|
Post by joew on Feb 15, 2012 21:32:27 GMT -5
Our security, safety, and health hysterias are absurd. Of course no one wants to be killed, injured, or sick. But almost everybody rides in cars.
I wonder how it is at the Capitol nowadays. When I was at Georgetown, I could wander unhindered all through the building's corridors, ride the subway to the Senate Office Building, have lunch in the cafeteria, attend any committee hearing. All I needed to get into the Senate Gallery and watch the proceedings to my heart's content was a cardboard pass a little larger than a credit card issued by my Senator's office. Same openness on the House of Representatives side. I think the requirement for the pass was instituted after some Puerto Rican terrorists opened fire in the House chamber sometime in the 1950's.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 15, 2012 22:04:10 GMT -5
I liked the article and Purdums' style and tone is pretty straight forward — he didn't sideline with the invective so common these days; but then it wasn't an opinion piece. I liked the way he fit in the reference to the swat team in Peoria being more fearsome than any unit deployed in Vietnam or Korea.
I was surprised at how closely the article mirrors my own observations over the past thirty years. There was even a short reference as to the power of the media and television to wrongly influence public perception.
Great article Gail thanks for passing it along. Vanity Fair Who woulda thought...
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 16, 2012 0:10:36 GMT -5
At least we all more or less agree that civil rights are still important. That is my major objection to the TSA, but I name that agency as only one example of general erosion of civil liberties in the name of keeping us safe in the War on Terror. TM It's a very visible one.
Protest against TSA has not been a failure; the TSA has been installing MMW lately, not backscatter, largely due to public protest against the use of ionizing radiation, a known carcinogen, on the whole population including pregnant women and young children. Though still objectionable on 4th amendment and privacy grounds, at least lives are being saved.
I am struck by one quotation from Kennan: But the amorphous bogeyman of global terrorism has made the notion of significant adjustments in defense spending off limits. He goes on to mention TSA specifically and DHS in general as unwarranted expansions of that fear of a "boogeyman."
I am reminded of a quote from J. Edgar Hoover; paraphrased, he believed that internal passports and government permission should be required for domestic travel. At present this is required only for domestic air travel, but I suspect it won't be long before permission and search is required for all train and bus travel, and then private auto travel. Seems far-fetched but even right after 9/11, I would never have imagined strip searches or breast/genital fondling would be required in order to travel by air. "Anything for security."
Roger you mentioned in passing the futuristic idea that the government would install mind-reading machines. I recently read an article describing just such a development, albeit yet experimental. And DHS, in its dragnet search for "bad guys" also has CT scanners installed in roving panel vans, irradiating city streets and all passersby (Boston was mentioned), unbeknownst to those on the sidewalk.
Like Kennan, I too remember the streets of Washington, DC in the late 50's, not pre-WWII of course, but still a different and in ways a better time. Kennan didn't like SAIC or the revolving door military-industrial-corporatocracy complex, nor did he care for secret assassination orders directed toward extinguishing the lives of American citizens without due process. (cf Anwar al-Aulaqi)
The statistics on US prisoners are well documented and symptomatic of our progression towards ever tighter government control of the citizenry at the expense of civil rights. But at least those prisoners are arrested with probable cause or reasonable suspicion, a privilege not afforded air travelers, who receive more invasive searches than an arrestee, or those in range of the CT scanner-vans.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 16, 2012 0:34:47 GMT -5
Our security, safety, and health hysterias are absurd. Of course no one wants to be killed, injured, or sick. But almost everybody rides in cars. "Innumeracy" Joe. People don't understand the numerical risk, which is roughly 1 death in 7,000 persons per year for auto accidents, but 1 in 2 million persons per year for aircraft (mostly general aviation private planes, not commercial jets at that). "Innumeracy," plus of course relentless media and political hyping of the risk - "Be afraid, very afraid" of The Boogeyman - in order for the government to continue to push its agenda of ever greater control and continuing reduction of liberties. And to enrich its cronies too of course.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 16, 2012 1:35:36 GMT -5
Say Roger, don't give up hope for rail travel yet!
