Patriots’ Day 2013

Wrapped in American flags and shouting “USA!” the residents of greater Boston celebrated the capture of marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. According to the National Journal, “The young and old gathered in public spaces…singing the national anthem, feeling a sense of common accomplishment, relishing in a public exhale.  After a day of lockdown, the source of their collective fear was lifted.” And from the The Atlantic, “A city that’s been under siege for five days is now breathing a huge sigh ofPaul_revere_ride relief.”

Listen my children and you shall hear
Of a city locked down in abject fear,
On the nineteenth of April, in o’ thirteen;
Hardly a man could now be seen
Sheltered in place, oh who could have foreseen…

One if by land, and two if by sea;
And I in my jammies at home will be…*

Hardly the stuff of Boston legend. Is this really all we can expect from the descendants of the Sons of Liberty? From the Boston Tea Party to Lexington and Concord to Bunker Hill to…the Great Lockdown? Paul Revere and Sam Adams are, no doubt, spinning in their final resting places.


There are several troubling aspects to what transpired after the Boston Marathon bombing. First, how is it that a city whose name is synonymous with courage, defiance and revolutionary spirit so readily acquiesced to a government order to go home and not open the door for anyone other than “properly identified” law enforcement? During “the siege”—which, by the way, was inflicted on Bostonians by their own government—President Obama spoke at an interfaith prayer service in remembrance of the victims of the bombing:

Our faith in each other, our love for each other, our love for country, our common creed…That’s our strength.  That’s why a bomb can’t beat us.  That’s why we don’t hunker down.  That’s why we don’t cower in fear.

Despite the moments of sustained applause and cheers the president’s comments received, they are complete nonsense. Bostonians did hunker down—in fact, they were ordered to hunker down and they quickly complied. And as for cowering, you tell me what Bostonians were doing before their “collective fear was lifted” and they breathed their “huge sigh of relief.”

But enough of my armchair caterwauling. Let’s take a look at what someone on the scene and clearly more qualified than I has to say. Reporting from Boston for the Jerusalem Post, Yaakov Katz writes:

For most of the day, my family and I stayed inside our home behind locked doors…When I eventually ventured outside, the eerie silence on Boston and Cambridge’s empty streets was something strange…I had the opportunity to think back to the aftermath of terrorist attacks I had covered in Israel before leaving for a sabbatical at Harvard University. I might be wrong, but my feeling is that in the aftermath of those attacks the opposite always happened. There was no lockdown in Israel and there was no order by the mayor to seek shelter. Instead, people were out in the streets, filling up coffee shops right next to the one that had been bombed or standing at bus stops waiting for the next bus from the same line that had just exploded. This has always impressed me as a sign of true resilience, of a refusal to allow terrorism to change our way of life.

I am not judging the people of Boston and their leaders and yes, there is something to be said about being safe rather than sorry. But, I wonder about the long-term strategic ramifications and if this won’t be viewed as a near-surrender to terrorism.

Not to mention surrender to big government. To the nanny state. To the police state.

By the way, the bombing crisis also gave Boston’s top bureaucrats the opportunity todonuts & coffee establish that some of its citizens are less equal than others. According to The Boston Globe “At the direction of authorities, select Dunkin’ Donuts restaurants in the Boston area are open to take care of the needs of law enforcement and first responders.” The legions must be fed even if we need risk the lives of a few bakers.

Now, on to my second gripe: how exactly is the “accomplishment” common as reported above by the National Journal? Because Bostonians paid the taxes that funded the police?  Because the good citizens of Beantown dutifully stayed off their own streets? Littering the internet are photos and videos of the moments after Tsarnaev’s capture. They reveal a jubilant populace cheering their uniformed liberators. If the Iraqis had been this grateful there’d be a Disneyworld in Baghdad today. But what did the citizens contribute other than getting the hell out of the way? And what would the punishment have been if any Bostonian had dared venture into the streets of his own neighborhood?

