Shooting the messenger

Is the pope beyond criticism? It's a question that bears asking after the virulent attacks by those associated with the Vatican against media and others who questioned the actions by the church and, particularly, Pope Benedict XVI in handling past incidents of child molestation by Catholic priests. Recent news reports might not provide the absolute "smoking gun" to show that Benedict was personally involved in a coverup of the sexual abuse cases, or at the very least of incompetence through inattention, but some of those guns seem very, very, very hot to the touch. The responses by those connected with the Vatican and Benedict paint a picture of some sort of anti-Catholic plot that really doesn't exist. And some of the statements defending them are ridiculous. On Tuesday, Italian Cardinal Giovanni Lajolo, an official of the Holy See, claimed Benedict and the church are targets of a hate campaign, and Spanish Cardinal Julian Herranz, leader of a Vatican discipline commission, says Benedict has become a target because of his opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage. The most unhinged remarks came from Benedict’s personal preacher, who likened criticism of the pope to the historic suffering of the Jewish people. All of these defenses seem to have the same goal: to launch a potentially chilling attack aimed at quieting those who would do no more than seek the truth in these cases while pointing out that the man holding the most powerful religious position in the world, during his years before assuming that post, might not have done all he could or, worse, deliberately looked the other way when rapes and other sex crimes were being committed against children. One would think that rank-and-file Catholics, as well as church leaders, would want answers. But very often, the response seems to be to blame those who raise the questions.

From the people who brought you slavery …

You can always count on the folks in Mississippi to try to drag the country back into the Dark Ages (or, in their case, maintain the status quo). A rural school district in the Jackson area has canceled the prom at Itawamba County Agricultural High School because a lesbian student wanted to wear a tuxedo and bring her girlfriend. The cowardly school board wouldn’t even admit the reason for its decision, saying only that the action was in response to “recent distractions.” But Constance McMillen, shown above, is certain that the board was targeting her for trying to upset the apple cart. McMillen told The Clarion-Register newspaper that “a bunch of kids at school are really going to hate me for this, so in a way it’s really retaliation.” The district issued a statement expressing its hope that “private citizens” will organize a prom. It didn’t mention whether the district hoped that those private citizens will harbor a deep and abiding hatred for gay people and keep them from mingling with the "normal" kids. We'll just have to read between the lines. I'm also guessing they have no objection to banjo-plucking inbreds coming to the prom together. First cousins? Fine and dandy. Brother and sister? That's just family togetherness. But gay people? No freakin' way. What’s sad is that most of Constance’s fellow students probably couldn’t care less whether she brings a female date. It's the adults who are making a mess of this. It’s like canceling recess for the whole class because one kid spoke without raising his hand. The district statement said board members made their ruling after “taking into consideration the education, safety and well-being of our students.” Say what? Education? Are they afraid that the students might learn that not everyone in the world is exactly like them? Safety and well-being? Are they afraid Constance or her date are going to pull a gun and force everyone to listen to Indigo Girls CDs and ditch their heels for more sensible shoes? Constance said the district told her that she and her girlfriend could not arrive at the prom together, that she couldn’t sport a tuxedo and that the couple might be asked to vacate the premises if their attendance at the prom made any other kids “uncomfortable.” What about students who might be uncomfortable with bigotry? I guess that’s not a concern.

How sincere

Troops are dying in Afghanistan, tens of millions of Americans are out of work and some nut flew a plane into an IRS building, but the BIG news this week is that Tiger Woods went before a TV camera and apologized for being lower than whale poop. The other night, with all that is going on in the world, ABC News' lead story was that Tiger was going to talk about his well-publicized, self-inflicted problems. Not that he WAS talking, but that he was GOING to talk. That's a sad statement about what passes for news judgment these days. And this wasn't even what one would typically consider to be a news conference. Tiger was going to read from a written statement and was refusing to answer any questions. It was all very self-serving, but most of the news media treated it as if Moses were coming down from the mountain to issue 10 more commandments. On Friday, Woods spoke for about 15 minutes. I can sum it up for you this way: Tiger is "deeply sorry" for his "irresponsible and selfish behavior." He has let us down. His wife didn't hit him with a 5-iron. He's not going to answer any questions about the status of his marriage. He's getting back into his Buddhist faith. He's going for more therapy. And he plans to return to golf someday. No @#$%, Sherlock. Does anybody really think Tiger is going to skip the Masters in April? Really, those were the only noteworthy statements in his entire speech. Only a handful of writers and a single TV camera were invited to this self-serving event. To its credit, the Golf Writers Association of America declined to send any of its members. Certainly, Woods has the right to set whatever ground rules he wants, but reporters don't have to be a part of the charade. The reaction of some media personalities was ridiculous. George Stephanopoulos of ABC said the speech was “one of the most remarkable public apologies ever by a public figure." Go overboard much, George? And golf analyst David Feherty of CBS said, "The vast number of people just want their Tiger Woods back." No, David. The vast majority of people really don't give a damn whether they ever see Tiger Woods again. Their lives just aren't that shallow. But CBS, I'll bet, really wants its Tiger Woods back, because he's the meal ticket for that network's golf coverage. I give credit to Rick Cerrone, the former public relations director of the New York Yankees. He saw through the BS and told CNN, "What I saw was arrogance. It was basically an infomercial." It's early, but I'd give the award for stupidest reaction to Debert Cook, publisher of African American Golfer's Digest, who said, "I think we are entering a whole new era spiritually and emotionally for Tiger Woods." Pardon me while I puke. The Onion gave the speech the gravity that it deserved, putting up a story with the headline, “Tiger Woods Announces Return to Sex." As always with Tiger Woods, it's all about Tiger Woods. And I'm guessing that I'm not the only one who believes that if Tiger hadn't gotten caught, he'd still be hitting the sack with as many cocktail waitresses as he could get his hands on.

