What's YOUR Take On Circumcision?

An initiative has been proposed to make it illegal to circumcise any boy under the age of 18. In the unlikely event that the measure will be passed, excising or cutting any part of the male foreskin will be punishable as a misdemeanor that may include jail time and a lofty fine.

  Circumcision is a fairly common practice, with about half of Americans undergoing the procedure prior to their first birthday. It is mandated by some religions and prohibited by others, the practice going back at least 4000 years in written history. Whether for religious, cleanliness, or aesthetic reasons, a large number of parents opt to make the decision to remove part or all of their sons' foreskins when they are infants. But does the commonality of the cut make it right?

  CDC reports have claimed that unclipped males do have higher incidences of STIs, HPV, and HIV. whether this is due to inherent cleanliness or random selection is not known. It is known that uncircumcised boys do have higher numbers of youthful urinary tract infections (12 times higher according to the Canadian Paediatric Society) and that some of those can be fatal. On the other hand, there have been cases of scarring and other complications in hospital circumcisions. There is no such thing as a perfect surgery, no matter how minor it may appear to be.

  The San Francisco initiative makes no exceptions for religion or any other reason. As such, I'm left to wonder whether or not boys who have excessively tight foreskins that can result in pain or Peyronies Disease or persistent UTIs (one of my cousins was circumcised for this reason at 3) will be prohibited from remedy or will they be required to suffer because one man was angry that his parents snipped him 50 years ago.

  I can see reasonable arguments for and against circumcision as a practice. I know several guys who have had it done as adults and reported that it wasn't too horrific so I would probably leave it to my kid to choose at an age where he can consent. However, I think an age of 18 is arbitrary and that governmental intervention could backfire in this case. To begin with, you will have countless lawsuits from religious practitioners that will clog the courts ad infinitum. Also, the government already interferes with parenting far too much and I'm wondering where the next decision will lead- will people who wish they'd never been born be able to sue for Wrongful Birth?

  I think that the government needs to stay out of this, at least for the time being. Anti-circumcision activists have done far more in reducing the practice through education than regulation. I personally find piercing infants' ears at least as objectionable, but I'm not going to try to make it illegal because it is your decision. If you do not want to circumcise your sons, don't.

 

Freedom Of Filth

 I was alerted to the presence of a Kindle book on Amazon titled The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure a few days ago and asked to weigh in on it. I directed the reader to a post I did about NAMBLA's website while I looked into this.

  The e-book offers a defense of what author Phillip R. Greaves considers a legitimate sexual orientation. Complete with what can only be called perverse erotica, this and another Amazon release by the same author seek to bring "child-loving" into the mainstream, to legitimize it. It echoes NAMBLA's stance that current laws are discriminatory and the notion that adult-child sexual relationships are less harmful if between those of the same gender.

  None of the content of this appalling novella is incredibly original. It's all been said before, written about before, and sold on Amazon before. I've even written about this topic on a number of occasions and had a paedophile try to use the relativist "but you're gay and that's no different" argument to try to make me feel badly about calling for lifetime incarceration of sexual abusers of children. (And I still believe predators should be shown no mercy.)

  This book and similar titles would be considered child pornography in numerous nations, including Canada, but is protected speech in the United States. It ranks alongside holocaust denial and promotions of genocide and other grossly illegal actions as abhorrent but legal. However, just because it is legal to own doesn't mean that Amazon is mandated to carry the title. The First Amendment applies to the government and related institutions and Amazon is a private enterprise. As such, it can offer for sale whatever they please as long as it doesn't contravene the law. Right now, Amazon is offering another paedophilic manifesto, hundreds of anti-semitic texts including this, this, and this, and tomes glorifying animal torture as well as how-to guides for manufacture of drugs and explosives. Most of these are sold directly through Amazon as opposed to being self-published, like Phillip Greaves' titles.

   Amazon proudly sells a ton of content that the vast majority of the population finds objectionable, and the only reason why this book vanished is because of money. The publication of the title brought negative attention and the Twitter-led boycott. The potential loss of holiday revenue rang the bell of shareholders and executives.

  Personally I would love to see Amazon pull all books written that depict paedophilia in a positive light and my freedom of opinion states that I can ask Amazon to remove the content. I can get on the radio, buy billboard adspace, or write another book telling you what I think about the sale of literature that glorifies inhumanity. Amazon is not bound to obey me, but I have the freedom to tell you the title of every disgusting title sold on their website.
  Amazon and other companies are free to sell as they wish but not absolved from the ramifications and neither are those who pen certain content. Phillip Greaves has the freedom to publish his perverse defense of evil, but shouldn't be shocked that the police are investigating whether or not he has engaged in any of the illegal actions promoted. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to stick your foot in your mouth.

The book above is one of many sold on Amazon by pro-pervert author David L. Riegel, who is 79 years old as of the time of this article.

You Need A Laugh

  This Hour Has 22 Minutes is a news satire show produced by the Canadian government owned CBC. It's been on the air longer than Jon Stewart and has made international stars out of many cast members. Never afraid to step on stereotypes or the toes of famous newscasters and newsmakers, 22 Minutes is in a class of its own .

  This week, your clever neighbours lampoon America-Canada media relations, ex-gays, and more all in one of the greatest skits created on any network anywhere. It starts off a little slow, but hang on because it gets better.

Happy Friday!