Which leads me to my third and final concern…

In the wake of the great gun debate of 2013, nobody seems interested in pointing out the obvious—that people in Boston were killed by bombs not guns. And many more severely injured because the killers used bombs and not guns. Now, these bombs were apparently not very sophisticated and did not incorporate any illegal components. In fact, a Department Homeland Security Information Bulletin warned in 2004 that “pressure cooker bombs are made with readily-available materials and can be as simple or as complex as the Pressure_Cooker_Free_Zonebuilder decides. These types of devices can be initiated using simple electronic components including, but not limited to, digital watches, garage door openers, cell phones or pagers.” Which, of course, begs the question: will we now hear a demand for the ban of pressure cookers, digital watches, garage door openers, cell phones, pagers and whatever else “not limited to” includes? Apparently, the manufacturer of the pressure-cookers allegedly used in the bombs thinks we might, so they have released a statement that their products “are not intended to be used for any purpose other than cooking.”

Massachusetts largely disarmed its citizens in 1998 with what was hailed at the time as the strictest gun control legislation in the nation. As a result, reports the Associated Press, “The number of active firearms licenses in Massachusetts has plummeted…There were nearly 1.5 million active gun licenses in Massachusetts in 1998. June [2002], that number was down to just 200,000.”

But far from making people safer, The Boston Globe reports that “Murders committed with firearms have increased significantly, aggravated assaults and robberies involving guns have risen, and gunshot injuries are up, according to FBI and state data.”

So, criminals still have guns, terrorists use homemade bombs and the heirs to the Minutemen have been disarmed. But the police will keep the citizens of Boston safe by clearing the streets and rolling the armor.

From Don’t Tread on Me to Shelter in Place. Pathetic.

*With sincerest apologies to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

That Wacky WAC

Kicking off National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month, acting Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Jessica L. Wright said that she wacposterstarjoined the Women’s Army Corps in 1975 back when having a drink at the post club was the norm. “But in our military now…we don’t condone drinking…We don’t have those social things like we used to, because it’s just not who we are.”

I went into a public ‘ouse to get a pint o’ beer,
The publican ‘e up an’ sez, “We serve no red-coats here.”
The girls be’ind the bar they laughed an’ giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an’ to myself sez I:
O it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, go away,”
But it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins,” when the band begins to play
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins,” when the band begins to play.*

So, lemme get this straight, Jessie—er, I mean your Honorableness. We condone the deployment of young Americans to countries that pose no threat to the U.S. in order to kill “enemy combatants” in said countries. And we condone young Americans getting killed and maimed in said countries because their slaughter somehow ensures our freedom. And, while we’re at it, we condone massive “collateral damage”—that is, the killing of civilians (last conservative count is around 150,000 in the wars in Iraq and Carrie_Nation_1910Afghanistan), not to mention the maiming, orphaning, etc. But, we absolutely do not condone drinking among our warriors? Or “social things” like Enlisted, NCO and Officer Clubs? Who is this DoD Carrie Nation and for whom does she claim “we?” Certainly not the troops she once supervised. Is this what diversity and affirmative action have wrought? A military so politically correct that young men can’t be encouraged to unwind with a beer in their own clubs because hops turn boys into rapists?

We aren’t no thin red ‘eroes, nor we aren’t no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An’ if sometimes our conduck isn’t all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don’t grow into plaster saints;
While it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ Tommy, fall be’ind,
But it’s “Please to walk in front, sir,” when there’s trouble in the wind
There’s trouble in the wind, my boys, there’s trouble in the wind,
O it’s “Please to walk in front, sir,” when there’s trouble in the wind.

Many moons ago when yours truly was making his way through the nearly year-long crucible that is Marine Corps training for infantry officers, the O’ Club was a welcome refuge within hobbling distance of the barracks after a tough week in the field—and, yes, within stumbling distance on the way home. While at the club, my fellow lieutenants and I not only relaxed, but bonded over the successes, failures and comedies of the week past. If we were lucky, a senior officer would join and regale us with personal combat stories, which would always prove to be as valuable as any lessons learned in the classroom. Later in my brief career the O’Club and its enlisted and NCO counterparts would provide even more critical relief in the various crap-holes around the world to which my Marines and I were deployed. Sometimes the clubs were nothing more than GP tents in the middle of the desert or the jungle.

Post clubs, however, are not the only vessel in which soldiers, testosterone and alcohol are mixed into a fine warrior grog. The Marine Corps, for instance, has a proud tradition of Mess Nights, Dinings-In and Marine Corps Birthday Balls. Speaking of the USMC birthday, let’s not forget that the Corps itself was founded in a watering hole. On November 10, 1775, the Continental Congress commissioned Capt. Samuel Nicholas to1775-Tun-Tavern raise two Battalions of Marines. So, what did the good skipper do? He set up his recruiting office in Tun Tavern, a brew house in Philadelphia. Where else?!!

