2 Abortionists Face Murder Charges

In an act of locking the barn door after the horses have been stolen, two abortionists are facing a myriad of charges, including first and second degree murder.

Police say they began their investigation in August 2010 after a botched procedure at Brigham’s Elkton clinic. Authorities say an 18-year-old woman who was 21 weeks pregnant had her uterus ruptured and her bowel injured, and rather than call 911, Brigham and his colleague Dr. Nicola Riley drove the woman to a nearby hospital, where both were uncooperative and Brigham refused to give his name.

That incident resulted in the murder case against Riley and three of the 11 murder charges against Brigham, prosecutors said. The other charges against Brigham relate to four other illegal abortions he performed at the East High Street Clinic, prosecutors added.

A search of the Elkton clinic after the botched abortion revealed a freezer with 35 late-term fetuses inside, including one believed to have been aborted at 36 weeks.

Brigham started the late-term abortions in New Jersey, where he wasn’t permitted to perform them, and finished them a day later in Maryland, where the law is more permissive, authorities said.

Police say Brigham faces five counts each of first- and second-degree murder. Riley is charged with one count each of first- and second-degree murder. Brigham and Riley each also face one count of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.

Game and Projection

Everyone should read this post at Alpha Game.

The act of projection is difficult to pick up, but it is quite important.

Psychological projection not only explains a significant amount of human behavior, but also provides a tremendous amount of insight into the mind of the individuals with whom we interact. We all witness and interpret the words and actions of others through our own psychological filters. For example, most of the unfaithful men I know are absolutely terrified of being betrayed by the women in their lives, whereas it doesn’t even occur to the faithful men that their wives could be capable of cheating on them.

Yep.

In neither case does the proclivity of the woman to be unfaithful or not bear any relationship to the man’s belief in her capacity for treachery. The reality is that no one can truly know the depths of depravity or the heights of self-sacrifice to which another individual is capable, much less inclined, so barring any meaningful evidence or observable behavioral patterns, it is totally useless to spend any time contemplating such matters.

Priceless. Depravity is a fact of our humanity. At the same time, if we are fixated on our partners–acting out in said form of depravity–chances are strong that we have that same potential that we are worried about in ourselves.

But behavioral patterns are often on display and evidence is often freely provided. When a woman is openly suspicious of kind and generous behavior, or worse, simple civility and human decency, the chances are very high that you are dealing with a damaged and/or solipsistic individual. Since nearly all of their behavior is intrinsically manipulative, they literally cannot imagine that everyone else’s is not equally manipulative.

I have actually observed this. If you are willing to attempt to unpack that baggage, then knock yourself out. Otherwise, run…do not walk.

Hookup Culture Suffers a Setback

Well, sort of.

Feminists have promoted this “you’ll screw more and enjoy it more” culture. The men have punched that ticket.

The women, in turn, are over a barrel. If they don’t put out, they are left on the sidelines. If they “put out”, not only does their marriageability suffer a hit; they are taking a grave risk as well.

That’s not to say that men don’t have risks in here too; they certainly do. At the same time, it is a heck of a lot easier–due to sheer anatomy–for women to get HIV/AIDS from men than the other way around.

The GOP Field and Iran

Questions for the candidates:

(1) The United States has–since the Cold War era–maintained that any effort to shut down the Strait of Hormuz will be considered an act of war against the United States. Where do you stand on that, and what would your response be to such an effort by the Iranians or any other nation-state?

(2) Each of the last two Presidents–as well as most of the Republican candidates for President–have made it our policy that Iran must not be permitted to have nuclear weapons. The questions on this are severalfold:

(a) do you believe that such an outcome is feasible?
(b) to what extent should we engage the Iranians to ensure that this outcome is achieved?
(c) is war an acceptable step toward this outcome?
(d) given that we are not able to keep criminals from obtaining firearms in the United States, how would a conventional war prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?
(e) would the cost of war justify any proposed benefit?

Questions for Ron Paul:

(1) Given that you are the most anti-war of any candidate in the field–to include the President–under what circumstances would you consider war as necessary?

(2) Even in peacetime, intelligence is a very necessary function of national security. Toward that end, what are your visions for intelligence policy? What does that look like domestically and in the foreign arena?

