This is at www.insidecatholic.com. I have never seen it before, but if you go to the article, you'll find the comments just as interesting.
I often think that one particular person who could someday be a family member will be one of those people who will turn on us, because we are Catholic. Because we are "bigoted" and "unfair", and "cling to our guns and our religion".
Many, many prophecies point to the day when they will "come for us", when Catholics and maybe all Christians will be persecuted, kind of like in Roman times, though maybe lacking the lions and such.
Perhaps it will start in our own fold. Sadness. But the Bible also gives us hope, and we know that all things will pass. After Mumbai, I can promise, those kinds of things are coming. History repeats itself, and to everything there is a season.
Interesting article below:
[American Anti-Catholicism]
American Anti-Catholicism
by Rev. Dwight Longenecker
11/28/08
Display Full Article/Printer Friendly | Send to a Friend
Last week, Greenville, South Carolina -- the buckle of the Bible Belt -- made national headlines for the second time in two weeks. The first story involved Rev. Jay Scott Newman and his comments in his parish bulletin about Catholics who voted for Obama. The second was the announcement that the fundamentalist Bob Jones University had issued a public apology for its racist past.
I happen to be connected to both stories: I'm on the staff of Father Newman's parish, and I'm a graduate of Bob Jones University. How I managed to exit the school in 1978 and return to Greenville nearly 30 years later to be ordained as a Catholic priest is a story in itself, but the coincidence of the two news items in two weeks highlighted the question of anti-Catholicism in our country: Father Newman's statement elicited vitriolic anti-Church statements in some cases, and Bob Jones University is infamous not only for its past racism but its strong anti-Catholicism.
I was a student at Bob Jones University in the mid 1970s when the first black student was admitted. I was there in 1978 when Pope Paul VI died, and I heard Dr. Bob Jones Jr. speak his now famous words: "Pope Paul VI, archpriest of Satan, a deceiver and an anti-Christ, has, like Judas, gone to his own place." I remember students who were training to be Baptist preachers returning to campus bragging that they had visited a local Catholic church and spit in the font, then prayed for deliverance for all the devil worshippers who went there every Sunday. Every year we had the chance to hear Ian Paisley, the fiery Northern Irish Presbyterian preacher, deliver blistering attacks on Catholics during his annual American preaching tour.
This was the stuff of old-fashioned Protestant anti-Catholicism, rooted in centuries of misinformation, black propaganda, and sincere misunderstanding. This was the anti-Catholicism in which the pope was the anti-Christ riding on the back of that great whore of Babylon, the Catholic Church. It fed on Lorraine Boettner's Roman Catholicism, that classic collection of calumnies, lies, and half-truths. As fundamentalist youths, we read the sensational Jack Chick tracts. These riveting comic books portrayed the Catholic Church as a pagan, cookie-worshipping cult, complete with crazed priests, murderous popes, and the bodies of illegitimate babies buried in tunnels under convents. It was juicy stuff -- completely paranoid and ridiculous, but juicy nonetheless.
In this ecumenical age, such traditional Protestant bigotry is dying out. More and more, Evangelical Christians are coming to realize that the "old old story" of God's love for a dying world and the saving work of Christ on the cross is now most fully and vigorously told by the modern Catholic Church, as so many of their own churches are buying into the secular, morally indifferent agenda of the world around them. Marcus Grodi's Coming Home Network reports an increasing number of Evangelical pastors coming into the Catholic Church; it might not be long before Bob Jones University itself issues a statement apologizing for its anti-Catholicism.
Does this mean that anti-Catholicism is dead? I fear not. While the old-fashioned Protestant variety is dying out, a new and equally virulent form is rising up, evident in three different manifestations.
The first is from people who actually call themselves Catholics. The dissenting Catholics in our church have, for the most part, worn a friendly face. They couch their disobedience in polite terminology. They "respectfully disagree with the Holy Father," or "they are listening carefully to the teaching of the Church, but they are also listening carefully to their own consciences." This deceitful dissent will soon die out: As the radical Catholics see their own agendas withering for lack of interest, and as they observe the increasing youth and influence of the faithful Catholics, their true colors will be revealed. If they have not done so already, those dissenting Catholics will remove themselves from the Church. Their failure will focus in anger, their frustration will surface as rage, and they will move from being dissenting Catholics to outspoken critics of the Church.