I just looked at last year's stats and air travel was at its lowest level since 2002 while train travel was increased about 5% last year over 2010, and January 2012 is already a record-setting month for Amtrak. The only catch is that half of all Amtrak revenue comes from the Northeast Corridor (NEC), which is DC - Philly - NYC - Boston, particularly the Acela high-speed routes from DC to NY.
The last two Thanksgiving airports have been nearly empty while Amtrak trains have been packed. So full that Amtrak has had to borrow cars from NJ Transit and MARTA!. Amtrak is generally more expensive than flying, so I don't think it is just the poor economy. And in Europe, also beset by economic woes, air travel is up.
In the NEC trains are faster and more convenient than planes, given that one must be at the airport 2 hours in advance for security and wait 30 - 45 minutes for one's bags after landing, plus add in travel time to and from the airport. Train stations in those 4 NEC cities are in the city center.
But outside the NEC, most people will find driving to be quicker than air for distances up to 500 - 600 miles, then air travel becomes more popular unless you do not have time limits.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 16, 2012 1:46:56 GMT -5
I've been arguing this off and on for at least 20 years I'm tired, a bit sick to my stomach. I need to back away from the conversation for a few days. Besides I have to get the dumplins on my chicken stew.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 16, 2012 6:49:34 GMT -5
I've been arguing this off and on for at least 20 years I'm tired, a bit sick to my stomach. I need to back away from the conversation for a few days. Besides I have to get the dumplins on my chicken stew. I dunno Roger, I thought the markedly increasing use of the rails would be a positive for you. I think that additional "corridors" could be quite popular: Dallas to Houston or San Antonio Chicago to Detroit Detroit to Buffalo on to New York City (this route exists but minimally used) Cleveland to Pittsburgh Pittsburgh to Philly (the highway is terrible on that route and the US Air flight is so popular that the flight attendants often know the pax by name, but nobody really likes flying on US) Madison or Chicago to Minneapolis Cross Florida routes - Tampa to Orlando to Daytona/Jax Tampa to PBI/FLL/Miami Washington DC to Florida (AutoTrain already popular here) New Orleans to Houston Denver to Albuquerque ABQ to Flag to Las Vegas Phoenix to LAS LAS to LAX or San Diego (here'sa link for this: www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/25/desertxpress-high-speed-rail-project-rolls-forward/)Get those up, then maybe LAX/SAN to SFO would "fly" (pun intended) Maybe California to Portland to Seattle to Vancouver (this route exists and is popular as a tourist/scenic route but is not fast/cheap enough to replace air travel) I think rail travel could be viable on these "shorter" corridors, but we are a ways from replacing the transcon flights with trains. Even that DesertXpress is pretty pricey even though the route is mostly through government land, or otherwise relatively available property. There are 83 freight trains per day through Flagstaff because moving freight by train is less expensive than truck, so I surmise there is a way to make similar adjustments in how people travel. Ask Warren Buffet who recently bought a huge stake in BNSF.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 16, 2012 22:41:37 GMT -5
I recently priced the USA Rail passes. They have risen $180 in two years. I can only speculate as to the cause of this price hike as statistics are always incomplete in current terms.
One thing we can rely on for guidance in the present are the insights and predictions of visionaries and thinkers of the past. Often, it is that these insights are the revelations of the people who have participated in the folly which they criticize
In his 1954 book "A Child .of the Century" Ben Hecht writes:
In pre-movie days, the business of peddling lies about life was spotty and unorganized.It was carried on by the cheaper magazines dime novels, the hinterland preachers and Whooping politicians. These combined to unload a rash of infantile parables on the land. A goodly part of the land was infected, but there remained a large healthy area of the Republics thought. There remained, in fact, an intellectual class of sorts—a tribe of citizens who never read dime novels, cheap magazines or submitted themselves to political or religious howlers.
It was this tribe that the movies scalped. Cultured people who would have blushed with shame to be found with a dime novel in their hands took to flocking shamelessly to watch the picturization of such tripe on the screen.
Four fourty years the movies have drummed away at the American character. They have fed naiveté and buncombe in doses never before administered to any people. They have slapped into the American mind more human misinformation in one evening than the dark ages could muster in a decade.