Might as well face it, he's addicted to love (making)

If published reports are accurate, Tiger Woods, who was last seen thrashing about on the lawn of his Florida mansion last Thanksgiving under very sketchy circumstances, has checked himself into a private clinic for treatment of sex addiction. The reports aren't very clear on where the clinic is located. One report says Arizona, another South Africa. I guess this is Tiger's way of claiming that it wasn't his fault he ditched his trousers with the frequency of a porn actor. He had a sickness, don't you know, just like all those other celebrities who suddenly find a need for rehabilitation to get off booze or pills after they run their Hummer into a house or open up a can of whoop-ass on their significant other. People magazine, which claims Tiger is in an Arizona facility called The Meadows (I don't think Delvin Miller was involved with this one), cites a source who says the golfer “should be out by Valentine’s Day or thereabouts.” Yep, Valentine's Day. You can't make this stuff up.

Government waste alert!

I ran into something today that should have the teabagging crowd howling, but I'm guessing we won't hear a peep. Since they're all about railing against the wasting of tax money, I'd like to rally them to the cause of stopping the feds from spending $50 million a year on something that would produce the same return as flushing that money down a toilet. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah (no surprise there) is the sponsor of a bill that just cleared the Senate Finance Committee on a 12-11 vote. The measure would give $50 million annually to support abstinence-only sex education. Hatch says that approach works. Facts suggest otherwise. A study ordered by Congress two years ago showed that students who were in abstinence-only classes were just as likely to have sex as those who didn't. There also was a study showing that many of the kids who take those pledges to remain virgins until after marriage are perhaps technically accomplishing that by delving into oral and anal sex. So it would appear that Sen. Hatch is in favor of America's God-fearing kids going off the sexual "main menu" and, since good kids don't use condoms, subjecting themselves to all kinds of nasty diseases. At the same time, just as many of them will be having regular sex as kids who don't get the "just say no" instruction. And, of course, he wants to spend $50 million a year to accomplish this. Does that sound like good government?

Lewdy-ville

Consider this scenario: A married man with five children who works with young people, some as young as 17 or 18, has sex with a woman in a restaurant after a night of drinking and later antes up $3,000 so she can have an abortion. Do you think he'd be likely to lose his job? Not if he is ultra-successful Louisville basketball coach Rick Pitino. The coach has admitted that he had sex at a restaurant table after hours with Karen Sypher, a woman now accused of trying to extort money from Pitino after the sordid affair. A couple of weeks later, she came to him, said she was pregnant, expressed an interest in getting an abortion but said she didn't have health insurance to cover the procedure. Pitino coughed up $3,000. At a news conference Wednesday, he said he wasn't specifically paying for an abortion, just for health coverage for Sypher. Riiiight. It was just a coincidence that the health insurance was used to abort an allegedly Pitino-fertilized egg. While some allegations might be debatable, and others may be in dispute, the image Pitino is projecting now is that of an alcohol-fueled, scheming, abortion-buying adulterer. Is this the person you want leading the young men on a college basketball team? At Lousville, based on the statements of college leaders, that answer is a resounding "Yes!" This despite the fact that Pitino's contract has a morals clause that allows dismissal if the coach is guilty of moral depravity or puts the school in a bad public light. He's lucky there's not a clause regarding hypocrisy, because Pitino has always portrayed himself as a devout Catholic who even took a priest friend along on road trips as a spiritual adviser. But the "good folks" at Louisville are turning a blind eye to the coach's transgressions and figuratively wiping their behinds with the page of Pitino's contract that involves morality and common decency. After all, he wins lots of games and brings in big money to the school. And in college basketball, where elite players are gone almost as quickly as they arrive on campus, big-name coaches are the stars. If this were a second-year coach with a so-so win-loss record, he'd be gone quicker than you could say Jack Robinson. It would be ever-so-convenient for the powers to be at Louisville to send an underachieving coach packing without having to pay the rest of his contract while wringing their hands and lamenting his unconscionable moral failings. In America, we typically believe in giving our fellow man second chances. But some actions, by some people, are not forgivable, or shouldn't be. If an apprentice carpenter crafts a bad window frame, he deserves another chance. If you're a bank teller, and your cash drawer comes up short $50 one day, you deserve another chance. But if you're a newspaper reporter who deliberately submits a false story, you should be canned immediately. If you’re a county treasurer who pockets tax money, you should be fired and put on trial. And if you're a married father of five, and you engage in morally repugnant behavior with a stranger after a night of drinking, and then pay thousands of dollars to "clean up" your little mess, you should no longer be leading young people. We all fall short of leading the lives we should be leading, but certain jobs carry expectations of a higher standard of integrity and upstanding behavior. There are lines that cannot be crossed, behaviors that cannot be forgiven. Pitino has failed miserably in meeting those standards. But we are now a nation in which egregious crimes against morality that once brought harsh indignation are met with a shrug.