(3) Your opposition to the Patriot Act is well-documented. At the same time, what do you propose that would (a) allow us to gather the intel that we need, while (b) preserving fundamental liberties?

Hope This Isn’t True

Former Chicago Bears wide receiver and track and field star Willie Gault has been accused of securities fraud by the SEC.

I remember Gault. He was not a great receiver, but had blinding speed which always made him a threat in long pass situations.

He was not an insignificant part of Super Bowl XX–in which the Bears destroyed the New England Patriots 46-10–as he caught four passes for 129 yards, including a 60-yarder.

Vox Day RE Ron Paul

Here, Vox provides a succinct reason why one should support Ron Paul.

Dear Ms Miller,

I’m not going to waste any time correcting your attempt to criticize Ron Paul. Instead, let us simply posit that you are absolutely correct concerning every single complaint you listed about the man. Here is why you, and everyone else, should not only vote for him, but pray to the God in whom you do not believe that he wins the 2012 election anyhow.

He is the only national politician who gives the United States any chance of surviving the collapse of the global economy.

You may not like him. You may think he is crazy and hypocritical and wrong on a panoply of issues. But the fact of the matter that he has been warning everyone about the eventual consequences of the credit boom that the Federal Reserve and the federal government created over the last fifty years, and the subsequent bust they have been desperately staving off since 2008. In doing so, they have made things worse, so much so that the USA may not survive as a nation when their efforts finally fail.

This is not a Democrat vs Republican thing. It is an economic sanity vs insanity thing. Obama has been disastrous, as he has increased federal debt 92% since 2008. McCain would have done the same or worse. Romney and Gingrich would actually be worse than Obama in this regard. The economic Fimbulwinter is coming and there is only one national politician who even understands the core issues involved.

You probably won’t believe anything I say here. That’s fine. But the central banks are presently dancing on the very edge of the precipice, as the recent actions of the Fed and the ECB serve to demonstrate. And if it all collapses before November, I hope you will remember that there was one man who understands why it happened, who tried to prevent it happening, and has been preparing to rebuild from the ashes for a very long time.

With regards,
Vox

Yep.

I’m not in total agreement with Ron Paul on foreign policy. While I share his contempt for our imperial ventures, we cannot afford to completely disengage the world either. Toward that end, we must be prudent in picking our battles and alliances. But we must have some alliances.

But on economics, Paul is spot on. He is the only one in the field who really gets it.

While Bachmann is close, she still is short of the glory. Newt Romney is off the reservation. Rick Perry can’t even name three departments he’d eliminate.

But Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is the only one who knows what he’s talking about, and therefore the only one even remotely capable of providing a solution that is equitable.

Steinberg vs. Schwyzer, My $0.02

Neely Steinberg is not a stranger here. I consider her neither an ally nor an adversary. That said, she has a very nice article (HT: Susan Walsh) in which she shares perspectives with Hugo Schwyzer regarding feminism and the hookup culture.

The reader will get an immediate impression from the title: that alone carries the implication from Steinberg that the hookup culture is not a good thing. That she is implicating feminists is not particularly endearing to their ranks.

As for Schwyzer, I’m going to be positive: he is either a bald-faced liar or a complete idiot. Any woman who listens to his advice is setting herself up for disaster. Here are some highlights (emphasis mine):

If there’s one truth I’ve learned (and seen so many others learn), it’s the idea that contrary to folk wisdom, one mistake—or even a series of mistakes—will not ruin your life. In her wonderful Full Frontal Feminism, Jessica Valenti writes that Sometimes doing silly, disempowering, sexually vapid things when you’re young is just part of getting to the good stuff. That doesn’t seem all that profound until you realize that it’s pushing back against the toxic idea that experiences invariably leave life-long scars.

Toxic idea? Try reality, Hugo.

