...EVERY fundamentalist Protestant whom I know says--casually, and with no sense of irony about it--that Catholics are not Christians (e.g., "Diane isn't a Christian; she's a Catholic!"). In their minds, Catholics are, apparently, another breed of religion altogether. (I'd imagine that the same applies to the Mormons.)

Now, to MY mind (speaking as a secular humanist of Jewish ancestry), everyone who believes that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the son of God, and God incarnate, is a Christian--period.

Then I figured out why some of them refuse to acknowledge their fellow Christians as BEING Christians: They share a belief that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ wil gain Salvation. But they ALSO believe that anyone who doesn't belong to their particular sect is going straight to Hell. The only way to get around this apparent contradiction is to refuse to recognize those in other sects as being Christians.

My second? "Actually, he's kinda cute, but the weirdly-foppish outfit is a complete turnoff!" ('Though, weirdly-outfitted or not, I'd have a hard time feeling attracted to him in any case, as "overly-tall" men make me feel instinctively nervous: Give me a guy who's well UNDER six feet tall any day!)

But that's just the surface. What's beneath the surface represents everything that I dislike about so many men. The shallowness. The disdain. The single-minded goal-chasing. The refusal to see others as whole, complex beings, or even CARING that there's more to them than a means of achieving ones goal until the next challenge comes along.

And, do you know what else? He's the sort of man who turns other men into bitter misogynists who believe that all women go for "the bad boys"--in large part by confirming that very notion.

So, count reactions two through ten as also being, "Ewwwwww!"

It's just too bad that he has enough fans to warrant a TV show. I really hate the thought of this sort of attitudinal virus spreading.

"Ewwwwwww!"

...pixelating his face. --That is, assuming that someone who shoots up women's skirts has enough of a sense of pride to BE embarrassed by his actions, which is doubtful. (Or they're saving themselves form the possibility of being sued by this no-class creepazoid.)

Geez Louise, even a revolting individual like Paris Hilton doesn't deserve this sort of treatment...and her assailants don't deserve to have their identities sheltered.

And if a particular breed has an inborn tendency to aggression--one that is all-too-often exploited by macho, "gangstah" creepazoid humans--then perhaps it's best to ban those breeds and eliminate the creepazoids' means to exploit dogs.

At this point in time, pit bulls have a certain cachet about them amongst the creepazoids that other potentially-aggressive dogs--such as Rottweilers* and German Shepherds*--do not.

If--when deprived of their fighting dog of choice--the creepazoids were to turn to other breeds, then those breeds will have to be examined closely, and measures will have to be taken to ensure that those dogs don't also become a common target for exploitation. (I can't imagine that those two particular breeds* would be banned, given their long history of being the preferred breeds* for police K-9 units. But consider this: There must be a very good reason why Rottweilers and German Shepherds are used in police work and pit bulls are not. And that reason must have something to do with their potential for viciousness being combined with a lack of predictability in their behavior, and inability to be reliably-disciplined.)

It's considered to be a source of pride, among some sub-cultures (immigrant groups, underclass minorities, etc.), to never "rat out" anyone to the police. If one is a witness to a crime and is called upon to testify in court, it's seen as "noble" to accept time in jail for being in contempt of court for refusing to testify.

And even if an individual did not have a sense of pride around not being a "rat," his/her peers are likely to punish anyone who's suspected of being a "rat."

The end result is that, even if rampant crime in your neighborhood is negatively affecting your--and your family's--quality-of-life, you NEVER help "the authorities" do their jobs. You NEVER help yourself and your otherwise-law-abiding neighbors to clear out the blight that surrounds you. Why? It's because the "authorities" are the ones who are perceived to be the oppressors, NEVER the criminals in your midst. It's always "US" against "THEM"--even if some of the "USs" are making our lives miserable, and the "THEMs" could help us--if only we'd let them.

I read, in this morning's local freebie paper, that an attempted rape occurred about a mile to the south of where I live (in a neighborhood where I often shop at the pan-Asian supermarket and wait for the bus), and when the victim screamed in response to being pulled into the bushes, not one but SEVERAL people called 9-1-1. The police responded immediately, and, although the would-be rapist fled and is still at-large, the target of his attack was spared what could have been a far-worse ordeal.

Although this particular neighborhood is suburban, it consists of large apartment complexes occupied chiefly by the working-class, by immigrants of all stripes--including illegal aliens--and by gang members. Despite this neighborhood's being plagued by all sorts of gang violence, the people in the neighborhood DID NOT fit the "don't rat" behavioral pattern that is so common in this sort of environment (and which I wrote about at length in my initial post).

I wanted to give those folks a big "Thumbs Up!" for caring about what goes on in their part of the city, and I want to give the San Mateo P.D. kudos for their quick response. (And let's hope that that perp gets caught soon, too!)