"Murder Most Frugal"

It's as if Clark Howard channeled Agatha Christie - the good folks of Arkansas are showing the rest of the patently not civilized world how to execute people thriftily.
Because the Heartland?

Eight men are scheduled to be executed by lethal injection in Arkansas in the space of just 10 days, according to Gov. Asa Hutchinson's office. The state -- which has not put anyone to death for 11 years -- plans to execute the men in pairs between April 17 and April 27. 

You know why?
It seems that the lethal drugs they use to kill human beings have reached their sell-by date.

Let's just read that, and think about that, again, shall we? The lethal drugs they use to kill human beings have reached their sell-by date.

The execution schedule appears aimed at putting the inmates to death before another one of the state’s lethal injection drugs expires.
The state’s supply of midazolam lists an April 2017 expiration date, which pharmacy experts say is commonly accepted to mean the end of the month. The state’s supply of vecuronium bromide expires on March 1, 2018.

Making America Less Again.
God have mercy on us all.

"So ask YOUR doctor is cyanide is right for YOU!"

Outlandish science fiction about a dystopian future.....
BECAUSE,  WHY  WAIT  FOR  THE  FUTURE?????
Maybe they could get Michael Caine to do the adverts - get a bunch of happy old people sitting around enjoying life, er.... I mean, enjoying death.
It'll save the insurance companies crazy money.

You've reached the age when giving up is exactly who you are, this is the age of knowing how to make things stop happening. So why let the preciousness and dignity of life or morality get in the way? Talk to your doctor about Offex. (And talk to your parents' doctors, while you'r at it - it's the loving and fiscally responsible thing to do.)

Should I copyright that drug name? It seems right for an assisted suicide pill, and it's got an "x" in it.
But perhaps "Assisteeze" would be better, "z" is a kewl letter too.

(They'll need a catchy jingle like the one for pills for erectile dysfunction)

A Hierarchy of Atrocities, How the "News" Ranks Tragedy

Why do American news outlets give so much more coverage to one act of barbarity than to another?
They seem to have so much more to say about murders at a shopping center in Munich than a suicide bombing in Kabul.
Is the level of the victims' otherness the deciding factor?
Is where Americans might vacation?
Is war news fatigue to blame? (Oh, some more of those people have blown up yet more others of those people...)

And in nightclub shootings, it seemed there was an immediate effort to put a  face on the Orlando victims, even while a stand-off was occurring.
Not so with the children killed in Ft Myers.
Is that because in the Pulse incident both victims and murderer were members of privileged-by-forces-of-political-correctness classes? (Never mind the rush to blame the atrocity on those who were members of neither of the two.)

Then what to make of news reports on the Club Blu horror? Clearly from news photos, twitter postings and facebook videos, the club's teen-aged clientele was primarily, if not exclusively black. Is that not relevant?
And if not, why not?
Are victims' identity as African-American, (presumably, though one cannot tell residence or citizenship from photos and names,) teen-agers of less moment that that of Latino homosexuals, do they matter less, is it a less "sex" story?
Or conversely, is neglect of such details an effort to forestall commentary on black-on-black crime, whether that be rational or bigoted?

My hear is sick, how the world needs prayer!

Making Sense of the Senseless

We need to have a conversation about this. We cannot solve problems until we know their root, and we cannot know the root of a problem unless we examine it and discuss it.
WHAT CAUSED THIS?

It was being brought up by hate-filled parents.
It was homophobia.
No, it was easy access to assault weapons,
The government didn't keep good enough tabs on its citizens.
No, the government is oppressing us by keeping tabs on us and our guns.
Not enough care available for the mentally ill.
The problem is the PC refusal to recognize dysphoria and deviance as disordered and in need of care.
Militant Islam that seeks to destroy its enemies

¿Por qué no todos ?