(1) Sex is a very messy endeavor. When a woman loses her virginity, the results are usually VERY bloody and traumatic. If she experiences this in a “hookup” situation, the potential damage is limitless. This can seriously impact her ability to give herself fully away in marriage, and therefore can adversely impact her ability to enjoy sex. Simply telling her, “it’s no big deal” won’t cut it, because–no matter how much you say, “it’s no big deal”–it really is a big deal. Just as telling someone that gravity doesn’t exist will not help them as they leap off Mt. Everest, telling a woman that hookups are no big deal provides her counsel that is as effective as a post-mortem colonoscopy.

(2) One “mistake” can indeed ruin your life. This is because all it takes is one “mistake” to contract HIV/AIDS, or HPV. All it takes is one “mistake” for a woman to go home with a rapist she met at a bar, who offered her a drink that she didn’t realize was spiked with GHB. If she gets drunk and gets behind the wheel of a car, that one “mistake” can get her, or one of her friends, killed. If she gets pregnant from that one mistake, then she is facing either (a) a shotgun wedding for which she has not planned, (b) a life as a single mother, or (c) the lifelong stigma of having had an abortion.

Having done my share of post-abortion counseling, I can attest that post-abortion trauma is as real as gravity.

One mistake–or a series of “mistakes”–MAY OR MAY NOT ruin your life. At best, they create baggage that she must carry. When she gets married, it will be on her and her husband to unpack that baggage. This may take a very long time, especially when one or more of those “mistakes” are getting in the way of their ability to enjoy sex together.

Experience really is the best teacher, even if not every student learns the lesson the first (or 101st) time. Women in particular need reassurance that their worth is not linked to their number of sexual partners. They need to hear that pursuing pleasure for its own sake when they’re young will not make it more difficult to form enduring monogamous relationships (if they want them) when they’re older. These are lessons I’ve learned, lessons I’ve seen the men and women in my life learn and embrace.

Hugo, you are once again attempting to teach women to deny the existence of gravity. Sadly, the law of gravitation–just like the Laws of Thermodynamics and Newton’s Laws of Motion–shall not be up for repeal in the foreseeable future.

The same is true with respect to relationships.

Women, listen up: Promiscuity will adversely impact your ability to attract a high-value man for marriage.

I say this not to start a fight with the women; I’m just telling the bare truth. Calling me names will not change the reality, because I didn’t create it; I’m merely reporting it.

Does that mean that a woman who has made one “mistake” in her past can forget about marriage? Certainly not. But if she continues to repeat those “mistakes”, her marriageability heads south. She will find that the quality of men that she attracts will decline over time.

I’m not saying this to disrespect the ladies; I’m just telling you the naked truth, which Hugo Schwyzer is either too stupid or too dishonest to tell you.

I do regret the pain I caused other people. Rightly so. But what my life has taught me is that insight and compassion are rooted in experience; you can’t advise about what you don’t understand. My own ability to be a patient father, a faithful husband, a decent teacher and mentor isn’t in spite of my wild sexual choices when I was younger—it’s in large part because of them, and the lessons I learned. I’m lucky, but not that unusual.

Hey wait a second, Hugo. Didn’t you just say that one mistake doesn’t ruin one’s life? If that’s the case, then how can you call yourself “lucky”?

While experience can be a great teacher, observation is often a greater teacher. This is because, through observation, one can see the telos of certain choices without having to be binded to those experiences. One of the problems of learning through experience, is that–in many cases–one can have his ability to discern a present situation jaded by his prior “experience”. Observation, on the other hand, allows some disconnection and therefore a better chance of learning the “big picture”.

As for Steinberg, I think she is on the right track, although she still has not completely come around.

I agree with a lot of what Hugo has to say, but I think we may have different perspectives on the effects of casual, no-strings attached sex. I also happen to think most women aren’t all that interested in having a lot of it for purely sexual reasons, with multiple partners no less. And I’ve come to believe that feminism’s inability, and at times refusal, to acknowledge differences between the sexes has been disingenuous and has gravely backfired on women, leaving them ill-equipped to discover what really feels good and right to them.

So far so good.