If you aren't familiar with Ben Hecht you should recognize his accomplishments
Ben Hecht ( 1894–1964) was an American screenwriter, director, producer, playwright, and novelist. Called "the Shakespeare of Hollywood", he received screen credits, alone or in collaboration, for the stories or screenplays of some 70 films and as a prolific storyteller, authored 35 books and created some of the most entertaining screenplays and plays in America. Film historian Richard Corliss called him "the" Hollywood screenwriter, someone who "personified Hollywood itself." The Dictionary of Literary Biography - American Screenwriters calls him "one of the most successful screenwriters in the history of motion pictures." He was the first screenwriter to receive an Academy Award for Original Screenplay, for the movie Underworld (1927). The number of screenplays he wrote or worked on that are now considered classics is, according to Chicago's Newberry Library, "astounding," and included films such as, Scarface (1932), The Front Page, Twentieth Century (1934), Barbary Coast (1935), Nothing Sacred (1937), Some Like It Hot, Gone with the Wind, Gunga Din, Wuthering Heights, (all 1939), His Girl Friday (1940), Spellbound (1945), Notorious (1946), Monkey Business, A Farewell to Arms (1957), Mutiny on the Bounty (1962), and Casino Royale (released posthumously, in 1967). He also provided story ideas for such films as Stagecoach (1939). In 1940, he wrote, produced, and directed, Angels Over Broadway, which was nominated for Best Screenplay. In total, six of his movie screenplays were nominated for Academy Awards, with two winning.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 17, 2012 1:15:10 GMT -5
Well, I sure didn't know as much about Ben Hecht as I do now. I am also delighted to see in print 'buncombe." I figured it must be the source of our "bunkum" but look what I found in Dictionary.com:
bun·kum [buhng-kuhm]
noun 1. insincere speechmaking by a politician intended merely to please local constituents.
2. insincere talk; claptrap; humbug.
Also, buncombe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin: Americanism ; after speech in 16th Congress, 1819–21, by F. Walker, who said he was bound to speak for Buncombe (N.C. county in district he represented)
I'd say it's pretty much come to mean "humbug" because I don't think of it in political terms at all, but maybe the rest of you know its original meaning.
Anyway, I digress. I wish I could be around in a couple of hundred years to see what history says about the revolutionary effects of modern media. Movies (and all their subsequent incarnations) seem to me as important as the Gutenberg Press.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 17, 2012 19:16:01 GMT -5
I was going to point out that there is a Buncombe County in North Carolina, which includes Asheville, but you beat me to it.
I can't imagine why someone would disparage Asheville, but maybe someone didn't like F. Walker.
Asheville is a wonderful town (now a city) in the Blue Ridge Mountains, but of late it has been despoiled by Yankees who read about it in the New York Times. Yankees!! In Asheville! OMG.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 17, 2012 22:13:21 GMT -5
Representative Walker, as I understand it, explained a speech in Congress which even he knew was wrongheaded by saying that he was speaking for Buncombe. So in effect he is the one who disparaged his own district.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 18, 2012 0:53:20 GMT -5
I t is interesting that you all picked up on tha little piece of invective when there were so many others ("Buisiness of peddling lies" "rash of infantile parables" "flocking shamelessly" ). Were you also attracted to the facetious phrases "Tribe of citizens " and "That the movies scalped". And how about that neologism "pictureization"
I guess that was the secret of his success— his rich analytic repertoire.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 18, 2012 12:37:34 GMT -5
I t is interesting that you all picked up on tha little piece of invective when there were so many others ("Buisiness of peddling lies" "rash of infantile parables" "flocking shamelessly" ). Were you also attracted to the facetious phrases "Tribe of citizens " and "That the movies scalped". And how about that neologism "pictureization" I guess that was the secret of his success— his rich analytic repertoire. Huh? What are you talking about? I did not see this in the Vanity Fair article. Or did you look up F. Walker's speech? I was commenting only on what Joe posted about "buncombe" or "bunkum," not additional commentary that might have been made in 1819. I know Asheville and Buncombe County have changed a lot in the last 200 years.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 18, 2012 13:45:39 GMT -5
I think we crossed posts K. I was talking about the excerpt from Ben Hecht's book which was were the discussion of buncombe first came up.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 18, 2012 18:23:10 GMT -5
Hmmm. I don't go to the movies, so I guess I don't think they have that much influence on out lives. There were other means of communication even before the movies. Anyway Hecht's language is way too florid to merit my attention, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 18, 2012 20:29:46 GMT -5
