I’m a fan of my opponents being honest, brutally honest, which is exactly why I was overjoyed, yet equally disgusted, by the new BroChoice campaign. Define “BroChoice”? Sure. BroChoice is the decision to advocate for easy and cheap antepartum infanticide for the express reason that one believes women are more likely to be promiscuous. That begs the obvious question, with an equally obvious answer, “Who wants more promiscuous women?” Douchebags who act and think as though women exist primarily to bring them to climax. Watch:
Oddly enough, BroChoice is kinda a double entendre, atleast in my mind. First, by being BroChoice, you are ‘choosing your bros,’ that is prioritizing your male acquaintances’ desire for unmitigated sexual satisfaction. Second–and this is the heart-wrenching fact that the falsely self-identified ‘pro-women’ abortionists would very much like to keep quiet–sex-selective abortions are fairly common, and, by far, innocent little girls are aborted more than little boys. So, BroChoice also promotes the value of male life over and above female life in another way. No matter how you look at it, being BroChoice, or whatever other name one wants to give to advocating the bloodshed of babies, means working to make sure women are around as instruments of orgasm–or, in the words of Sarah Silverman, “to blow you.”
James the Just
James the Greater is one of the twelve apostles; he is brother to John and a son of Zebedee. He is the James of the “inner circle” of “Peter, James, and John” who was present at the Transfiguration. He was martyred in the early 40s AD.
James the Lesser is a moniker for James son of Alphaeus; he is the second of the twelve apostles known as James. If he is not the same man as “James, the brother of the Lord,” then this is likely just about all that is known of him.
James, the brother of the Lord, is just that, a close relative of Jesus–probably a step-brother born of Joseph’s previous wife, or perhaps a cousin of Christ. He became the Bishop of Jerusalem and was a prominent figure in the early Church.
I am of the opinion that James the Lesser and James, the brother of the Lord, are the same man. That there appears to be only one James of any significance following the martyrdom of James the Greater is a fairly strong indicator that the two appellations refer to one person. Furthermore, that the early Church did not distinguish between the two and that there are not separate stories regarding their lives or deaths post-Ascension gives me some confidence in this view.
Some would argue that James’ being named among Jesus’ “brothers” in Mt and Mk constitutes an indication that James son of Alphaeus is another person. That, however, is a specious argument. First, because the men listed could have been cousins to Jesus, which would allow for James’ father to be Alphaeus rather than Joseph; second, because there is no reason to believe that those in the crowd would refrain from naming one of Jesus’ “brothers” solely on account of his being a disciple.
The only other argument against the two being distinct figures is that it ought to be more obvious if the two monikers refer to a single person. Again, I believe that the fact that James, the brother of the Lord, need not distinguish himself from James, the second of the twelve, speaks to that point.
You know that HIV-AIDS epidemic that you hear so much and so little about. Turns out that one of the single greatest contributors to the problem is the fact that plastic syringes, which cannot be sterilized, get reused around 200 times. The result shouldn’t surprise anyone: millions of new infections each year.
Guess what all you who are on the Last Acceptable Prejudice bandwagon, ie. Catholic Church critics: condoms don’t, can’t, and won’t ever protect anyone from a used needle.
Safety needles are an option–they can only be used once. But some folks just care too little about the Almighty and His children because they care too much about the almighty dollar.
What happened yesterday was truly tragic, and I am not using it as an opportunity to talk about gun control. Rather, because a country full of imbeciles are using yesterday as a reason to talk about gun control laws, I’m addressing the topic that others stupidly put on the table.
First, exceptions and hard cases make bad law. Second, the city with a long experiment with the strictest gun control laws in the country, my hometown, Chicago, also suffers from the most gun violence. Again: long history of ridiculously ‘strong’ gun laws AND the most gun violence. In other words, ‘strong’ gun control does not correlate to less gun violence. This isn’t opinion; it is science and history, and it’s true beyond Chicago.
Finally, if the reports thus far are reasonably accurate, than the perpetrator of yesterday’s infamy acquired the weapons he used in a manner that no law could have prevented. (Supposedly, he stole them from his mother after killing her.)
If I had the option of sending my child to a school where each classroom was equipped with a 9mm handgun and each teacher was well-equipped to handle it, provided of course that there be strong safety measures in place, or to a school that was a ‘gun-free zone,’ I’d send my daughter to the former.
Why? Because good people with guns stop bad people with guns. Empty-handed good guys get mowed down next to children. Utopia this is not, nor can it ever be. And pragmatism trumps naivety every day.
Maria Goretti, pray for us.