are lying, lying, lying, lying, lying.

Stop the lying.

"Politicians Who Support Gay Marriage Not Catholic"

The heading here is taken from a headline in the "Catholic Star Herald" serving the Catholics in southern New Jersey. (February 19, 2010 issue.) A Roman cardinal said something akin to those words.

I guess I should begin by saying that I, personally, am against gay marriage.

And I should also add that any pro-gay-marriage politician falls apart and surrenders if asked if he supports marriages between people and animals. Years ago, I secured a relatively heavy jail sentence for a lady who was nicknamed "German Shepherd Lady" by the DA's Office in Philadelphia who supported herself by the sale of certain provocative photographs connected with her name. Suppose "German Shepherd Lady" were to manage to accumulate every freak in the United States who wants the freedom to marry animals into her legislative district. Should the state senator for the legislative district support the right to marry animals? Suppose he is cowardly and says, "Yes." And then, while his wife is standing there, he is asked if he will support the applications of German Shepherd Lady herself and her friends to take all of the teaching positions at the school where his daughter attends first grade. Life is complex, so things are not that simple.

But that "life is not simple" business cuts both ways.

The cardinal and the the legislator are invited to a debate. The debate is in front of the local abortion clinic. With 5,000 citizens watching, the cardinal is asked, "The Catholic Church opposed the current pro-choice constitutional amendment. The amendment passed, 4,000,000 votes to 2,000,000 votes. Do you support the responsibility of Catholics to not interfere with the perfectly-legal process of getting an abortion? In other words, do you support rule of law, or do you advocate civil disobedience, beginning with civil disobedience by yourself? To put it more bluntly, do you support the right of this pregnant woman walking in at this moment to be protected by the law, or is anyone supporting that laws be obeyed until they are changed 'not Catholic'?"

He adds, "Additionally, should Congress pass laws forcibly taking the money of X at gunpoint and paying it to Y, just because Y is a family man with kids? I ask that because in effect that is exactly what happens. If people refuse to pay taxes, ultimately IRS agents with guns come and arrest them and put them in jail. Suppose a gay head of household, barred from getting married, objects that therefore he is entitled to a personal deduction for the 19 year old college student living with him, just as Mr. and Mrs. Heads of Household are entitled to personal deductions for their college students. So, he absolutely refuses to pay federal income tax to the extent of the personal deduction. Do you support his arrest and imprisonment, so that Catholic heads of household can get their personal deduction?"

2,000 of the 5,000 citizens watching the debate are Catholics worried about this attack on their income.

What should the cardinal say?

Additionally, the liberal politician argues, "The Church opposes abortion. And the Church says that it opposes use of artificial birth control -- condoms, the Pill, and so on. Fair enough. But I have noticed that whereas you condemn politicians who support and vote for gay marriage and condemn politicians who support and vote for abortion, and use your pro-life budgets to oppose abortion laws, no one actually sees the Church actively opposing use of artificial birth control, and no parish really has an anti-artificial-birth-control component in their budget. Could that be because the vast majority of Catholics including the large majority of Catholic Church goers quietly support use of artificial birth control so that if the Church goes after it wildly, contributions will dry up and the Church will essentially shut down?"

The politician points at the audience. "Do you say that those parents who support use of contraceptives are not Catholic?"

"Also, studies have shown that the reason why the support for abortion exploded in the 1960s is because use of contraceptives exploded in the 1960s, where contraceptive use generates a massive, powerful social ethos in favor of using abortion as a 'contraceptive backstop.' So, should not the Church publicly oppose contraceptive use by Catholics just as loudly and violently as it opposes abortion?"

The politician points again to the audience: "Do you condemn the Catholics in the audience who support birth control use, and say that they are not Catholic?"

I'm not trying to confuse anyone. But we live in a pluralistic society, characterized by opposing points of view.

When a bishop or cardinal makes one of those statements "platonizing" a principle by implicitly or explicitly driving a leader out of the Church, shouldn't they do it only after doing it to themselves?

Life is complex.

Let us pray constantly for each other and for society.