The second category of the new anti-Catholicism will involve a fresh kind of Protestant revolt. The new Protestant anti-Catholicism will not be from backwoods preachers, with their colorful imagery of whores and dragons, but from the urbane practitioners of suburban, liberal Protestantism. The liberal Protestants who endorse women's ordination, homosexual "marriage," and the whole liberal agenda will become increasingly impatient with Catholicism. Already they sneer at a religion that "demands blind obedience to a medieval monarch." Their frustration at what they perceive to be the Catholic Church's stance on contraception, abortion, women's rights, and homosexuality will lead them to call for Catholicism to be restrained because it is divisive and fosters hate and intolerance, opposing the "New World Order."
In his 2003 book The New Anti-Catholicism, Philip Jenkins describes the third purveyor of the new anti-Catholicism: the secular hedonistic population in the United States. Jenkins recounts a few incidents to illustrate the point: In New York in 1989, a gay activist group demonstrated in St. Patrick's Cathedral. They interrupted Mass, forcing the archbishop to abandon his sermon, and threw condoms around the church and desecrated the Host. In 2000, twenty ski-masked members of a "feminist autonomous collective" interrupted Mass in Montreal. They spray-painted slogans on the walls of the church and altar, tried to overturn the tabernacle, stuck used sanitary napkins on pictures and walls, threw condoms around the sanctuary, and chanted pro-abortion slogans.
These are a few of the most extreme examples, but Jenkins shows how the anti-Catholic attitude that fuels these extreme protests is woven, both subtly and blatantly, throughout the American media and educational culture. Jenkins isn't a Catholic, so his work is all the more powerful for its objective position.
In Tortured for Christ, his account of imprisonment under the Communist regime in Romania, Protestant pastor Richard Wurmbrandt observed that, in prison, there were no divisions between Catholics and Protestants -- all were simply Christian brothers. As our society shifts and introduces new forms of anti-Catholicism, Catholics should be prepared to forge new alliances. We may find that our best friends used to be our worst enemies.
Conservative Evangelicals share many of the same values that we as Catholics have always proclaimed. We need to be open-minded, build bridges with those who distrust us, and work together in the fight for a culture of life. Who knows -- Bob Jones University might yet introduce a "Fellowship of Bob Jones Catholics," and I could be their chaplain.
Rev. Dwight Longenecker writes from Greenville, South Carolina where he is Chaplain to St Joseph's Catholic School. Read his website and daily blog at www.dwightlongenecker.com.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Even serious pro-abortion folks think FOCA will not pass.
HOORAY!
WASHINGTON LETTER Nov-26-2008 (1,370 words) Backgrounder and analysis. With photos. xxxn
FOCA's effects seen as dire, but chance of it passing considered slim
By Patricia Zapor
Catholic News Service
WASHINGTON (CNS) -- About the only thing everyone with a stake in it is likely to agree on about the Freedom of Choice Act is that the legislation has languished in Congress for 20 years, only once rising -- just barely -- above the fate of hundreds of bills that are introduced each session and never heard from again.
What's harder to nail down is whether the bill, known as FOCA, is going anywhere under the 111th Congress that begins in January.
Although there was no effort in the 110th Congress to move the bill along, pro-life organizations have since the summer been sounding the alarm about what would happen to current restrictions on abortion if a Democrat was elected president.
They also voice concerns for possible administrative actions under Democratic President-elect Barack Obama, such as reversing the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research; and repealing the Hyde amendment, which bars federal funding of abortions, and the Mexico City policy, which prohibits foreign aid money from going to family planning programs that promote and offer abortion.
But stopping FOCA has become the rallying cry for the American Life League, the National Right to Life Committee and Priests for Life, among other pro-life groups. It was the central focus of a statement about the government transition issued Nov. 12 on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops by its president, Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago, during the bishops' general fall meeting.
A legal analysis of the most recent version of FOCA by the general counsel's staff of the USCCB warned that it would wipe out many existing state laws and impede states' ability to regulate abortion.
The analysis cited as examples laws that could be overturned if FOCA became law such as: parental notification requirements; abortion clinic regulations; bars to government funding of abortion; prohibitions on procedures such as partial-birth abortion; and laws protecting the right of medical personnel and institutions to decline to participate in abortions.
In statements by pro-life leaders, much of the concern about FOCA refers to President-elect Barack Obama's July 2007 answer to a question during an address to a Planned Parenthood group that signing the bill would be "the first thing I'd do as president."
But that presupposes FOCA gets out of Congress.
Spokesmen for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and the bill's chief sponsor, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, all declined to discuss the prospects of any specific bill in a legislative session that doesn't start until January.
All pending bills expire at the end of each two-year congressional session, so FOCA would have to be reintroduced.
