Batwoman’s Secret Identity

Batwoman_1

Socialite Kathy Kane has a secret. No, not that she’s alive after the world thought her dead for a quarter-century. No, not even that she is also known to Gotham City as Batwoman. Now she is ready to let the world in on her secret:

Batwoman is a lesbian.

"Years after she first emerged from the Batcave, Batwoman is coming out of the closet. DC Comics is resurrecting the classic comic book character as a lesbian, unveiling the new Batwoman in July as part of an ongoing weekly series that began this year.

"The 5-foot-10 superhero comes with flowing red hair, knee-high red boots with spiked heels, and a form-fitting black outfit.

"’We decided to give her a different point of view,’ explained Dan DiDio, vice president and executive editor at DC. ‘We wanted to make her a more unique personality than others in the Bat-family. That’s one of the reasons we went in this direction.’"

GET THE STORY.

Homosexuality is "a different point of view"? And here I thought that Straight America was supposed to believe that homosexuality was an inalterable genetic trait like skin color and hand dominance. If it’s merely a point of view, doesn’t that imply that it could change?

Homosexuality: Viewpoint or identity? Someone page The Riddler. We have a conundrum for him to unleash upon Gotham City.

Look Closely . . .

BorderlinesOn my recent trip from San Diego to Arizona I was using my GPS unit to navigate (I figured it was worth the expense if it helped me get out of the house and actually start taking my vacation hours) and I got a bit of a shock as I was heading out the I-8 toward Yuma.

I was so shocked that I took a picture of my GPS (left) to record the moment so that I could blog about it later. Sorry for the fuzziness of the photo, but I was driving and didn’t have time to manually focus my camera for such a close object (not that I’d know how to do that anyway).

I’d like to call your attention to three lines that are showing on the GPS screen. The first is the pinkish purple irregular line running from the top to the bottom of the screen. See it? That’s Interstate 8.

Right next to it is a dark line that is perfectly regular and also runs diagonally from top to bottom. Got that one? It’s the Mexican border.

Now look further to the right and observe the irregular yellow/orange line that mirrors Interstate 8. This line represents Mexican highway #2.

I’d also like to call your attention to a dark triangle that is located on the Interstate 8 line and that points toward the top of the screen. That represents the position of my pickup on the highway.

Now that you’ve got the lay of the land (so to speak), notice this: You see how close the pink line gets to the edge of the Mexican border? It seems to run right up to it, doesn’t it? And the tip of the triangle representing my truck seems to be touching the Mexican border as well. A couple of miles later, the tip of the triangle representing my truck was actually IN Mexico. (My truck wasn’t, of course, but the display icon for it was spilling over into Mexico.)

This gives you a sense of just how close a major American highway (a low-number interstate) is to the Mexican border–and how close a parallel Mexican highway (another low-number interstate) is to our interstate.

I mean, it would be very easy (in relative terms) to just drive up the Mexican interstate, cross the border, and have nearly immediate access to a U.S. interstate.

And bear in mind that there is NO FENCE out here. When you’re going east on I-8 and you look to your right, you’re looking DIRECTLY INTO MEXICO, with no barriers in the way (below).
Looking_into_mexico

Now, you might complain that the GPS screen doesn’t give you a sense of scale, so I’m prepared to help with that. Here’s a scan from my Southern California DeLorme atlas.

Jacumba_1This is the same point that’s pictured on the GPS screen–the close pass of I-8 to the Mexican border just after the town of Jacumba (hah-come-bah).

I spliced the map’s scale into this picture so you can see just how close the interstate comes to the border at this point: It looks like about a mile and a quarter or 6600 feet (that’s about 2 kilometers for metric users).

So there you have it: At this point a major U.S. interstate is just two klicks from the Mexican border and NO FENCE.

But you might object that it’s rather rocky here and so the terrain is at least somewhat inhospitable to crossing naturally.

It’d be a moderate hike, as the mountains at this point are nothing like Everest and are easily climbable. You don’t need oxygen or anything (the elevation is only about 4000 feet above sea level).