Regardless of the venue, soldiers have been blowing off steam, reveling, carousing, contemplating, congratulating and commiserating over booze for millennia. Rather than a deviancy to be quashed, this type of social behavior is integral to military cohesion and is still very much a part of “who we are.” But, Ms. Wright says no drinking for young warriors enjoying some down time before they’re asked again to kill or be killed. Instead, we provide them new “social things” like sexual assault prevention and response training, LGBT sensitivity awareness, Gay Pride celebrations and various other programs provided by today’s don’t ask, do tell military. All of which are no doubt critical to the WAC-in-chief’s mission, which her bio claims is “overseeing the overall state of military readiness.” Ready for what? The next drag queen sock hop?

So, I guess in today’s military we expect that the intense camaraderie necessary for combat can be forged among young warriors over coffee in a fluorescent–lit conference room at 9PM on a Friday night following a lecture on sexual harassment after a grueling week of physical challenges, mental endurance and sleep-deprivation? But to me that sounds like it would pretty much drive a young man to exactly the type of behavior Ms. Wright is trying to prevent.

Meanwhile, in the real world, two more women Marines have flunked infantry officer training. But I’m sure the undersecretary is working on a plan to address the USMC’s archaic, patriarchal, intolerant physical standards for combat training.

*Tommy, Rudyard Kipling, c. 1890

Good Friday, 2013

Do not hurry by the cross on your way to Easter joy, for we know the risen Lord only through Christ and him crucified.

Richard John Neuhaus
Death on a Friday Afternoon: Meditations on the Last Words of Jesus from the Cross

“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

“Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

“Woman, behold your son. Son, behold your mother.”

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

“I thirst.”

“It is finished.”

“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.”

On Tattoos

When I was a college-puke studying on my parents’ nickel at an avant-garde learning establishment nestled among the bucolic foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains just east of Los Angeles the go-to phrase among the hipsters wanting to establish their culturally au courant credentials was “c’mon, this is the eighties!” Their point being that we’d reached a point in human evolution in which ancient traditions and eternal truths that didn’t suit their enlightened fancy were now obviously obsolete. Perhaps even bogus. Certainly irrelevant. So, for instance, if one suggested that young women (they weren’t categorized at that time as “females,” but were definitely no longer “ladies”) should maybe think twice about accommodating the advances of so many frat boys, one would be admonished, “This is the eighties, man! Women are empowered! They can choose!” Which, of course, made frat boys everywhere quite happy. Or, if one took offense at the in-the-classroom first-person graphic account of a sociology professor’s homosexual encounters in public restrooms, one might hear, “Oh, please, this is the eighties! Don’t be such a bigot!”—the anointed weren’t using the term “homophobe” yet.1

Yes, the good old Ten Commandments, New Testament, Christian doctrine, Natural Law, etc. had apparently reached their sell-by date. And the rallying cry of the anointed continued into the nineties and reached a feverous crescendo upon Y2K with “c’mon, dude, this is the twenty-first century!” The catch-phrase seemed to taper off somewhere in the early double-aughts, but the reproach behind the words never ceased. In fact, it got worse and while it even acquired its own sardonic moniker, “political correctness,” it never actually grew out of fashion—just ask the politically-correct host of the cable show Politically Incorrect who, no doubt, laughed the left cheek of his hiney off every time Comedy Central’s direct deposit hit his bank account. No, the beast continued to grow The_Blob_posterlike that unstoppable blob on the silver screen in 1958 and we’ve had no Steve McQueen to stop it. It’s gotten to the point where you can no longer buck the trend without being consigned to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate group” gulag2.