US Movie Market Summary for 2009. Total Box Office Gross: $10647323069. Tickets sold: 1419643081
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 19, 2012 6:23:23 GMT -5
US Movie Market Summary for 2009. Total Box Office Gross: $10647323069. Tickets sold: 1419643081 But Mr. Hecht was referring to an earlier time. His book apparently was published in 1954 and it refers to the previous 40 years, largely pre-WWII. As I've said many times, I'm no historian, but I think we were a different society back then. Or maybe I'm reflecting my rural family roots. The towns my family members grew up in did not have movie theaters; one had to travel to the "city" 20 - 40 miles away in order to see a movie, so that was reserved for a special occasion. Most Americans now live in cities with nearby movie theaters, as the rural population has decreased. However, for me it's now a 50 mile drive, and in our North Carolina home, it's 35 mile drive to see a movie. It seems to me that was typical for a much larger portion of the population in the period 1914 - 1954, so I am not sure that figures for 2009 are relevant. Anyway, I don't buy sweeping condemnations of a population as a whole, especially when it is a Hollywood type making generalizations about everyone else in a country of 100 - 200 million people. [Roger, you can check the details of population growth, but IIRC the US didn't get to 200 million until the late 1950's and California/Hollywood/LA did not grow explosively until post-WWII.] Interesting that Hecht makes a similar claim as Charles Murray ("Coming Apart: The State Of White America") - there is now an intellectual class division rather than race or strictly economic, though Murray's book posits that in our current economy the wealth goes to the intelligentsia. It remains very easy for "city people" to make generalizations about "country people," for college-educated white collar people to make generalizations about blue collar workers/NASCAR fans, and for the "wealthy" to have preconceived notions about "the poor." Y'all know I'm a fan of John McCutcheon and I love his song "Forget About" which includes the lyrics "forget about red and blue, there's only me and you." Some folks live in the city, some in the country, some like NASCAR, some like opera or television or movies. Is that really enough to justify massive name-calling and demonization - bunkum, tripe, naivete, misinformation? I don't buy it, and I suspect many others don't either. Or maybe that is for people in bubbles?
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 20, 2012 0:57:54 GMT -5
Certainly Hecht is a poor example of a visionary. He is mostly described a a rascal. As an industry insider and author of much of the media he criticizes though he would be an authority on media inaccuracies and the way those inaccuracies were peddled to the public as history. The biblical era movies, the war movies, cowboys and Indians, the wild west gunslingers.
As to whether the public buys it these days, I think 175 billion a year spent in advertising is pretty much proof that The public gobbles up inaccuracies and half truths pretty readily. I know people, intelligent people, that believe Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Sean Hannity have the best interests of the country in mind rather than the best interests of their sponsors.
Yes media has changed since the 50s it has become more insidious and unconscionable. The same methods developed by Georgi Lozanoff in the 70s are used in all aspects of media today.
The statistics you re-quoted above are for box office only. They don't include TV, cable, or internet. It is most uncomfortable to wonder whether the things you've worked hard to understand are valid. Being a habitual ponderer myself I don't recommend it.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 20, 2012 10:22:32 GMT -5
I don't think Hecht was a visionary, though I would agree about advertising and its half-truths.
I was very surprised when I learned in business school that television is an advertising medium rather than an entertainment medium, but the case was quite persuasive. I think that Snopes, Pinocchio Awards, FactCheck and the like reflect a growing skepticism on the part of the public.
However, some Americans have pretty short memories and some a lack of critical thinking, so if it seems like what Rush and Glen and Sean say is "patriotic," they may not double check. It's pretty obvious to anyone who has a brain and uses it that many outright lies are being told in this current political campaign - on both sides. But people are less likely to note the lies "their guy" tells, especially if the lies are concordant with their own prejudices or beliefs.
Do you think because someone votes or buys as advertised it means they have swallowed the fairy tale hook, line and sinker? Or do you think it might mean they made the most reasonable choice among an array that was imperfect?
And do you think someone might watch a movie or TV show for entertainment without necessarily accepting it as a 100% true documentary?
Cable and the internet may advertise but they also make it easy to see many different viewpoints, and to detect lies pretty quickly. I think my understanding evolves as I seek information from more sources. Sometimes I even go places to see what is "really" going on, but even then there are discrepancies.