Why can't they all be discussed? why must conversation be shut down on any of these possibilities? why are people so afraid of what they will find?
You, crazy ACLU lawyer-types - I'm willing to discuss it.
You think Christianity is to blame, that if Christians didn't advocate for traditional marriage and resist being told they must recognize and even serve activity they regard as an abhorrent sin the Orlando gunman would not have behaved as he did, that my praying for you is one cause - wanna discuss it? wanna tell my how prayer is hateful?

Some People Have Objections to Women Being Used As Brood Mares?

Apparently there is still common sense and decency in the world, and surprise, surprise - it doesn't break down across the left/right, conservative/liberal divide.

The Feminist Party of Spain has filed a complaint in court over an upcoming surrogate motherhood “fair” as constituting an illegal practice in the country by promoting human trafficking.
The Surrofair will take place in Madrid May 7-8. The fair will provide information and the different ways to contract with a surrogate mother.
The Feminist Party has condemned the fair, which it considers to be promoting human trafficking.
“The state of necessity of women who turn to renting their womb, for a price, is not unlike sexual exploitation,” the party said in its complaint.

I would have done it for three...

Canada, Beloved Neighbor to My North, I Love You To Death, (Sorry, Bad Choice of Words,) But Help Me Wrap My Mind Around This Suicide Thing

Killing yourself, dying on your own terms, in your own time, is a way of retaining your dignity, and therefore a good thing.

The Supreme Court ruling on that case last year established that Canadians have the constitutional right to doctor-assisted death.

Unless it's not.

The community, [of Attawapiskat ] on James Bay in remote northern Ontario, declared a state of emergency a week ago after 11 of its members attempted suicide in one weekend and 28 tried to do so in March.

It's bad unless someone you think is old enough to make the decison wants it?

And in that case, is it objectively bad, or just something that ought to be postponed?

Holy Hour For Life

I will not go so far as to say the person targetted here is corrupt, nor call for her resignation, for many actions are taken by those who are stupid or uninformed or illogical or ill-thought-out rather than evil.
But I do suspect that the the California Attorney General targetted David Daleiden because she supports Planned Parenthood, and that support and therefore that action are evil.
So, at the time of the rally at the AG's office in Sacramento, today from 11:00 AM to 12:00 AM I will fast, keep silence, and pray in reparation for the sin of the murder of the unborn.

The Merciful Murderers

What does it say about me, what does it say about the world, when a headline about some atrocity draws my attention
and I am relieved to see that the Islamists responsible for the killing being reported merely shot their victims, instead of employing a more grisly, more barabric method?

Call it Genocide!

I keep reading, (from both sides of the question, and in fact, both political parties, and finally both ends of the spectrum of governmental philosophy,) about the legal ramifications that would result from the Obama administration's and Sec. of State Kerry's making a declaration that the ongoing slaughter by ISIS/Daesh/ISIL of Christians, Yazidis, Muslims from other branches, and other religious and ethnic minorities is "genocide."
The White House press secretary said that,

"that word involves a very specific legal determination."  

And a few days later,

"The decision to apply this term to this situation is an important one.  It has significant consequences, and it matters for a whole variety of reasons, both legal and moral.  But it doesn’t change our response.  And the fact is that this administration has been aggressive, even though that term has not been applied, in trying to protect religious minorities who are victims or potential victims of violence.....
there is an independent determination that needs to be made based on a very specific legal definition that our lawyers are considering right now.  And while that legal consideration and while that legal definition is important, and I certainly wouldn’t downplay the significance of the use of that term, we have been quite aggressive in both speaking out against but also taking tangible steps to try to protect religious minorities who are the victims of persecution."