By now you’re probably thinking “what does any of this have to do with tattoos?” Thanks for sticking with me this far. I’ll now start to get to the point. I received via pony express this week my alma mater’s alumni rag, which among other school accomplishments boasts that 43% of the incoming freshman class had a high school GPA of 4.0—or higher (sic)—and that the college now produces more Fulbright Fellowships and Rhodes Scholars than all of the Ivy League combined times infinity. All of which I found quite incongruous as I read through the bios of the new faculty—in particular, that of an assistant professor of Asian (no longer hyphenated) American studies. Now, this academic is apparently no slouch. He’s a Berkeley, UCLA and USC grad with two MAs and a PhD on a tenure-track at a college that costs $57K per year. Kinda puts the BA that I barely received from his current employer in its proper place (sorry, Dad). And, judging from the prof’s photo, he looks like a swell thirty-something fella—despite the stretched earlobes with the tribal plugs. I can see throwing back a couple Irish American sake bombs with this guy. But he has got to be laughing off the triple-pierced cheek to his posterior’s port-side each time he cashes the dean’s check. In addition to sporting the silly-putty ears and a couple tattoo sleeves, the professor teaches classes on “Filipina/o American Experiences, Asian American and Queer Zines and Tattoos, Piercing and Body Adornment.” Here’s to the mighty PhD!

So, finally, here’s my gripe. If humankind has evolved to the point where old customs, traditions and moralities are anathema, then what’s with all the tattoos? And piercings? And earlobe plugs? And other forms of self-mutilation? All proudly displayed by the type of people, like the good professor, who would no doubt rebuff anyone questioning the propriety of teaching college students about “queer zines” with, “c’mon, this is 2013?” Cannibalism_on_Tanna_FrazerThe deliberate disfiguring of one’s body is not only an old custom, it’s a primitive one. And the pagan mores that went along with bodily disfigurement, including human sacrifice and cannibalism, are not exactly simpatico with today’s enlightened sensibilities. Just take a look at the anthropophagic and other tendencies of the various tattooed and otherwise disfigured folk among peoples like the Caribs, Aztecs, Fores, Maori and Fijians—whose 19th Century chief Ratu Udre Udre holds the Guinness World Record for “most prolific cannibal.” And let’s not forget Korowai manthe Korowai of Papua, Indonesia who allegedly still dine on one another from time to time.

So, if the Judeo-Christian tenets of western civilization are now passé, why are even older pagan customs so appropriate? Why the emulation of the most primitive cultures? I’m mean, c’mon, this is 2013!

1. Said professor died tragically several years later of an unspecified “cancer” during the peak of the AIDS scourge. May he rest in peace.
2. With absolute apologies to the prisoners of the actual gulags. But, I have no doubt that today’s cultural totalitarians would not necessarily be opposed to shipping us non-conformists off to re-education camps—perhaps in Alaska.

Rainbow Warriors

F orget about any moral arguments (as hard as that may be for all of us) and help me answer some very important practical questions. These might seem silly, but I assure you they deserve very serious answers. If the U.S. Armed Forces are to be open and accommodating to all “protected” classes, how do we deal with the following?

#1 Daily Life  Men and women currently don’t live in the same rooms or squad bays nor are they expected to shower together nor be naked in front of one another. So, how do we deal with each of the LGBT? Separate facilities for each letter? What about the aspiring “transgendered” who have made their decision, but haven’t had hormones and/or surgery? Different rules prior to and after “reassignment?” What about the man who says he’s a woman, but who never has surgery? What about a man who has “transgendered” (with or without hormones and surgery) who still prefers women, so considers himself a lesbian? What about the bisexuals? Does each bisexual get a private room because it would be harassment to domicile him or her with a comrade of either sex? And, please, let’s not forget the asexual, pansexual, polysexual, genderqueer, androgyne, bigender, trigender, third gender, two-spirit and on. I swear, I’m not making this stuff up!

#2 Physical Standards  What should be the physical standard for each letter in the LGBT? Yes, I know, you’ll probably respond, everyone should have to meet the same “minimum” standards. But that has NEVER happened with the increasing role of women in the military. Every time roles have been expanded for women, the physical standards have been lowered (or kept low) for them. This inevitably will happen for at least some letters of the LGBT. So, to which standards should each be held? A man who considers himself a “woman,” but has not had surgery would, say, still need to perform 42 push-ups in order to pass that portion of the Army PFT? How about a man who has had surgery to make himself a “woman?” 19 push-ups like real women are currently required to perform to pass? What about a woman who considers herself a “man?” Men’s standards? Women’s standards? Some other standards?