Un Mauvais Mensonge

  You've seen this image used on billboards and postage stamps, used to demonize the IDF and the West in general. The French footage that claimed a murder of a boy named Mohammed al-Dura has been used as justification for suicide bombings, the beheading of Daniel Pearl and 9/11. According to Charles Enderlin of France 2, the IDF deliberately targeted Mohammed and his father for a full 45 minutes before killing the boy and wounding his father. Despite thee fact that France 2 only released 59 seconds of highly edited video, the international media pounced, declaring Israelis child killers and the Palestinians innocent.

  But what if it was all a carefully calculated lie?

  According to French media watchdog Media-Ratings, the incident is a complete hoax. Founded in 2004 after German forensics determined that Israeli fire could not have caused the holes in the wall nor the injuries to Mohammed al-Dura. The images at the point of Mohammed's death were also never released by France 2 because they would have told a different story- one that the French would not like to hear. If you believe in scientific fact, Mohammed al-Dura's tragic death was a murder, but it was not perpetuated by the IDF.

  The Western world has tried their best to discredit Media-Ratings' director Philippe Karsenty and keep the truth from being set free. Mr. Karsenty has been sued several times for libel, but was vindicated after the court forced France 2 to reveal their footage.

  Philippe Karsenty will be lecturing on Saturday in Ottawa, and I urge anyone who seeks truth to attend. His slide and video display reduces what people think they know about the al-Dura incident to a complete farce. It also exposes the depth that media will go to not only create a biased lie, but continue its propagation. Mr. Karsenty is also an example of the lengths that a nation will go to to vilify someone who dares to expose an unpopular reality and challenge propaganda for what it is.

  Never stop thinking critically. Don't always accept the established opinion or the latest political bias. The media should never lie to you, but when it does, do not be afraid to see the truths, no matter how inconvenient they may be.

GOPride?

   GOProud is an ultra-conservative group of wealthy white guys, who happen to be gay. While they claim to only speak on gay issues, they enjoy palling around with Ann Coulter and other usually homophobic people. Not as friendly as the Log Cabin Republicans, GOProud openly endorses candidates that preach hateful agendas. However, outside of being self-loathing Teaocrats, GOProud doesn't usually try to mess with things that don't normally concern them. Well, until now.

  GOProud leader Jimmy LaSilva will be speaking next week at George Washington University about the wonderful connection between the LGBT community and the anti-choice movement. I didn't realize there was supposed to be a link between gay rights and restricting those of women, but according to Mr. LaSilva there is.

  I don't quite understand how a group of men who will never wind up in an unplanned pregnancy situation should have any opinion on the matter, let alone be able to state that all LGBT people are anti-choice. The anti-choice movement is also against birth control and sex education, the first not being of concern to gay men and the second possibly reducing gay teen suicide. I'm not terribly surprised that this group is anti-woman, but I think Jimmy LaSilva is way out of bounds here. How is controlling the wombs of heterosexual women a gay issue?

  While I know many gays who are fiscal conservatives, embracing the pseudoreligious wing of the far-right is absolutely ridiculous. Attempting to gain the favour of those who think they can cure us by any means necessary is akin to the Lithuanians who joined the Nazi Party. Promoting the removal of rights from another group to save yourself is one of the most appalling and cowardly actions one can commit.

  From supporting religious leaders that hate us to social policies that will drive America into debt to preaching an anti-woman message, I struggle to find out what, if anything, GOProud has to be proud of exactly.

Image cap stolen from joemygod.blogspot.com

Happy Birthday Sarah!

  I tried to make a cheesy  birthday video but figured my singing would not be a great way to commemorate your 30 years on the planet. But then I remembered November 9th, 1989. It was your 9th birthday and the birthdate of the end of totalitarianism in a large chunk of the modern world.

  It's not terribly shocking that one of the most peaceful and decent people I've known shares an anniversary with freedom itself. I wish you another year of joy and thank you for giving us another reason to remember November 9th.

  Happy birthday, my friend.

Poly-thoughts

  You're on a date with an intelligent, sexy being and all is going well until this statement:

"I'm into polyamory"

 "So, you're into cheating and getting away with it."

 "But, you just don't get it. (In a sanctimonious tone as if the person thinks she has invented the concept.)" It's about love and respect and openness."

 "With more than one person."

  "Well, yes. but stop making it sound so sinister. You just don't get it. " (You simple jillbilly)

  "Actually, I do get it. You see, when my parents were married a decade before you were born, my dad's other partner lived with us."

  "Oh, that's awesome!' (valley girl excitement)

  "And guess what my parent's aren't now? Married. They got divorced 30 years ago"

  "Oh..." (uncomfortable silence)

  I am kind of old-fashioned- I'm into loving one person, and doing so with every fibre of my being. While I am not terribly jealous, I'm not the type to look around. I'm not into cheating no matter what label you give it, and the concept of loving more than one person is even worse in my heart.

  While I have no problem with whatever makes a person happy, I am never going to be someone's second-best nor tolerate anyone who wants a multitude of partners. In every polyrelationship I have ever witnessed, there is inequality- one person has more partners than the other. Polyamory is often a concession made by someone who wants someone and can only have him or her by sharing with another. I'm certain that there are a few polyrelationships that have an equal power balance, and if that works for you, fine and dandy. Just don't expect me to be part of it and don't wait until the third date to tell me that you are in such an arrangement.

  I will never be involved in an open relationship, bisexual relationship, or polywhatever arrangement. Besides, if it is all kinds of excellent, why wait to tell me? I don't think that I'm being unreasonable in assuming that someone who wishes to begin a relationship with me is actually single when they ask me out. I am not a bad person for expecting honesty, loyalty, and decency. In my mind, someone who loves more than one person is not loving one enough. Now go home to your husband.