Might advertising serve a purpose, or is it only a deleterious entity, exclusively "unconscionable"? Do you think "suggestopedia" is all bad, or do you think it also has a positive role in accelerated acquisition of new languages and musical skills?
I've found very few things are exclusively black and white; most things are varying shades of gray. And though Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is a cornerstone of quantum physics, most disciplines have similar concepts stating you can't know anything with certainly no maatter how hard you study it.
One of my Kristinisms, attributed to John Donne: As the island of knowledge expands so do the shorelines of ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 20, 2012 17:20:19 GMT -5
I said somewhere else here that movies revolutionized this country, and I stick to it. Rog's list of stereotypes Rog (Biblical era movies, the war movies, cowboys and Indians, the wild west gunslingers) could be extended almost indefinitely. While it's true that DW Griffiths' "The Birth of a Nation" was cricitcized in 1915 for its racism and colossal revisionist history, it was followed by decades of movies that made blacks either demons or clowns.
I'm surprised you experienced a world unaffected by movies, K. Around the Midwest every small town had a movie house. Movies and worship of stars changed rural kids' notion of what life could be, the romance of leaving behind the dirt and taking off for the "big city," even if that was just Decatur or Saginaw or Toledo.
I suppose simple photography was the first revolution and then the radio. But movies and newsreels made some things so vivid that human beings took in perceptions and information (or lack thereof) and a sense of reality in ways no one had ever done in history.
Oops. Jerry the Plumber (not) has a crisis on his hands.... More on this later. I think it's a fascinating subject.
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Feb 20, 2012 18:04:32 GMT -5
Our primary is next week, so we are innundated with nasty ads and phone calls. Romney seems to be doing more than Santorum. I find them both unpleasant. My husband wants me to go vote for Romney in the primary, since Santorum is ahead in the polls, and he is scarier than Romney. Well, I voted for Mitt's dad, but I don't think I can vote for this Romney, not even in the primary.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 20, 2012 19:47:20 GMT -5
Jane are you getting these calls on a land line? Or is it that you are registered with a party?
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Feb 20, 2012 19:57:29 GMT -5
I'm actually a registered Democrat. And, yes, they are coming through my land line. Ann Romney just checked in this evening. I hung right up.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 20, 2012 20:33:20 GMT -5
I wouldn't say my life is uninfluenced by movies, just that since Howard and I have lived out of range of movie theaters, we are not as influenced by them since we have to wait to see them and usually it is on TV or DVD, occasionally on planes. We used to go out for "dinner and a movie" regularly, often with friends.
OTOH, now we get together with friends for meals and conversation - also good. And we do live and work in an area where many people do not have running water or electricity, and live a subsistence lifestyle; movies just are on their radar screens at all.
Now that we live this rural life, I reflect on how that portion of America with no ready access to films were influenced by movies. Much less, I'd conclude. I do notice overseas that many people in the less developed world are surprised to see Americans who are not movie stars and do not act like those on TV shows; that is all they see of Americans.
I disagree with Hecht that all Americans (or all members of a class) were scalped by the movies, or that all films are tripe, or that all Americans believe everything they see on the screen is gospel truth.
And there are so many things that have revolutionized 20th and 21st century America. Consider clean water, low cost electricity, immunizations and antibiotics so that we can live longer enough to have lives that allow for leisure time and disposable income. With those we are able to enjoy the advances in communication and transportation. We take so much of the basics for granted.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 20, 2012 20:41:43 GMT -5
Jane we have only cellphones, no landline connected to the phonejack. That way we don't get those annoying calls.
I've read that Michigan has an open primary so it's no wonder registered voters of any party will get calls. You vote for Ron Paul if you don't want to vote for Romney, and consider it a vote against Santorum.
Frankly I think that Obama could more easily defeat Santorum, as his views are so very conservative compared the general population. Most American women do not think birth control is inherently wrong and most men & women do not believe sex is intended exclusively for procreation. Even among Roman Catholics.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 20, 2012 22:22:16 GMT -5
Most American women do not think birth control is inherently wrong and most men & women do not believe sex is intended exclusively for procreation. Even among Roman Catholics. That's good, because the Catholic Church doesn't teach that.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 21, 2012 1:07:23 GMT -5
And we so easily accept these inventions as progress without forethought as to whether Spaceship Earth can sustain the results. !4 billion people ten years from now. What—40 billion in twenty? One big shopping mall on a concrete ball preserved by anti-bacterial sprays and fungicides. Biological diversity confined to cages?