The Samantha Jones (of Sex and the City fame) lifestyle was, in my opinion, a false bill of goods, sold to impressionable young women as glamorous, exciting, and liberating, while ignoring any sort of biological mechanisms that induce women to emotionally attach with their mates. I was told, by the 10% of women who are capable of effectively and consistently compartmentalizing their emotions when it comes to no-strings attached sex, that emotions were overrated, anathema even, and could easily be separated from sexual acts with another human being, to unapologetically unleash my inner slut (there’s that word again). It was our right (rite?) as women, our responsibility as sexual creatures, to show the world we can fuck like men do, have instantaneous orgasms, and feel faaaabulous while doing it in our 4-inch Manolo Blahniks. Countless women bought into this lie, only to realize years later that it doesn’t, in fact, feel so great most of the time, and that actually, there’s nothing all that empowering and liberating about spreading your legs with wild abandon.

What the feminists call “empowerment” carried a mother lode of Unintended Consequences. Gynecologists perform pap smears exclusively due to the prevalence of HPV, which is responsible for 100 percent of cervical cancer cases.

Oh, and the Sex And The City paradigm is neither realistic nor productive. As Ann Coulter pointed out a few years ago, SATC is the brainchild of a gay man, promoting a sexuality of women based on what gay men experienced. This is totally disconnected from reality. If a woman wants to learn about sexuality, SATC does nothing of value.

Instead of embracing the emotional and biological differences between men and women, or at least considering them, sex-positive feminists buried their heads in the sand, unintentionally creating, in the meantime, a veritable sexual playground for men, often times at the expense of women, many of whom just wanted relationships that were both sexually and emotionally satisfying. Women were told they could have their cake and eat it too, but the dessert in many ways has been a better payoff for men.

Yes, but only to a point. When Gloria Steinem sold feminism to the men, she gave them the bait: “you’ll screw more and enjoy it more!” The men, collectively, punched that ticket. As a result, any man with the audacity to demand sex, will never lack for partners. Without moral or religious imperatives, the men could otherwise count on a sexual bonanza.

If the goal for men was to get laid by lots of women, feminism was a big win for the men.

The downside, however, is that feminism has not been good for the men either. The education system–from preschool to college–has marginalized men and waged a full-on war against masculinity. At home, men are at a higher risk for divorce–and therefore greater economic peril–than they were before the days of “no-fault” divorce.

If a man wants to get married and have a stable family life, feminism has made things very difficult.

Everyone needs to read the following from Neely:

I spent the latter half of high school, college (if dating was scarce when I was in college, it’s nonexistent today), and many years post-college, mired in the hook-up scene, which was, mind you, always fueled by alcohol. It’s as if I needed the crutch of Vodka to tell me what I was doing was an awesome idea, because without it I’d know better. I wasn’t alone. It was happening all around me. My friends, female acquaintances, countless women I’d met briefly over the years—we were all in the same boat. Post-college, we could pursue our careers and hobbies and passions full-force but were unable to form lasting attachments, to believe that a man wanted us for anything more than a quick hook-up, to understand what real intimacy was about. We tamped down our emotions and hid our dissatisfaction—how else could we have had our witty Sunday brunches at which we joked about our encounters? In reality, I spent countless nights crying over my dating life. I know my friends (smart, beautiful, accomplished women) felt just as dejected and lonely. And all of a sudden we were in our early-30s. Whereas I once blamed men for my dating troubles, I now began to turn a critical eye on myself and an ideology that didn’t seem to be serving me all that well.

I won’t deny those wild days are tinged with a bit of sweet nostalgia, but I also know that pain has a short memory. Overall, these sorts of trysts usually left me feeling empty and the hollowness I felt had nothing to do with the evil patriarchy shaming or guilt-tripping me. It just felt lacking in so many ways. I remember one night in particular when I was 29 quite vividly. After being totally ignored at a party by a guy who I had hooked up with the night before, I cried hysterically while my friend drove me home. When we pulled up to my apartment, I remember feeling devastated and deflated, yelling, “I’m sick of this! I don’t get it, what am I doing wrong?” as I smashed my hand against the passenger seat window, shattering my bracelet in the process, pearls spewing everywhere. I was tired of making mistakes and not learning from them but felt stuck, like I had just lost myself. If feminism’s goal was to eradicate the falsehood that a woman’s worth is tied to her sexuality, it has failed on many accounts. All I learned from drunken, fleeting hook-ups over the course of a decade was how much I was being viewed as a sexual object by men, as a vagina who happens to think and feel, rather than a thinking, feeling human being who also happens to have a vagina. As Laura Kipnis writes in her book The Female Thing: “Welcome to the new femininity—at least under the old femininity you got taken to dinner.”