That seems smarmy in the extreme, to me, we're doing everything we would do already anyway, so it's just semantics. Then why not?
The moral obligation is obvious, and not accepting them by refusing to use the term seems heinous to me, but what of these supposed legal obligation?
Are their obligations enshrined in US law?
Because the U.N.'s "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" to which we are signatories places a very light burden indeed.
Read them, they are startilingly lacking in rigor. Penalties in keeping with a country's constitution, and extradition, that's pretty much it.
And Obama and Kerry surely don't share the right-wing hesitancy to place ourselves under the direction of the UN's rules.
You know, 'cause the UN is a bunch of commie third world-types trying to establish a one-world government. You know, under The Beast.

And what is this "very specific legal definition" with which the White House is trying to align? And where?
Not, again, in the UN's convention.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The reluctance to call the bloodbaths and extermination in Syria "genocide," smells to me very like the diplomatic diffidence regarding Turkey's massacres of Armenians - oh, no, we mustn't pin an offensive label on anyone off of whom we might later wish to make money.

It smells like it, and it stinks.

The Face of Evil - Boko Haram in Nigeria

This is quite horrifying, don't look at the picture, squint past it if you haven't a strong stomach, but read it, this is important.

WHY are the atrocities in Africa not reported on as prominently as those in the middle east, why do we involve ourselves in some and not others?

I do not believe it is because the victims are black, I cannot believe it is because the victims are Christian.

How do we allow this to continue without trying to remedy the situation?
The blogger is British, but changes the mileage and he could as well be American.

Some two thousand miles away in Deir ez-Zur, Syria, Islamists have besieged the city of 120,000 souls. Women are raped in the street, men beheaded on the banks of the Euphrates, and children are left to starve. The Islamic State (aka Daesh) is in control, and our media and political class insist that we must open our borders to those who can flee the persecution.
Some two thousand miles away in Dalori, Nigeria, Islamists have beseiged the village of an unknown number of souls. Women are shot, men blown to smithereens, and children burned alive in their homes. Boko Haram (which has pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, aka Daesh) is in control, and our media and political class have condemned the slaughter.

Rolling Stone Reporter Not Noted For Her Journalistic Rigor Strikes Again, But That's Not My Question

A "journalist" who's been down this road before apparently helped whip up outrage about a innocent man accused of rape.
But, you know, it was a chance to get in some licks on an institution that stands against everything much of what Rolling Stone is for, so what difference did it make if it was all a lie, and if men went to jail while the liar made a financial killing, and had their reputations ruined, and died in prison?

What difference?

It served its purpose.

It's a horrible, horrible, ugly, ugly story, and it's pretty completely covered in the linked Newsweek article, but I am left with one very off topic question.

How is a 67-year-old man suffering from heart disease handcuffed to a hospital bed, kept under armed guard, and possibly "denied a ... lifesaving heart operation"; when we are a society so solicitous of the welfare of our prison population that their elective sex-change operations are covered?

Maybe Pennsylvania is backward....
(Yes, I'm aware that that is not a trans-sexual, much less a prison inmate, but rather than marvelous Sean Bean. Or is it Seane Beane? or Swhawn Bhawn? Anyway, it's a joke. Just because it isn't funny doesn't mean it's not a joke.)

"Culture of Death"? Of Authentic Liberality and Conscienscious Objection

The promoters of the Culture of Life are often mocked for over-reaching when they expound on its opposite number, a purported "culture of death."
Don't be silly, there's no such thing, no right-minded person is pro-death, we just differ on our approach to....
You know the drill.
You've heard the drill.
You've been drilled.
So how is it that "respectable" people are insisting, not just on a right to die, on "euthanasia," and yes, occasionally, hard though some try to disguise the activity, on a right to seek the death and actually compass the death of ones child or parent or patient with or without the victim's consent or even knowledge...
How is it that these fine folks support not just the right to die but the right to force others to be complicit in these murders in violation of consciences?
Oh, those annoying Catholics!
A Belgian death advocate Dr Wim Distelmans bemoans the sad truth that
 “a majority of hospitals and nursing homes in Flanders are still Catholic today. If the right to euthanasia is refused there, that will be a problem.”
Strange, is it not, that conscientious objection has long been a hallmark of what pleases to call itself, "liberal" thinking?
Let's look at a hard case:

Following the fall of France in 1940 Britain remained the only European power at war with the Axis of Germany and Italy. Given that its foes had formidable military might and effective control of almost all of Western Europe the UK faced an existential crisis. Only a narrow channel and a few aeroplanes stood between Britain and invasion.  Faced with this situation the country was militarised and organised to an hitherto unprecedented level. Yet in the midst of all this it remained possible for individual British citizens to register as conscientious objectors and opt out of involvement in the defence of the nation. Thousands indeed did so, most notably perhaps Quakers and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
No tyranny, of course, would tolerate such a category under any circumstances let alone in time of war. In that era however making such provisions was considered to be a key defining category for a liberal democracy. It was one of the things that made them morally superior to dictatorships. Majority rule on its own was insufficient, fascist and communist countries after all claimed that mandate for themselves. Freedom of speech, of the press and of assembly on their own were not enough either. It was necessary also to guarantee that no person would be compelled to act against their own deeply held and well formed conscientious principles except in circumstances more urgent and extreme than an attack by Nazi Germany.
In the light of subsequent events it is noteworthy that it was the Left that spoke out most strongly in support of the rights of CO’s. Dealing with questions about CO’s in broadcasting the Prime Minister Winston Churchill said “the rights which have been granted in this war and the last to conscientious objectors are well-known, and are a definite part of British policy. Anything in the nature of persecution, victimisation, or man-hunting is odious to the British people.”...
Nor was this liberal [note!] opinion confined to the United Kingdom. In 1944 another world leader enunciated the same principle “State absolutism….consists in fact in the false principle that the authority of the state is unlimited and that in face of it… to appeal to a higher law obliging in conscience is not admitted.”...
These liberal principles articulated by Pope Pius XII were applauded by the New York Times “Pope Pius expresses as passionately as any leader on our side the war aims of the struggle for freedom when he says that those who aim at building a new world must fight for free choice of government and religious order. They must refuse that the state should make of individuals a herd of whom the state disposes as if they were a lifeless thing.”
 In the West today, some 70 years later, however liberal voices often demand ‘one law for all.’...The contemporary idea that religion is a purely private matter appears to lead on to the further notion that religious or conscientious beliefs are exactly the same in type or intensity as any other belief about, say, the right colour of socks or whether the Oxford comma should be used.
To me, though, it seems that the opposition to providing opt-outs on the grounds of conscience is based more on a desire to hammer opponents over the head than on any thought through philosophical basis. ... They might argue that expressing sexuality or having an abortion [or committing suicide?] are necessities but having a conscience is a luxury. 

So...
Is it?
Is having a conscience a luxury, Belgium? (Brave Little Belgium, I always say in my head. Should I amend that to Brutal Little Belgium?)

Did You Know That You Missed "National Suicide Promotion Week"?

Well, not exactly.
Reflections of a Paralytic has some wonderful, and frankly, damning to us as a society, thoughts.

 Our Suicidal Split Personality
The sickening irony of the passage of the [assisted suicide] bill in the California State Assembly this September is that it came during Suicide Prevention Week — specifically on Worldwide Suicide Prevention Day!
Which, again, makes me wonder: Why suicide prevention for some and not all? Why does our tune change for the physically sick and disabled? Why then, instead of calling for suicide prevention, do we cheer them on to their deaths — and call on our medical professionals to help them die?
We can’t have it both ways, folks.
No, really. We can’t. It turns out assisted suicide actually increases other suicides.

A study published the Southern Medical Journal recently found a statistically significant suicide increase in states that have legalized physician assisted suicide (PAS). From the article:

Controlling for state-and year-?xed effects, PAS is associated with an 8.9% increase in total suicide rates (including assisted suicides),an effect that is strongly statistically significant (95%) confidence interval [CI] 6.6%Y11.2%).
Once we control for a range of demographic and socioeconomic factors, PAS is estimated to increase rates by 11.79% (95% CI 9.3%Y14.1%). When we include state-[specific] time trends, the estimated increase is 6.3% (95% CI 2.7%Y9.9%).