There have been many advancements but IMRO less than 50% of them are positive. We should increase that ratio before we populate ourselves out of existence. Human life is not the most important element to the long term health of this planet — the only home we have.
To tie this in with the above topic I would say we are more gullible than the general population of 100 years ago. We are so inundated by media that uses scientific methods to access our consciousness that we can not depend on our reference system for guidance. For example there are a lot of professional scientists out there that are Christians and faith is totally in conflict with the concept of repeatable evidence.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 21, 2012 9:02:18 GMT -5
To tie this in with the above topic I would say we are more gullible than the general population of 100 years ago. We are so inundated by media that uses scientific methods to access our consciousness that we can not depend on our reference system for guidance. For example there are a lot of professional scientists out there that are Christians and faith is totally in conflict with the concept of repeatable evidence. I am not so sure that humans have changed that much in gullibility in 100 years; I am recalling Orson Welles' Mercury Theater broadcast of "The War of the Worlds" as but one example. "Scientific methods" may remain consistent but the results produced change over time. The half-life of medical knowledge is said to be 3.5 years, and every day I marvel over "standard practice" I use today that I was taught was wrong in medical school. Or even at a conference 5 years ago. As a result, I am not so quick to place all my faith in one "scientific study" result. And because faith is, by definition, the belief in something for which there is no proof, I am reluctant to condemn someone else for their Christian faith and their beliefs, even if they are a "scientist." For an example, I am a Christian and a scientist (competent doctors do use the scientific method), and I believe in both the Theory of Evolution and the Bible. I am trained as an anthropologist and I understand the importance of myth and allegory in human life. I understand that I am one puny human and God the creator of the universe is great. I understand that if the bible says that God created the earth in 7 days, that there may be different definitions of a "day." I don't have a good understanding of why some people are so offended by others' religious beliefs or lack thereof, and some are so insistent on imposing their beliefs on others.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 21, 2012 9:22:49 GMT -5
Most American women do not think birth control is inherently wrong and most men & women do not believe sex is intended exclusively for procreation. Even among Roman Catholics. That's good, because the Catholic Church doesn't teach that. Thanks for the clarification/confirmation, Joe. It is my understanding that the Catholic church does not have such rigid "rules," yet when I watched Santorum's speeches, it seemed to me that was what he was saying, even when interviewers allowed him to explain beyond the sound bites. He seemed unaware that there are many medical uses for birth control other than prevention of pregnancy. Santorum also said that when genetic testing shows a fetal abnormality, doctors "encourage" abortion. I know of no doctors who take that approach. We offer the testing, and what to do about the results is entirely up to the patient/family. Most obstetricians do not do abortions themselves. (Most of my patients decline the testing and would never consider abortion.)
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 21, 2012 10:50:38 GMT -5
That's good, because the Catholic Church doesn't teach that. Thanks for the clarification/confirmation, Joe. It is my understanding that the Catholic church does not have such rigid "rules," yet when I watched Santorum's speeches, it seemed to me that was what he was saying, even when interviewers allowed him to explain beyond the sound bites. He seemed unaware that there are many medical uses for birth control other than prevention of pregnancy. Santorum also said that when genetic testing shows a fetal abnormality, doctors "encourage" abortion. I know of no doctors who take that approach. We offer the testing, and what to do about the results is entirely up to the patient/family. Most obstetricians do not do abortions themselves. (Most of my patients decline the testing and would never consider abortion.) What do you think the Catholic Church teaches, Joe? Much of what I read sounds very like what K said originally. Our newspapers and blogs reflect the belief that, for Catholics, procreation must be the purpose of sex and that any 'unnatural' interference with that outcome is wrong. We in MN (and elsewhere) are in the midst of two controversies related to Catholic teaching - the argument about providing contraception to women and the proposed concstitutional ban on same-sex marriage. I'm interested to hear what you think is the true position of the Catholic Church.
|
|