But suppose you’re of a mind to think that the hills alone are enough to deter illegal aliens from entering here.

Okay, take a look at this map (click to enlarge):
Gordons_wellsThis is a few miles further down I-8, near the Arizona border. In fact, it’s just a few miles west of Yuma, Arizona, just before you get to the Imperial Sand Dunes.

See how close it is here? (Be sure to look at the scale provided.)

It’s even CLOSER than the point near Jacumba!

Here Interstate 8 runs maybe a bit more than a quarter of a mile from the Mexican border, or 1400 feet. (That’s a bit over 400 meters for metric folks.)

And here there are NO mountains and we are right AT sea level, and once again there is NO FENCE.

You may hear people on the news talking about us having a porous, unsecured border, but the media isn’t telling you the half of it.

When you actually see it with your own eyes–when you look to your right and realize that you are looking right over into Mexico, with mile after mile of unsecured border and not even natural barriers like mountains in the way–you realize just how vulnerable to penetration the United States is.

It’s no wonder that there are over 10,000,000 illegal aliens in this country.

And at least some of those are likely to be terrorists.

Oh . . . and the immigration check points they have on I-8?

They’re closed half the time.

I didn’t get stopped at the checkpoints near Jacumba, either coming or going. They were all closed up.

MAKES YOU WANT TO MAIL A BRICK TO CONGRESS SO THEY CAN GET STARTED ON A WALL, DOESN’T IT?

STUDENT: “Marriage Is For White People”

A reader writes:

A good friend alerted me to a 3 day discussion of the marriage crisis among African-Americans that is going on Tuesday through Thursday this week on James Dobson’s Focus on the Family radio show. (you can listen to it online via his website–though I warn you that the discussion only takes up about the last ten minutes of Tuesday’s show because he highlights a  wonderful anti-abortion effort done by some teenage homeschoolers).

During Tuesday’s episode, one of the pastors mentions a Washington Post editorial entitled (I am not making this up) "Marriage is for White People." Go Goolge the article. You have to see the article to believe it, but it explains the reactions I get from kids I substitute teach when they find out that not only am I not married, I also have no children. They don’t ask me why I don’t want to get married; they ask me why I don’t want any children!! The times they are a-changing, and NOT for the better.

I can’t wait to hear the rest of the discussion; I have alerted my niece (single black professional who is no closer to marriage than her aunt) to listen to it also. Drop in on it and see what you think.

Thanks for alerting me to this!

The institution of marriage has taken a huge hit in America in recent decades, but in the African-American community it has been hit particularly hard. The sentiment expressed by the student quoted in the editorial that "Marriage is for white people" is truly shocking.

It’s glad to see that the folks at Focus on the Family are trying to do something about the problem. They have had inner city outreach and have worked with African-American pastors for a long time.

I encourage folks to pray for their efforts, and for troubled families everywhere.

READ THE EDITORIAL.

LISTEN TO THE FOCUS ON THE FAMILY SHOWS.

The Dioces Of Orange Clarifies

The Diocese of Orange has issued a clarification regarding Fr. Martin Tran’s apparent statement that kneeling after the Agnus Dei contrary to the norm in his diocese constitutes a "mortal sin."

HERE’S THE DOCUMENT ON THE DIOCESAN WEB SITE.
(CHT to the reader who emailed.)

And here’s the money quote:

Fr. Tran regrets any concern or hurt caused by the misuse of the term "mortal sin" in this context. The Diocese concurs with Fr. Tran’s clarification.

The context in question is the passage from the parish bulletin where Fr. Tran threatened with mortal sin those parishioners "disregarding the permission of the local Bishop or despising the authority of the local Bishop" by "setting their own norms" in the liturgy.

So Fr. Tran and the diocese are refusing to endorse the claim that kneeling after the Agnus Dei is a mortal sin, which is a good thing, because as I pointed out before, that claim is totally absolutely 100% crazy.

So the clarification is good.

Unfortunately, the statement on the diocesan web site (which is unsigned) appears to have a couple of notable drafting problems.