#3. Sexual Harassment  OK, this is going to get even more complicated! While we’re scrambling to miracle our way to the pot of golden tolerance at the end of the rainbow, how are we going to deal with the here and now? That is, where is everyone going to sleep, shower, poop and pee? And how will we define “harassment” in this pantheon of enlightened sexuality? And who is qualified to define what will no doubt be myriad rules and regulations? And what happens “out in the field,” in combat and in other circumstances where the niceties of modern living aren’t available? In a tactical or expeditionary situation, a man-soldier who needs to go number one, will, frankly, just unencumber himself in front of God and country. Will this now be considered sexual harassment? Will it be OK if he turns his back to any of the protected and potentially offended? And for which of the LGBT?

It was so much simpler when libertines didn’t like war.

What about the children?!

Ah, yes, the children. It’s always about the children. Well, almost always. The sign below hangs in a Los Angeles office building garage. Does the State of California also require Planned Parenthood and the Beverly Hills third-trimester abortion mill Pro-Choice Medical Center to post similar warnings in their offices? Or at least in their garages?

chem warning

Woman Shot and Killed at Gun Show

The following news story is hot off the press. Stand by because gun-controllers across the country are taking to the streets in righteous indignation.

GERMANTOWN, Maryland, Feb. 8, 2013/The Warshington Post/ – A 29 year-old woman was pronounced dead at a local hospital in Germantown, Maryland, on Thursday, February 7th, as a direct result of a gunshot to the head apparently fired point blank during a routine firearms exhibition at a gun show popular with the Capitol Tea Party and sponsored by the National Gun Owners of America (NGOA). NGOA Executive Director Willy “Hog Leg” Johnson, who attended the show and was present during the accident, has been unavailable for comment and is reportedly vacationing at Ted Nugent’s Sunrize Acres Ranch in Jackson, MI, where NGOA members can hunt world-class trophy whitetail deer, American buffalo, Quebec black bear and “various exotics.” Johnson was hailed as a “hero” in Nugent’s latest documentary “The Second Amendment Blues,” which premiered recently at the Glen Beck Rally for Freedom on the site of the First Battle of Bull Run near Manassas, Virginia.

On the very same day that the young woman died, the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) posted on their website approval for the NGOA to hold firearms exhibitions throughout the country without any inspection of their weapons, ammunition or personnel.

Perhaps you’ve deduced by now that this story is a complete fabrication. This one, however, is not…

GERMANTOWN, Md., Feb. 8, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ – A 29 year-old woman was pronounced dead at a local hospital in Germantown, MD on Thursday, February 7th, as a direct result of complications experienced during a 3rd trimester abortion by LeRoy Carhart – who was hailed as a “hero” in the film “After Tiller” at the recent Sundance Film Festival…

Thursday morning around 5am, the young woman was short of breath and in intense pain. When she and her family tried to contact LeRoy Carhart for assistance and follow-up care, he could not be reached…

On the very same day that this woman died, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene posted on their website that they issued a license to Carhart’s clinic to perform abortions – without a single inspection of the facility.

Now, ponder with me for a moment the media attention that the first, fake, story might garner. Front page material, no? Any doubt that every major newswire, newspaper and TV station in the country would lead with this atrocity? And what about the web? Would not Google News be awash in hundreds of thousands of results (0.28 seconds)? And for the second, real, story?

Go ahead, take a guess…

Nope, not even close. The answer is…1 (sort of). Post Local, the “hyper-local” internet arm of The Washington Post daringly posted an epic 118 word blurbsposé that they attributed to the Associated Press, but which cannot be found on the Associated Press news website.

ap leroy carhartAs for the others…

NY Times – nothing
Baltimore Sun – nothing
Los Angeles Times – nothing – nothing – nothing – nothing – nothing – nothing
UPI – nothing
Reuters – nothing
Google News – nothing, except of course, articles from pro-life advocacy organizations

Now, I’m no conspiracy-theorist, but there’s something rotten above the fold. Clearly, there’s a story here and I’m sure every “mainstream” media outlet has an ethics policy similar to that of the Gray Lady’s:

As journalists we treat our readers, viewers, listeners and online users as fairly and openly as possible. Whatever the medium, we tell our audiences the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it.

So, what gives?

