Have you heard the one about the priest and the choirboy?

Ministerial jokes have been given a fresh wave of ammunition this month, as sexual abuse scandal followed sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. Not only has the number of abuses shocked the world, but the pope himself has also been labelled culpable for his failure to defrock abusers and his implicit allowance (while presiding archbishop of the Vatican’s doctrinal office) of a known pedophile resuming parish duties. However, as all decry papal justice, the question remains: Why did national, legal, and administrative authorities let such affairs occur in their own country? The Vatican is, in some respects, considered a state, and should fully control and take responsibility for its own actions. But it doesn’t bear the same blunt repercussions as Western states, and the inadequacies in its legal system are offensive to advanced nations. The trust and deference awarded to the structure of the Roman Catholic Church would not be applied to any other religious institution, and in a world of national responsibility, it is frankly unjust. Respect for the Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican should be upheld; however, it is only fair that national law oversees and influences practice within canon law.

(Continued)

A subject may well be confusing, but that is no cause for its abandonment. As I researched this article, my understanding of feminism’s subtleties became less certain. However, one central belief remains: How can a movement that advocates equal rights be so unpopular? Rebecca West claimed, “I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.” Leaving aside the intricacies of whether wet t-shirt contests entail empowerment or self-inflicted chauvinism, the rejection of feminism’s central core—equal opportunities for men and women—is perplexing. At the beginning of yet another decade, why are women still the second sex?

The most bizarre and repulsive aspect of feminism’s status is the desire among many women to shun social equality. “Social equality” can be loosely defined as the potential for both men and women to have access to the same roles and activities. However, perhaps as an attempt to appear meek and traditionally feminine, numerous women I’ve encountered have stated their aversion to this concept. A few months ago, author Fay Weldon claimed that women should pick up their husband’s socks, and in a response article that gathered reactions from 15 publicly prominent women, the majority agreed. Attached to the housewife role is the strong expectation that women are the primary parent figure. In an article about ten Princeton women (of whom only one, who has no children, works full time), each cited the need to care for their children as a reason to stop working. Not one even seemed to consider the notion that their husband might have to make a similar decision or share the duties towards their children. Furthermore, there remains a distinct lack of sisterly unity. For example, Princeton’s first female president, Shirley Tilghman, voiced surprise at the lack of reaction among female students when The Daily Princetonian suggested that she was practicing gender-based affirmative action.

(Continued)

If we were to play spot-the-difference between a depressed lady who chats to her cats and a ruthless Al-Qaeda terrorist, we’d be here for quite a while. The U.S. government’s most recent conquest in the war against terror seems more imbalanced than intimidating, and her image as a serious threat is difficult to take seriously. Similarly, the latest hacker to be caught—an autistic man in search of UFO evidence—hardly matches the profile of a high-level criminal mastermind. Were such individuals to be put on trial under normal circumstances, the code of the justice system would demand that their mental instabilities be taken into account. However, given that the victim in both these instances is the government, it seems highly unlikely that such protocol will be upheld. The overlap between insanity and criminality is multi-faceted and ill defined, but to argue that criminal mental impairment must be discounted under certain crimes is absurd. The insanity defense is a crucial aspect of all advanced legal systems, and it should not waver simply when the government is targeted.

The fear hyped around “Jihad Jane,” seems, frankly, overstated. While there is no doubt that the blonde intended to cause harm and committed a serious crime, she hardly seems a cause for great security concern. Legally named Colleen La Rose (“Jihad Jane” was a title created for a MySpace page), she was so inept that she advertised her terrorism skills on YouTube. LaRose suffered from depression and alcoholism, and even her intended victim, cartoonist Lars Vilks, joked about the woman “with this fantastic name,” who is “a bit low tech.” And despite adamant claims about her dedication to killing Vilks, the 46-year-old travelled to Sweden and returned to the U.S. without any attempt to commit the crime.

(Continued)

The hippies have grown old. Those in their carefree 20s during the 1960s are now past retirement age and, throughout their lifetimes, have brought a demographic shift in marijuana use. A new United States government report reveals that the number of 55-59 year olds who use cannabis has tripled since 2002, suggesting an upsurge in families with stoned grandparents at the head. Given the increased popularity of marijuana amongst an age group associated with sobriety, it seems pertinent to re-examine the substance’s illegal status. Marijuana is undeniably a drug with negative side effects, just like any other. However, relative to the crime and harm caused by its illegal market, the benefits of decriminalizing the drug far outweigh the cost.

Marijuana’s harmful heath effects are not the falsified tales of scaremongers. In the short term, the drug causes drowsiness and memory problems, and, in high doses, (usually when eaten) can lead to impaired memory and hallucinations. A user has four times the usual risk of a heart attack in the first hour after smoking, and, in the long run, marijuana causes the same respiratory problems as tobacco and makes you three times more likely to develop neck and lung cancer. However, it has yet to be confidently shown that these effects are worse than those of alcohol and tobacco, and indeed there is evidence that marijuana is less addictive than both.

(Continued)