They're Philipping out

From the Can't-Take-a-Joke Department: It seems that the government of the Philippines is in full outrage mode because of a joking comment made by actor Alec Baldwin. In a recent appearance on David Letterman's talk show, Baldwin, whose unpleasant dealings with ex-wife Kim Basinger are well-documented, joked that he was "thinking about getting a Filipina mail-order bride ... or a Russian." And Letterman joked back, "Get one for me, for later." Well, it wasn't long, of course, before the video of the exchange was making the rounds on YouTube, and officials of the Philippines started demanding apologies. "Incidents of mockery against our race happen again and again. Again and again we must not fail in our strong condemnation and resounding assertion of our dignity," said Philippines Sen. Loren Legarda. "Let us make it clear to the world: Filipina women are not for sale. Not even for sale to Hollywood actors," she added. Another lawmaker went so far as to threaten to give Baldwin a knuckle sandwich if he dares show his face in the country. And the officials noted that the mail-order bride business is outlawed there. Really? A quick Yahoo! search for "Philippines mail order brides" turns up hundreds of thousands of responses. The main sponsor on the first page of the search results offers to hook you up with "Philippine ladies seeking love, dating and marriage." I'm guessing somebody has to be making a buck on this. After all the uproar, Baldwin might be leaning more toward a Russian woman. But he should be forewarned: Russian women seem to age about as well as unrefrigerated macaroni salad. Some of those 20-year-old Russian hotties gracing the Internet might very well end up looking like Janet Reno a few years down the road. And, you know, based on Baldwin's track record, maybe he'd just be better off with porn.

Trickle-down stupidity?

OK, boys and girls, listen carefully. Unwed mother Bristol Palin has some advice for you on how to avoid getting in the "family way." Of course, it's abstinence, which worked so well for her. Bristol gave an interview to ABC's "Good Morning America" in which she said that she wishes she had waited to have sex. I'll bet she does. She also offered this startling bit of information: "I just think that abstinence is the only way you can effectively, 100 percent foolproof way you can prevent pregnancy." Hold the presses. Do you mean that if you don't do the horizontal hokey-pokey, you can't get pregnant? This should solve everything in the area of teen pregnancy, right? Wrong! Even Bristol's baby daddy, who looked like a deer in the headlights when he was paraded around the Republican National Convention and learned that he would be getting married, knows better than that. Levi Johnston, now estranged from Bristol, said abstinence is "not realistic." Smart boy, at least in that regard. "Abstinence is a great idea," Johnston said in an interview with "CBS This Morning. "But I also think you need to enforce, you know, condoms and birth control and other things like that to have safe sex. I don't just think telling young kids, ‘You can’t have sex,’ it's not going to work." Perhaps he didn't say it eloquently, but Johnston is right on the money. We can talk all we want about abstinence being the best bet for our children. It is. There's really no denying that. But the reality, which some find to be an inconvenient truth, is that unmarried young people have been having sex with one another since the dawn of time, and they will continue to do so in large numbers as long as humans walk the Earth. What we have to do, as responsible people, is find the best ways of helping these children protect themselves from pregnancy and disease, and if they foul up, we should make sure that they have access to the morning-after pill. No, it shouldn't be used as a routine birth-control measure, but if a couple of kids screw up, no pun intended, the rest of their lives should not be ruined (and many are undeniably altered for the worse by an unintended pregnancy) when a simple trip to the drugstore could prevent it. Telling kids to just say no to sex is about as effective as telling the ground not to get wet when it rains. If Bristol Palin, a girl from a stable, well-to-do, loving, two-parent family who no doubt had her mother in her ear preaching abstinence for years, goes ahead and has unprotected sex, what are the odds that a girl from a poor, single-parent home with little hope for the future is going to buck the odds and keep her drawers on? We need to help our kids, and ourselves, by offering them more than empty words.