Yes, and back then the men paid for the dinner. Today, the men generally expect you to pay half the time, or pay your end of the tab. And it only goes downhill from there…

I agree with Hugo and Valenti’s point, to an extent, about the importance of making mistakes in your love life and learning from them. If it weren’t for some of the wrong turns (and their attendant lessons) in my life, I wouldn’t have found the wonderful man who I am dating today and be able to appreciate him. But I think I owe that more to the few actual relationships I’ve had with the wrong men and less to vacuous sexual encounters that taught me nothing about intimacy or pleasure. Thankfully, I did the hard work to understand how both my familial dynamics and the cultural winds of the day influenced my decisions. I consider myself lucky to have found the right guy at 34 but worry about other women, no matter what age, who are wedged between a culture that tells them one thing and the voice inside them that tells them another.

Neely, Neely, Neely…you’re so close, but not quite there.

Like I said regarding Hugo, while experience can be a great teacher, observation is often a greater teacher. Especially in matters related to sex. One does not have to experience the devastation of one or more hookups–with or without alcohol–to see what a cesspool of disaster that culture brings. One only needs to observe others doing the same thing over and over, and the results.

A woman need not lose her virginity at a drunken hookup in order to discover what she really longs for.

I understand what the feminist credo and Hugo have to say about pleasure-centered sex education and helping women to understand that it’s okay to enjoy sex outside of relationships (it is!) and to make silly, vapid mistakes, but we should also consider the notion that casual sex and hook-ups may not be for many women and can indeed have long-term deleterious effects (emotional and physical). Moreover, I think this sort of feminist-speak can often seem like highfalutin mumbo jumbo to a woman who, say, has hit her early to mid-30s, already spent years exploring her sexuality, made mistakes ad nauseam, and is now ready to settle down but has unfortunately found the dating pool has shrunk considerably. Lori Gotlieb wrote about this dilemma in her controversial article (and subsequent book) for the Atlantic entitled Marry Him!

To call feminist-speak “high-falutin’ mumbo jumbo” would be way too kind. In fact, feminism is all about making women equally miserable–no marriage, no children, but lots of sexual variety that doesn’t really satisfy–and dragging the men down with them.

Here, Neely gets to the 9,000 pound elephant in the room:

And, of course, there’s the ever-present tick-tock of the biological clock. It’s the one factor that feminism and college professors can’t manipulate. This is one such example as to why real-world practitioners are often at odds with academics: A professor sits behind the thick veil of tenure, spouting off theories and philosophies about how the world should be; a real-world practitioner has to deal with the world as it is, to make difficult decisions based on the realities of life.

Ahhh yes, the biological clock. THAT is the turd in the feminist punch bowl. Unfortunately, the women are largely unaware of how fast that clock is ticking down.

Based on my experiences and what I’ve seen countless other women deal with over the years, you can see why my approach to dating, sex, and relationships comes from a more strategic, realistic place (another example of this approach: if you want marriage and biological children, you should start taking your love life seriously by the time you reach your late-20s/early-30s), and why I now feel compelled to offer a critique of feminism. I want women to be happy, and to be honest with themselves, without feeling the need to buy into a politically-correct ideology, about what makes them happy. If it truly is lots of casual sex and fleeting hook-ups, more power to you! If not, that’s okay too! For so long I was dishonest with myself, getting swept up in a powerful cultural force that wasn’t there for me when I really needed it. Regarding the feminist movement, we have much to be thankful for, but we must also recognize it has created an unintended set of less-than-desirable circumstances for women that are very real and difficult to confront. We now have to deal with those consequences, honestly and openly and without fear of reproach.

As a libertarian, I have no stew with people making their own choices in life.

That said, over here, we provide admonitions and exhortations. If you want to learn–the hard way–about how nasty the hookup culture is, then you can do the stupid thing and partake in it.

If you wish to learn the easy way, then you can take what we say here seriously.

Even better, just read Proverbs.