Assisted Suicide is Never a Personal, Private Matter

What is perhaps most disturbing about Gov. Brown’s decision to allow the bill to become law was that it was, ultimately, based purely on selfish emotion. “In the end, I was left to reflect on what I would want in the face of my own death,” the Governor said.
Never mind the millions of sick and disabled who will be marginalized once death becomes an acceptable “treatment” for pain and suffering. Never mind the documented abuse and neglect of so-called “safeguards”. Never mind the “slippery slope” into anything goes euthanasia that is real and well documented.
And of course he ignored the fact that the majority of physicians — the people who would actually be responsible for ending the lives of those who want assisted suicide — consistently oppose assisted suicide. In fact, the president of the American College of Physicians wrote a strongly worded letter to Brown asking him to veto the CA legislation.

And This Is How We Have Singers Who Rise To Fame on the Usual Vocal Skills...

.... you know, physical beauty or dance ability.
(Intonation? Nah, fuggedaboudit, we got auto-tune for that.)

Take a look at this, Andrew Balio's indictment of the standard-free education in the arts that is being pushed by some, (well, objective standards, anyway, are being thrown to the wind.)

He writes from the POV of musicians, but the plastic arts are leading the way.

Music conservatories have until now largely resisted the impulses that have transformed our art schools. But art schools long ago succumbed to the delusion that sets creativity and originality ahead of discipline. They long ago embraced the widespread cultural rebellion against tradition in all its forms; generations ago they rejected the practice of “teaching as it was taught to me.” They have effectively broken with the past. They’re even wildly successful at turning out entrepreneurs: modern artists are now rolling their “art” off of assembly lines straight into museums. A 2011 Wall Street Journal article by Stan Sesser, “The Art Assembly Line” described this phenomenon:

Alexander Gorlizki is an up-and-coming artist…[whose] work has been displayed at the Victoria & Albert Museum in London, the Denver Art Museum and Toronto's Royal Ontario Museum, among others, and sells for up to $10,000. Mr. Gorlizki lives in New York City. The paintings are done by seven artists who work for him in Jaipur, India. “I prefer not to be involved in actually painting,” says Mr. Gorlizki, who adds that it would take him 20 years to develop the skills of his chief Indian painter, Riyaz Uddin. “It liberates me not being encumbered by the technical proficiency,” he says.

We don’t have to squint to see where this road that our reformers are rushing down ends. Indeed we are fortunate to have such an explicit example to study. Before we bid our conservatories follow our art schools into the great modern experiment, then, we ought to ask ourselves—and consider carefully—whether or not the experiment has been successful.

Movies and musicals are assembled by committees and focus groups, cuteness counts, and PR trumps beauty. With Scrooge, I'll retire to Bedlam.

Parliament Rejects Suicide Bill, Praise God

Even as in our country California is throwing itself into the pit, in the UK, Parliament has handily rejected their "assisted dying" bill.

The vote, which came after almost five hours of impassioned debate on both sides, resulted in 330 against the Bill and 118 in favour, a majority of 212.
The Bill, proposed by Labour MP Rob Marris, was based on Lord Falconer’s Bill which ran out of time in the House of Lords before the general election.
It would have allowed people with fewer than six months to live to be prescribed a lethal dose of drugs; they would have to be capable of taking these themselves. Every case would have had to be approved by two doctors and a High Court judge.
When the issue was last debated in Parliament in 1997 it was rejected by 234 to 89.