Immediately after the above quotation, the statement goes on to say:

The bulletin article by Fr. Tran was never about "kneeling" or "standing" during Mass, it was about respect for the liturgical practices of the Church as approved by the Pope.

This is not plausible, for reasons discussed before. To those reasons might be added the fact that Fr. Tran explicitly referred to the authority and the permissions granted or not granted by the diocesan bishop, which focuses attention on the actions of the diocesan bishop, and the only norm established by the diocesan bishop that the parishioners seem to have been accused of violating was the norm of standing after the Agnus Dei (which, it must be pointed out, is within the competence of the local bishop according to the U.S. edition of the GIRM).

Still, the key point–that it is  not a mortal sin to kneel after the Agnus Dei in those places where standing is the norm–has been acknowledged, so this difficulty need not detain us further.

A second drafting problem with the statement is found in its first sentence:

The LA TIMES, Sunday, May 28, 2006, story about the liturgical practices at St. Mary’s by the Sea stated that the determination of some parishioners to kneel during the Agnus Dei at Mass was a ‘mortal sin’ because it violated the liturgical norm (to stand) of the province of the USCCB Region XI (CA, Hawaii and Nevada)

Although Region XI does not seem to have its own web site, and although there is precious little about Region XI on the web, I happen to live in Region XI, and it is not the practice in my diocese to stand after the Agnus Dei.

Further, the American GIRM does not empower a region to establish a norm on this question. It is the local bishop that is empowered to do so.

Unless there is a norm that I am not aware of, there is no Region XI norm for standing after the Agnus Dei.

Hopefully this statement will not cause needless consternation or confusion on the part of others in Region XI whose dioceses follow the practice of kneeling after the Agnus Dei.

THE L.A. TIMES ALSO HAS A GOOD EDITORIAL PIECE ON THIS CONTROVERSY.

Golddigger Strikes Gold

Say you’re a widow with $125,000 to invest. You could stash it in a CD, you could play the stock market, you could add to your portfolio. All of those options are a bit tame and the rate of return may be unsatisfying. What to do? What to do? Hmmm. Maybe you could use it to bait yourself a millionare…. Eureka!

But, you know, there are risks to that venture, just as there are always risks of losing your investment. How to safeguard the investment? Hmmm. Well, if you can’t get the money you want out of marriage, you can always sue the matchmaker.

"A widow won $2.1 million from a high-priced matchmaker whom she claimed failed to deliver on promises of introductions to cultured, wealthy men.

"Anne Majerik, a 60-year-old social worker from Erie, Pa., claimed in a lawsuit that she paid Beverly Hills matchmaker Orly Hadida $125,000 to be introduced to men who wanted monogamous relationships, earned more than $1 million and had estates of up to $20 million.

"Instead, she said, she only got a few introductions to inappropriate men. For example, her suit claimed, the matchmaker’s ‘international banker’ turned out to be ‘an interpreter that worked in a bank.’"

GET THE STORY.

Amazingly enough, the jury foreperson Christie Troutt said of the award:

"We wanted to punish the defendant, but in the amount we wanted to punish the defendant, we didn’t want to reward the plaintiff. They were both wrong."

How, pray tell, does it not reward the plaintiff to turn her $125,000 investment into a cool $2.1 million, and without even the hassle of hammering out a prenup with her intended prey?

Rejoice With Me!

Today is June 1st, which means that it is a special day for me.

Not because it’s the day that the first Superman comic was published back in 1938. (Well, okay, it is.)

But because it’s the feast day of St. Justin Martyr!

YEE-HAW!!!

Justin Martyr is patron saint of apologists, so you can imagine why it’s special to me.

Also, by a strange coincidence that I was unaware of at the time, it is also my report-to-work date from when I started work at Catholic Answers, lo those many years ago.

I’ve always regarded that as providential and consider St. Justin Martyr a special patron of mine as a result. I hope he’s looking out for my apologetic efforts (as well as the personal challenges apologists can face).

So I try to commemorate the day in a special way each year.

LEARN MORE ABOUT JUSTIN MARTYR

AND MORE.

AND READ HIS WRITINGS.