Crisis Pregnancy Center Article: Brad Plumer criticizes, mostly rightfully, a Washington Post article on crisis pregnancies centers ... he includes an excellent Alternet piece on them. I looked into these things a bit after passing by a web ad for them over at Slate. As I noted in his comments, what particularly rankles is the tired he said/she said technique in which problems of the centers are generally put in the mouth of abortion rights groups. They "say" things etc. It is misleading.
Given how many "planned parenthood" centers leads to babies (you know the "parenthood" part), people who don't want an abortion can receive nonbiased counseling without often government funded pseudo-clinics like these serving the purpose. "Clinics" that often promote sexual absistence until marriage and other conservative moral paths that can be counterproductive to their alleged core end -- preventing abortions. I think the article comes off a bit better than Brad does, and it is useful that it deals with the issue, but the fact such things aren't underlined only adds to its problems. Are facts biased now?
Books: I have updated the side panel. For some reason, it did not want to accept an image for Forces of Habit: Drugs and the Making of the Modern World by David T. Courtwright. So, I left the book on the Guarantee Clause, since the template demon didn't even want to accept an alternate third book option. I did find out something that I might comment upon in the future -- no, it's a secret. [Mundane, obviously.] The GC book does let me toss in a nice quote from Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion (citations removed) in Bush v. Gore:
The Framers of our Constitution, however, understood that in a republican government, the judiciary would construe the legislature's enactments. In light of the constitutional guarantee to States of a "Republican Form of Government," U.S. Const., Art. IV, §4, Article II can hardly be read to invite this Court to disrupt a State's republican regime. Yet The Chief Justice today would reach out to do just that. By holding that Article II requires our revision of a state court's construction of state laws in order to protect one organ of the State from another, The Chief Justice contradicts the basic principle that a State may organize itself as it sees fit. ("Through the structure of its government, and the character of those who exercise government authority, a State defines itself as a sovereign.") ("How power shall be distributed by a state among its governmental organs is commonly, if not always, a question for the state itself."). Article II does not call for the scrutiny undertaken by this Court.
Movie: Since the best bets were foreign movies anyway, one a re-release (in the theater) of a 1990s film, I decided to rent. I was there to pick something up for someone else anyway. From IMDB:
In "A Fond Kiss," Loach and screenwriter Paul Laverty tackle the age-old conflict of star-crossed lovers. In this case, it's Casim Khan (Atta Yaqub), a second-generation Pakistani immigrant, and Irishwoman Roisin Hanlon (Eva Birthistle) in Glasgow, Scotland. Casim's a DJ with lofty plans to open his own club; Roisin's a music teacher at the Catholic school attended by Casim's sister, Tahara (Shabana Bakhsh). As expected, Casim's family made plans for him to marry a cousin. And he's caught between obligations to his family and his love for Roisin.
Given Loach's track record, it is not surprising this generation clash romance has a bit more of an edge than others. It also has subtitles (if one desires) to help understand the accented dialogue (which is fairly easy to handle). It is a good romance, well acted, with the Roisin character the most well-rounded. But, we have sympathy -- even if many would shake their heads at -- for Casim's more traditional minded family. They are right too -- his family will stick by him; how can he trust this woman? The race/religion issue is almost secondary.
And, the difference is clearly not just race. Roisin is a divorced teacher at Casim's younger sister's Catholic school. This causes problems when she needs to obtain a certificate from the Church authorities and her "living in sin" ways and apparently dismissive nature of her obligations as a teacher at a Catholic school leads to a clash. The principal is willing to avoid such "formalities," but the church official has the rules on his side ... even if it is a state supported school. His abrupt nature -- he's tired of secular Catholic sorts like her -- might be crude and a tad bit counterproductive, but trouble spots like that cannot always be elided over.
The experience throws Roisin since she is on her own, thinking she has no old-fashioned things like Casim's family has to deal with to hold her back. This leads him to accuse her of "self-indulgence" -- she can "indulge" in not lying, since what does she have to lose? When directly challenged by his older sister (her younger is more "modern," someone many viewers will be more accepting of ... also a student at R's school -- that's how the two lovers meet), Roisin cannot really respond. This leads to a couple one-sided scenes, but perhaps it is realistic. Could someone like her truly being able to challenge such a direct reproach? She would be so taken aback that she would be almost speechless.
Second generation clashes like this suggest there is a way to unite traditional families through their kids -- the edges can be ironed out somehow. I myself am Irish/Italian, and the ethnic backgrounds of my parents were not irrelevant at the time (my father's mother was also more conservative ... this is somewhat amusing knowing my mom, but actually only up to a point). Not too much though, but the differences were relevant and long lasting.
We live in a society that promotes individuality but groups still matter. The film ends on just that note, making it a bit bittersweet. Good flick.