Erica Chabot, press secretary to the Senate Judiciary Committee, said she can't recall Leahy "ever mentioning this piece of legislation." That doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't suddenly move up on the committee's priority list, she said.
However, "if there were overwhelming support for a bill, chances are I would have heard something about it," Chabot told Catholic News Service.
Staffers for those Democratic leaders and staffers for other members of Congress -- Democrats and Republicans -- all emphasized that the priorities of the 111th Congress will be the economy and the Iraq War. Speaking on background, several said passing FOCA is not a priority for members of Congress.
Kristin Day, executive director of Democrats for Life, called FOCA a radical bill, but while it's worthwhile to highlight its problems, "I don't think it's likely to pass anytime soon."
Day said it's more likely that administrative orders will reverse the Mexico City policy or expand federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. She wonders why there isn't more effort being put into highlighting opposition to such changes.
At a Democrats for Life event during the Democratic National Convention, Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., called FOCA "dead on arrival," Day said. She said pro-life Democrats including Casey and Reps. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee and Heath Shuler of North Carolina, who backed Obama during the campaign, expect their voices to matter when it comes to the legislative priorities of the White House.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, told CNS that FOCA's inertia so far doesn't diminish the danger of it progressing now.
FOCA moved forward only in 1993, when Democrats controlled the House, Senate and the White House for the first time in 12 years. Introduced in the first days of the 103rd Congress, the House and Senate Judiciary committees quickly moved it on for floor scheduling within weeks.
But it never came up for debate or a vote in the House or Senate.
Johnson is skeptical that pro-life congressional Democrats are numerous enough or powerful enough to stop a serious push to move FOCA forward if the party's leaders want it to advance. He is especially skeptical of whether the Senate majority leader would prove any obstacle to FOCA, despite Reid's pro-life voting record.
"Reid would be no impediment at all," he said. "His history has been that he may vote against something in the end after doing everything he can to have the pro-abortion side win," for instance by putting a bill on the floor for a vote.
Johnson acknowledged that it's unclear that either house of Congress has the votes to pass FOCA. He said there are more supporters of legal abortion in Congress than there were in 1993, though that doesn't necessarily translate to votes for the bill.
"Anybody who's even halfway pro-life isn't going to support FOCA," said Johnson.
NARAL Pro-Choice America, which supports FOCA and opposes any restrictions on abortion, counts both the House and Senate next term as having pro-life majorities. It projects 204 House members who generally oppose NARAL's agenda, and 185 who support it. It says another 46 members have a "mixed" record. NARAL counts 42 opponents of its issues in the Senate and 40 supporters, with 18 of "mixed" records.
Johnson credits a nationwide postcard campaign opposing the bill in 1993 with helping keep it from reaching a vote. But the makeup of Congress has changed significantly since then, he noted.
"Many of the current members of Congress weren't members in 1993," he said. "Lots of lawmakers have never paid any attention to FOCA." He said that raises the risk of "the other side" defining FOCA as more benign than how abortion opponents interpret it. FOCA opponents plan a new postcard campaign beginning in January.
Sister Carol Keehan, a Daughter of Charity who is president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association, has concerns about people outside Catholic health care "saying Catholic health care institutions are going to close" should FOCA become law, she told CNS.
She said CHA has always opposed FOCA and will continue to do so. But "even if this bad legislation were to pass, we would not be forced to participate (in providing abortions) and we will fight for that," she said.
Catholic health care institutions will not dismantle their systems or compromise their principles, she said. "We have many examples in this country of how to respond to unjust laws and we have learned from them. We will protect Catholic health care in this country without compromising our position on abortion."
First, however, Sister Carol said, "we must focus on protecting mothers and their unborn children."
"The first thing we are called to do is redouble our efforts to be sure pregnant women do not see abortion as their only option," she said in a statement released Nov. 24. Easily accessible and high quality obstetrical care, assistance with food stamps, housing, education and child care, can help women feel they have options other than abortion, she said.
She said CHA has been in touch with Obama's transition team, as they were with Sen. John McCain's aides when they were planning a possible transition.
"We've found (Obama's staff) more than willing to discuss our perspective," she said. "They recognize we play a fairly significant role in health care and are a large part of the social safety net."
END
WASHINGTON LETTER Nov-26-2008 (1,370 words) Backgrounder and analysis. With photos. xxxn
FOCA's effects seen as dire, but chance of it passing considered slim
By Patricia Zapor
Catholic News Service
WASHINGTON (CNS) -- About the only thing everyone with a stake in it is likely to agree on about the Freedom of Choice Act is that the legislation has languished in Congress for 20 years, only once rising -- just barely -- above the fate of hundreds of bills that are introduced each session and never heard from again.
