I googled Gayle Haggard's image, and she looks perfectly fine to me--she didn't look like the crypt-keeper. But you know, even if she did, even if she looked like she ate nothing but Krispy Kreme doughnuts for five years, that would never excuse marital betrayal. I'd like to know where Driscoll got his theological training, because it's clear that he is clueless about some basic principles about ethics and human behavior. Whatever happened to self-restraint, self-control, emotional maturity? This is a clear indication that many of these so-called evangelical types are far, far, far from the mark of full maturity, psychologically. After all, why should Haggard take responsibility for smoking meth and cheating on his wife--according to Driscoll--when all you have to do is blame the very person you've betrayed? I'm still wondering when Gayle's gonna wake up and realize that she reaaly can do better. Both Haggard and Driscoll are examples of what happens when you refuse to own your emotional baggage--you project onto everybody else. People with borderline personality issues and/or afflicted with addictions often blame just about everybody, including the Devil and God, just as long as they don't turn the mirror on their own faces. Driscoll pretty much proved before that he had no concept of theology beyond his limited understanding of the Bible. Between the gay-bashing and the woman-bashing, I really don't get the appeal of fundamentalism.

Perhaps this is a moment that may reveal to both husband and wife just how committed they are (or they aren't) to each other. It's pretty obvious as to the nature of her husband's opposition--and it sure isn't about her health or well-being. In fact, it sounds like the biggest threat to those areas is him if she goes through with the pregnancy. He perceives the surrogate pregnancy as an intrusion on his "territory," i.e., his wife's body belongs to him, exclusively. In any case, if it's not this issue, another one will reveal something more about the possessiveness of the husband. I think the LW should do it, and she needs to do it for her sister, as well as to make clear to hubby that he does not own her.

This is the stupidest debate I've ever heard over Harold Ford--and I feel insulted that anyone would have the gall to assume that Black women aren't savvy voters when it comes to assessing the value of Black men running for office. I'm also appalled at the sexist/racist tone of the whole conversation, as if Black women can't see a political snow job a mile away. Believe me, it wasn't hard to figure out that the GOP wasn't my friend. I'm amazed that these political pundits and bloggers can't figure out that most Black women are not likely to believe anything coming from the GOP, especially ads that would use racist overtones. I'm still pissed at the GOP over Anita Hill, Jocelyn Elders, and Lani Guinier. Besides, Black women are far more progressive thinkers when it comes to interracial dating than these pundits have assumed--we are also dating interracially. It's the 21st century, folks, let's not continue beating that dead horse of a debate you dragged out of some old issue of Essence.

Gee, thanks, just what Catholics need: more repression, more rules to break. What's more telling is the fact that this new directive by default acknowledges the inherent flaw in this reasoning by saying in effect, "we know we are behind the times, but we can't get our heads out of the ass of the third century, so just don't talk about it, and everything will be okay. You can still take communion and give us your tithes." It's pretty much how the Church deals with divorce and birth control here in the States--by refusing to see the mack truck of change until it smacks them in the face.

The Church's hierarchy ignores the fact that many gays and lesbians who grew up Catholic have already rejected the Church because of its intolerance and hypocrisy. The only thing that these bizarre rules will produce is rejection from gays and lesbians who are Catholic, but who refuse to allow such backward thinking to push them back into the closet. The same goes for the hierarchy's attitudes towards divorce and contraception: Catholics in the States, Canada and in Europe go about their lives ignoring the Church's directives out of a sense of pragmatism and just plain old cynicism about outdated and outmoded concepts of family and relationships. That's not going to reverse itself, and so we will most likely see a continuation of the decline in active membership among Catholics in the West. The Church's progress is far too slow, and far too late.

I get the sense that Karnasiewicz was looking for something that would anesthesize the harshness of "decay," that would somehow transcend the macabre and appeal to her perceptions of beauty and perfection, as if Death itself could be given a Hollywood shine. On the other hand, there are so many aspects of life that cannot be airbrushed into perfection, and maybe that's the point. I think ugliness hasn't had its proper due in art. Certainly, death is ugly and harsh with the jagged edges of pain and loss--I'd expect to see no less reflected in the images of illness and death. I would anticipate seeing something that reveals the intimacy of death between the photographer and the beloved, and that sort of raw, candid approach is what makes the difference between shallow poses of celebrity men crying and the richness and fullness of the unaltered, unposed woman who is truly suffering but refuses to hide it from the the camera lens. If that offends Karnasiewicz's sense of taste, then perhaps she should rethink her definition of art.