Sec’y Panetta – Part II: Go Get ‘Em, Girls

It’s now old news that outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has removed the combat exclusion for women. What is not old news, however, is how one bureaucrat (albeit the top bureaucrat) has the authority to make this decision. Even President Obama has applauded the move in a manner to suggest the Secretary acted without direction from the White House. And has the U.S. Congress once again abdicated? But I’ll leave it to those more scholarly than I to determine the decision’s constitutionality. Instead, let’s explore some of the practical implications of this giant leap for womankind.

Caution: this post is rated R for language (not mine)

Portrait“The department’s goal in rescinding the rule is to ensure that the mission is met with the best qualified and most capable people, regardless of gender.” So says the departing defense secretary in announcing the end of the combat ban for women. Yep, it’s all about the “mission.” The mission certainly couldn’t be “met” by depriving mothers and daughters of their God-given rights to not just “shoot the bastards, [but] rip out their living g*ddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks.”* Mr. Panetta quickly followed with the reassurance that “I’m not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job — if they can meet the qualifications for the job, then they should have the right to serve.”

Riiiiiight. Because we’ve never lowered standards to accommodate the increasing role of women in the military. But, of course, these statements are utter nonsense and the secretary—a nearly 50-year career politician—knows it. And his dependable lapdog Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, enthusiastically admitted as much during the very press conference in which Panetta made those promises:

If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?

So, in reality, the standards that have long been in place to ensure the U.S. is served by “the most capable,” – the qualifications the Secretary is “not talking about reducing” – will come under review if (read: when) the powers that be come to the most reasonable conclusion that they are, after all, too “high.”

But enough about standards. We all know they will be lowered, that diversity quotas will be mandated, etc.

Let’s turn our attention to the natural evolution of this quest for fairness. In 1981, the Supreme Court held in Rostker v. Goldberg that requiring only men to register for the Selective Service System does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment:

The existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress’ decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them.

Now Red, White, and Blue (091106-A-O0905-07)that the combat exclusion has been lifted, it only follows that women must be compelled, like men, to register with Selective Service. It’s only fair, right? Which means, that when our wise leaders decide some day in the future that our youth must be forced to die so “we can be free,” 18 year-old women will be drafted and herded to the front line abattoir along with their dads, brothers, husbands and boyfriends. And by this time, it won’t matter that your little 105 lb. angel can’t fight, doesn’t want to fight. No, she will be expected to advance constantly—“we’re not interested in holding anything except the enemy’s balls. We’re going to hold him by hisGeorgeSPatton balls and we’re going to kick him in the ass; twist his balls and kick the living sh*t out of him all the time. Our plan of operation is to advance and keep on advancing. We’re going to go through the enemy like sh*t through a tinhorn.”* And your little angel better keep up.

A civilization that sends its mothers and daughters into combat is serious about neither civilization nor combat.

*George S. Patton speech to troops of the Third Army in 1944, prior to the Normandy Landings

Three Cheers for Infanticide!

In her column for Salon So what if abortion ends life? Mary Elizabeth Williams brags, “I believe that life starts at conception. And it’s never stopped me from being pro-choice.”

Hallelujah! What candor! Life? And at conception, no less! Sister Williams, perhaps you betray what’s truly in the minds of all “pro-choice” folk:

All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

Yes, shout it from the mountaintops!

When we on the pro-choice side get cagey around the life question, it makes us illogically contradictory.

You go, girl!

We’re so intimidated by the wingnuts, we get spooked out of having these conversations.

Yes! We wingnuts—who agree with you about that whole “life question” and are so wingnutty as to think that ending life is, well, a bad thing—applaud your frankness and welcome the new “conversations.”

My belief that life begins at conception is mine to cling to. And if you believe that it begins at birth, or somewhere around the second trimester, or when the kid finally goes to college, that’s a conversation we can have, one that I hope would be respectful and empathetic and fearless.

Indeed! Let’s have that respectful and empathetic conversation about that kid who “finally goes to college,” but fails to maintain the GPA we expect. Or that kids who doesn’t go to college. Why should mom and dad have to continue footing the bill for that lazy overgrown non-autonomous entity? Let’s be “fearless” here. Not sure what the D&E equivalent is for a 19-year-old SOB who’s outlived mom’s tolerance, but let’s find it—and get the Feds to subsidize it—so moms can live “not just in the most medically literal way, but in the roads that women who have choice then get to go down, in the possibilities for them and for their families.”

Oh, Sister Mary, how you fulfill us! Leave us, we beg, with one more pearl:

And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.