What's harder to nail down is whether the bill, known as FOCA, is going anywhere under the 111th Congress that begins in January.
Although there was no effort in the 110th Congress to move the bill along, pro-life organizations have since the summer been sounding the alarm about what would happen to current restrictions on abortion if a Democrat was elected president.
They also voice concerns for possible administrative actions under Democratic President-elect Barack Obama, such as reversing the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research; and repealing the Hyde amendment, which bars federal funding of abortions, and the Mexico City policy, which prohibits foreign aid money from going to family planning programs that promote and offer abortion.
But stopping FOCA has become the rallying cry for the American Life League, the National Right to Life Committee and Priests for Life, among other pro-life groups. It was the central focus of a statement about the government transition issued Nov. 12 on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops by its president, Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago, during the bishops' general fall meeting.
A legal analysis of the most recent version of FOCA by the general counsel's staff of the USCCB warned that it would wipe out many existing state laws and impede states' ability to regulate abortion.
The analysis cited as examples laws that could be overturned if FOCA became law such as: parental notification requirements; abortion clinic regulations; bars to government funding of abortion; prohibitions on procedures such as partial-birth abortion; and laws protecting the right of medical personnel and institutions to decline to participate in abortions.
In statements by pro-life leaders, much of the concern about FOCA refers to President-elect Barack Obama's July 2007 answer to a question during an address to a Planned Parenthood group that signing the bill would be "the first thing I'd do as president."
But that presupposes FOCA gets out of Congress.
Spokesmen for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and the bill's chief sponsor, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, all declined to discuss the prospects of any specific bill in a legislative session that doesn't start until January.
All pending bills expire at the end of each two-year congressional session, so FOCA would have to be reintroduced.
Erica Chabot, press secretary to the Senate Judiciary Committee, said she can't recall Leahy "ever mentioning this piece of legislation." That doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't suddenly move up on the committee's priority list, she said.
However, "if there were overwhelming support for a bill, chances are I would have heard something about it," Chabot told Catholic News Service.
Staffers for those Democratic leaders and staffers for other members of Congress -- Democrats and Republicans -- all emphasized that the priorities of the 111th Congress will be the economy and the Iraq War. Speaking on background, several said passing FOCA is not a priority for members of Congress.
Kristin Day, executive director of Democrats for Life, called FOCA a radical bill, but while it's worthwhile to highlight its problems, "I don't think it's likely to pass anytime soon."
Day said it's more likely that administrative orders will reverse the Mexico City policy or expand federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. She wonders why there isn't more effort being put into highlighting opposition to such changes.
At a Democrats for Life event during the Democratic National Convention, Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., called FOCA "dead on arrival," Day said. She said pro-life Democrats including Casey and Reps. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee and Heath Shuler of North Carolina, who backed Obama during the campaign, expect their voices to matter when it comes to the legislative priorities of the White House.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, told CNS that FOCA's inertia so far doesn't diminish the danger of it progressing now.
FOCA moved forward only in 1993, when Democrats controlled the House, Senate and the White House for the first time in 12 years. Introduced in the first days of the 103rd Congress, the House and Senate Judiciary committees quickly moved it on for floor scheduling within weeks.
But it never came up for debate or a vote in the House or Senate.
Johnson is skeptical that pro-life congressional Democrats are numerous enough or powerful enough to stop a serious push to move FOCA forward if the party's leaders want it to advance. He is especially skeptical of whether the Senate majority leader would prove any obstacle to FOCA, despite Reid's pro-life voting record.
"Reid would be no impediment at all," he said. "His history has been that he may vote against something in the end after doing everything he can to have the pro-abortion side win," for instance by putting a bill on the floor for a vote.
Johnson acknowledged that it's unclear that either house of Congress has the votes to pass FOCA. He said there are more supporters of legal abortion in Congress than there were in 1993, though that doesn't necessarily translate to votes for the bill.
"Anybody who's even halfway pro-life isn't going to support FOCA," said Johnson.
NARAL Pro-Choice America, which supports FOCA and opposes any restrictions on abortion, counts both the House and Senate next term as having pro-life majorities. It projects 204 House members who generally oppose NARAL's agenda, and 185 who support it. It says another 46 members have a "mixed" record. NARAL counts 42 opponents of its issues in the Senate and 40 supporters, with 18 of "mixed" records.
Johnson credits a nationwide postcard campaign opposing the bill in 1993 with helping keep it from reaching a vote. But the makeup of Congress has changed significantly since then, he noted.