Deo gratias

Yes, it does seem possible that it is only a temporary victory, as we, as a society, move closer and closer to, (in this case, quite literally,) embracing death, (giving people poison is always presented by Death's minions as the "loving" thing to do, the kind, the merciful way,) but ethics and morals are in such a state of chaos now, bigger battles will no doubt be fought, and will prove some kind of tipping point before suicide triumphs.

Not saying which way we shall tip....
But for now,

"Hey, Kali, my Son gave me a message for you..."
 

"Don't Look and It Won't Scare You"

When I was a child, and one of... well, of very many children, and TV was one of our mostest favoritest things in the whole wide world, no one always got to watch what he or she wanted to watch.
Sometimes ones preference prevailed, sometimes that of my brother whohasnotasteorsensewhatsoever, sometimes a younger child since he or she would be put to bed first leaving his or her elders a half hour more of prime time...
And sometimes, naturally, a parent would make a unilateral decision.
(Frankly, this is one of the great lessons one absorbs growing up in a large family, without even being conscious of it, "I don't always get my way. NOR SHOULD I." I digress.)

My oldest brother was a big fan of Creature Features. (Not sure if that was it's real name.)

I watched it quite a bit, and if was tame enough, or we were quiet enough, my parents allowed it.

I liked "monster movies." I really, really liked them,a long as they weren't, to use the technical term, "ookie." I like chills and thrills and horror, particulrly in a "period" setting,  but not slime and never gore.

My oldest sister really didn't like such things, and some of us littler ones liked some kinds but not others, but regardless - although if it was noticed and judged too intense it might be shut off, or certain people might be removed from the vicinity, but since since each of us had already essentially made the choice to watch and since movies in the olden days parcelled out the shocks and the effects, and filmmakers and television directors did not go out of their way to make even the sound effects realistically sick-making as they now do, the parental solution was not infrequently to state the obvious - "Don't look and it won't scare you."

Don't look and it won't scare you.

That still works today, and it's not bad advice in some matters.
There are many scenes in movies as they are now made from which I turn away, during which I create noise in my own head so as not to hear screams and cries.
(Even in some not-so-new movies, I just thought - Peeping Tom, anyone?)

And I thought for quite a while before I decided to post the picture of tiny, tortured baby parts with my #CallHimEmmett post.

But I thought it was important, self-censoring of images of that horror is a weapon the enemy uses to allow us and those we would persuade of it evil to ignore the abomination of the deliberate abortion of our fellow men.
Often on television or internet a news anchor will use a "warning" that's in reality a teaser - that "before we roll this footage, we must warn our viewers, some of the images you are about to see may be..." tempts many, ooh, can't wait, wonder what....?

So yesterday, when Himself asked, as he does almost everyday with black humor, what's the atrocity du jour? and the answer in the news made his question hideously apt, I have to say that the forbearance shown by most outlets in not playing, (in an unending loop as they do for most of the barbarities they are lucky enough to have caught on camera,) the video bid-for-fame-and-immortality made by the racist who murdered the reporter and cameraman was both surprising and appreciated.

Don't look and it won't scare you...

Maybe some of us are doomed to just go through the rest of our lives perpetually scared.

How To Boil a Frog

Amnesty International has adopted a proposal calling for the decriminalization of the sex trade, to promote "human rights" and "equal protection" for sex workers.

This proposal instead gives amnesty to pimps, brothel owners and sex buyers by recognizing everyone in sex work as “consenting adults.” Men and women in the vulnerable position of selling their bodies for sex should be offered services and solutions to provide them with safe alternatives.

But as Cindy McCain, the chairman of the Human Trafficking Advisory Council of the McCain Institute for International Leadership, continues in the Washington Post -

The proposal instead legalizes their exploitation. Amnesty International says that people who engage in sex work often do so because they have been marginalized and have limited choices. The decision to sell one’s body for sex made in the absence of better circumstances is not a human right. A buyer or trafficker who takes advantage of someone’s lack of choice for their own financial or sexual gain is an exploiter of human rights and should be criminalized.

