Sodomy today, lap dancing tomorrow —
George Will reminds me of a radical feminist I once knew who, to justify
abortion, insisted that a "fetus was just like a tumor." Statements that shocking
jump to mind even 30 years later and I hope that, by now, the woman who uttered
them has realized the absurdity of her opinion. Early on, though a fetus and a
tumor share some biological similarities (both are clumps of cells dependent on
the body of their host), and though they may share characteristics like being
feared or unwanted, anyone short of a total reductionist would know that is where
the similarities end.
When it comes to abortion and gay rights, there are zany arguments on both
sides of the issues. The latest comes from the usually rational George Will, who
is trying to convince us, through logic stretched thin as spandex, that a right
to privacy does not exist in the Constitution, and that the recent Supreme Court
ruling in the Texas sodomy case has bestowed upon Americans, not a constitutional
right to privacy, but a constitutional right to lap dancing.
"The privacy right," writes George Will, "is most famously associated with
Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion decision. . . . And given that in a 1992
abortion ruling the privacy right was explained as 'the right to physical
autonomy,' the question is not just whether there is a fundamental right to
engage in sodomy. Why not the right to physical autonomy in using heroin? Lap
dancing as a fundamental right? That is, after Thursday [the day the Supreme
Court issued its ruling in the Texas sodomy case], not a close constitutional
call." Mr. Will stretches the meaning of the right to privacy into a right to lap
dancing just like my old friend stretched the meaning of a tumor to include a
fetus. If we take the no-privacy zealots and states' rights aficionados at their
word, they are saying that Americans have no right to sexual privacy, nor a right
to physical autonomy, and ownership of one's own body does not exist. These small
government conservatives are saying it's up to the state to define, and the
police to monitor, sexual behavior between consenting adults in their homes.
We have recently heard an avalanche of slippery slope and what-if arguments
from social conservatives like Rick Santorum, who is apoplectic that everyone
will start group marriages and have sex with basset hounds and gerbils if we have
a right to privacy.
Santorum does not believe that adults, any adults, even heterosexual married
adults, have the right to privacy regarding consensual sex within their home.
Adult Americans simply cannot be trusted with a right to privacy, he says, and so
we must deny that privacy is in the Constitution at all.
Social conservatives argue that Americans have no inherent right to use birth
control if a state legislature outlaws it. But slippery slope arguments cut in
both directions, and if some future leftist, feminist, environmentalist alliance
elected to a state legislature outlaws more than one child per couple as has been
done in China, then Americans will have no right to appeal such a law on grounds
of privacy or personal physical autonomy. Since there is nothing in the
Constitution giving Americans the right to own their own body and its
reproductive capabilities, the state must decide how bodies are to be used.
Furthermore, if social conservatives prevail, and it's decided that there is
no right to physical autonomy or for individuals to be "secure in their persons,"
then if a dying person needs a kidney transplant, and yours is the only
compatible kidney, you can be obligated by state law to donate yours.
A 12 year old who is impregnated by a rapist, and whose parents refuse consent
to an abortion as may be mandated by state law, has no right to her own body, and
may be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy. If she remains uncooperative,
she may be arrested and tied to a hospital gurney at delivery.
Or, if you have no rights to privacy in the most intimate parts of your
personal life, nor a right to physical autonomy, the state may decide to collect
a certain type of sperm needed for compelling social reasons, and may forcibly
take sperm if it's not volunteered. What constitutional protection do you have
from a search and seizure such as this?
As for the much-feared onslaught of lap dancers who will sprout up like
crabgrass in the suburbs, destroying marriages and fraying the social fabric in
their wake — well, say the worst happens, and a lap dancer visits the home
of a handicapped male friend, bestows sexual favors and is given a gift in
return? Shall we arrest them both and jail them, courtesy of the taxpayers?
On second thought, it's better social conservatives take another look at the
Fourth Amendment. When someone from the government crashes through the bedroom
door to check for illegal sex, it doesn't matter whether the invaders are federal
agents or state troopers.All things considered, lap dancers' rights are better than a police state.
— Sarah McCarthy
| Bruce Ramsey is
a journalist in Seattle. |
|
Giving slapdash, conservative polemic a bad name
— Ann Coulter is the conservative babe whose modus
vivendi, says Andrew Sullivan, is to "look amazing and ratchet up the
rhetoric against the Left until it has the subtlety and nuance of a car alarm."
Her latest book, "Treason" (2003), is one long accusation of disloyalty, and
includes one paragraph about me.
As part of a chapter on media types being apologists for Reds, she attacks a
newspaper book review I wrote on "The Spy Who Seduced America." The spy was
Judith Coplon, convicted in 1950 after a public trial in which she was defended
in the press by the liberals of the day. The two words Coulter quoted from my
review said that the government's case against Coplon was "entirely
circumstantial." Coulter replied:
"The circumstance was this: in March 1949, she was arrested while handing
secret government documents to a Russian agent. I suppose you could call that a
"circumstance." Needless to say, Soviet cables confirmed that Coplon was a Soviet
agent. Liberal refusal to accept any evidence that any person ever spied for the
Soviet Union would be exasperating if it weren't so comical."
I read this paragraph over a few times, hardly believing it. The book in
question, written by FBI agent Thomas Mitchell and wife Marcia, had concluded
that Coplon was guilty. I had agreed: Coplon was a communist spy. Indeed, the
title of my review, which is accurately listed in Coulter's footnote,
includes the words, "a True Tale of Espionage."
Further, I had said in the review that the labeling of the postwar spy cases
as "witch hunts" and "McCarthyism" is a falsification, because there were
communist employees in the government spying for the Soviet Union.
As for the "entirely circumstantial" evidence, Coplon, a federal employee, was
arrested while meeting with a Russian agent. Coplon had not taken the classified
documents from her purse, and was not handing them to him. In another five
minutes she probably would have, and of course the meeting itself was damning
(but circumstantial) evidence. Yes, Soviet cables confirmed that Coplon was a
Soviet agent — but for security reasons, the government had not used those
cables as evidence.
So here I was, a non-liberal favorably reviewing a book that exposes a
communist spy, and I am accused of "refusal to accept any evidence that any
person ever spied for the Soviet Union."
Well, I stopped reading her book. I couldn't believe a thing in it. —
Bruce Ramsey
| Catherine J.
Colletti is a freelance writer living in St. Louis.
|
|
He got game — I spent a semester
teaching music in a federally funded, desegregated magnet middle school for the
fine arts in St. Louis back in the mid '80s. We had children from all over the
city. Some came in small buses and some came in private taxicabs, their fares
paid by taxpayers. The federal government gave our department $25,000 per year to
spend on our music program, which was split between the vocal and instrumental
departments. This enabled us in the vocal department to afford a lab of teaching
pianos, hand bell sets in duplicate or triplicate, numerous music scores which we
might use and which could cost up to $100 each, every rhythm instrument
available, and more. The catch was that we had to spend the money.
We were so privileged because we were a "desegregated" school. We had 152
"black" children and 152 "white" children. There were no Native
Americans, no Hispanics, no Asians, no Indians — for the
government's purposes, desegregated meant "black and white only." And,
just to make sure that we were complying with the "deseg" parameters, the
feds came to inspect the premises once a year.
Prior to their arrival, we were reminded that the insides of our classrooms
were to look like an "Oreo cookie box." Most of my altos happened to be black and
most of my sopranos happened to be white, so I had a problem. I was advised to
come up with a creative solution.
The children quite understood the game. One morning while I was taking roll
one of my students said, "Hey guys, we're not sittin' right. We're 'posed to be
black-white-black-white!" Everyone got up and moved as if playing musical
chairs.
At one point I was required to take "inventory" of the ethnic make-up of each
of my classes. I inquired as to how one was to conduct this task because the
distinction wasn't always easily apparent. I was instructed to simply have them
raise their hands. So I did just that.
In my first class I called for all the "white" students to raise their hands,
and they did, some being very dark-skinned with curly black hair, dark eyes, and
quite frankly looking to me to be African-American. I called for the "black"
students to raise their hands and they did also, some being fair skinned with
blue or green eyes and sandy colored hair. I told them that this survey was for a
report for the federal government, and asked if they were playing with me. I
asked how it was that some of the students were raising their hands for profiles
they didn't seem to fit. I was informed that when they came to enroll in the
desegregated magnet middle school for the fine arts that they just looked to see
which list was shortest, the white list or the black list, and signed up on the
shortest list on the basis of having a mother or father or grandparent of that
particular race. They understood the game.
In the 19th century it was illegal for Native Americans to live in Missouri
though many Scotch and Irish had taken Cherokee wives as they came through on the
Trail of Tears. When the time came for the census, they simply registered as
"black Irish." They also understood the game.
Into the 21st century. In light of current race preferences, it might behoove
parents to enroll their children early on the proper lists just like some parents
hold their boys back so that they'll have a growth advantage when playing sports
in high school. My own children are (in alphabetical order) 12.5% Cherokee, 12.5%
French, 18.75% German, 6.25% Pottawatomie, 12.5% Scotch, and 12.5% Sicilian
(which is another melting pot country. Pictures of great grandparents reveal a
bit of African heritage there). One grandparent is of unknown descent but is most
probably part Cherokee as well. Either way, my children are at least 18.75%
Native American. If I had to do it all again, they'd be registered in school as
Native Americans just so they'd be on equal footing when it comes time for
college and loans. It's just a matter of understanding the rules of the game.
— Catherine J. Colletti
| |