Sex work and sex trafficking cannot reasonably be separated. Sex work fuels the demand for commercial sex, which is the indisputable driving force behind the sex-trafficking industry. Supply will always meet demand, and in this equation, supply is too often vulnerable men and women, and, at its very worst, children. Under the group’s proposal, sex traffickers and brothel owners could operate with immunity for facilitating what they say is consensual sex work. Protections should not be afforded to those who prey on a person’s vulnerability or lack of basic needs. Decriminalizing sex work would put those in the sex industry, and vulnerable populations around the world, in greater danger by giving no authority to go after those who exploit others for personal profit

It's not as if society's refusal to name virtually any sexual activity at all, no matter how loathsome, as indecent hasn't set us one this path.
I'm guessing that was the reason for the NYTimes op-ed piece by the lap dancer - it was published by way of greasing the skids for this newest outrage.
And we're accustomed to outrages, so really what is a little more?
Gradualism can be useful, huh? Soon, nothing will make us jump out of the pot.

I missed the piece in the Times to which Catholic World Report refers here-

The new policy would also theoretically encourage better health care for women in prostitution and reduce the stigma involved with the industry.
Preceding Amnesty's decision, the New York Times published a piece on the slippery slope of the sex industry – calling it a vague, gray area, especially when it comes to its decriminalization.
“Can we really draw a bright line between a person who has casual sex, in private, with various lovers, and a person who has sex in private, with various short-term and long-term lovers, from whom she accepts monetary support?” the piece asks, arguing that private, consensual acts – whatever they may be – have a right to be protected.

But they NEED it...

... to advance the cause of medicine!

 

 They're just being wasted, otherwise.

Soylent Green....

So, how soon before Planned Parenthood begins actively and openly growing babies to sell them for parts?

An undercover video recorded by the non-profit organization, Center for Medical Progress, shows Planned Parenthood Federation Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, discussing their fetal parts business.
Nucatola is seen in the video having lunch with actors posing as buyers who are interested in purchasing the body parts of babies who have been aborted. The Planned Parenthood senior staffer notes how abortion procedures are modified to ensure that requested body parts can be collected. She says:

“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

Nucatola also describes how Planned Parenthood abortionists move the preborn child into a breech delivery position so that the body can be preserved.

“I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.

“The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is calvarium. Calvarium—the head—is basically the biggest part. …

“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact. And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex. …

Planned Parenthood, though, appears to be concerned internally about the legality of their own behavior, as Nucatola notes how, “At the national office, we have a Litigation and Law Department which just really doesn’t want us to be the middle people for this issue right now.”

Taking Naked Tourist Snaps of Oneself in a Place Which, Oh....Which the People Whose PLACE It Is Revere??!?!??

Yeah, sure, why not...
Why does this not surprise me?

Four Western tourists, including a Briton, have been arrested in Malaysia for allegedly taking naked pictures on a mountaintop considered sacred by tribes....
Disrobing at Machu Picchu, a 15th-Century Inca citadel in the Peruvian Andes, designated as a Unesco world heritage site, has resulted in several arrests. Two sisters from Arizona were arrested and fined in February for taking pictures of their buttocks inside the Angkor Wat temple, while three French men were deported for similar offences.
Many more have got away without police action, posting their pictures on Facebook. One page shows a nude man standing in front of Rio de Janeiro's Christ the Redeemer statue and mimicking its pose.
It's not the nudity, it's the disrespect, the contempt for others' beliefs and traditions.

I suppose when you think about it, it's possible the ignorant adolescents, (adolescence seems to last well into the fourth decade, no?) were not aware of the offense they were giving in Malayasia, and were just being silly and playful, but the statue in Rio de Janeiro? the holy place in Angkor Wat?
That's more akin to... well, just let me ask, if anyone gets thrown in the klink somewhere for this behavior, are we all going to have to declare, "Je Suis Imbecile Que Nu"?