"Many of the current members of Congress weren't members in 1993," he said. "Lots of lawmakers have never paid any attention to FOCA." He said that raises the risk of "the other side" defining FOCA as more benign than how abortion opponents interpret it. FOCA opponents plan a new postcard campaign beginning in January.
Sister Carol Keehan, a Daughter of Charity who is president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association, has concerns about people outside Catholic health care "saying Catholic health care institutions are going to close" should FOCA become law, she told CNS.
She said CHA has always opposed FOCA and will continue to do so. But "even if this bad legislation were to pass, we would not be forced to participate (in providing abortions) and we will fight for that," she said.
Catholic health care institutions will not dismantle their systems or compromise their principles, she said. "We have many examples in this country of how to respond to unjust laws and we have learned from them. We will protect Catholic health care in this country without compromising our position on abortion."
First, however, Sister Carol said, "we must focus on protecting mothers and their unborn children."
"The first thing we are called to do is redouble our efforts to be sure pregnant women do not see abortion as their only option," she said in a statement released Nov. 24. Easily accessible and high quality obstetrical care, assistance with food stamps, housing, education and child care, can help women feel they have options other than abortion, she said.
She said CHA has been in touch with Obama's transition team, as they were with Sen. John McCain's aides when they were planning a possible transition.
"We've found (Obama's staff) more than willing to discuss our perspective," she said. "They recognize we play a fairly significant role in health care and are a large part of the social safety net."
END
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Facebook Flair is way cool
Facebook.com is a serious addiction. Really. But I really enjoy this one thing, especially for its fun Catholic content. You can make your own "flair", which is kind of like making your own bumper stickers.
Hee hee hee.
Click on it to enlarge!
Enjoy!
Hee hee hee.
Click on it to enlarge!
Enjoy!
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
I can finally post big news! Finally!
Lots of people already know this, but have been sworn to secrecy for some time in case things went sideways, and then wouldn't we feel silly.
My husband got a job at Microsoft! We are sooooo thrilled. He will be working in the same building he worked in as a temp about four years ago, even working the same shift eventually. He beat seven people out of this one position. The interview was even pretty non-threatening, since they mostly wanted to see if he remembered anything from being there before. While his raise was not large at all, the fact that all our medical, dental and vision will be covered, right down to orthodontia, is considered a HUGE raise at our house. That's more than $300 a month we don't have to pay anymore. Some months, it's a lot more.
There are a few downsides. One, his schedule will continually change til March. First month, starting December 8th, he will work normal 9-5, Monday to Friday hours while he's being trained. Then, he will work swing shift, I assume same days, for three months. After that, he will go to nights, and stay there for quite a while. He also will be going to Issaquah, which is even further than the hour commute he currently has to Bellevue.
We have one really good car, and we have a beater with a misfiring ignition, which no one seems to be able to fix and we don't expect to have for long. As long as the engine stays somewhat cold, it does ok. But that means you can't drive it much further than a bus stop. Once DH gets on the funky shifts, we think he will need the van, which leaves me with the beater or nothing. Which is ok, but still, not wonderful. Especially for cub scout meetings late in the day. With overtime, he may not return on time, and I may not be able to get there either, because he may have the van. We'll see how long the beater lasts.
We think this will be temporary, but I sure am glad I listened to that little voice in my head that said, "You really don't want to sign the kids up for basketball or swimming this winter." I wasn't sure why that voice was there, but now I know. God is awfully good to me. I have a great guardian angel. And here I thought I was just saving money.
So, good news: Microsoft benefits are numerous and wonderful. The job has tons of upward mobility and rewards for good work. In this sagging economy, we won the lottery, basically. My husband is the coolest and God is good.
Bad news: long commute, not able to buy a new car but will make do with what we have for now. Low man on totem pole for time being. Gotta figure out how to make buses work for new location. Night shift will be a bear, but we've done it before.
Nope, it's all good news. I can live with inconvenience. I have lived with far worse than that! :)
I'm so proud of my honey!!!!
My husband got a job at Microsoft! We are sooooo thrilled. He will be working in the same building he worked in as a temp about four years ago, even working the same shift eventually. He beat seven people out of this one position. The interview was even pretty non-threatening, since they mostly wanted to see if he remembered anything from being there before. While his raise was not large at all, the fact that all our medical, dental and vision will be covered, right down to orthodontia, is considered a HUGE raise at our house. That's more than $300 a month we don't have to pay anymore. Some months, it's a lot more.
There are a few downsides. One, his schedule will continually change til March. First month, starting December 8th, he will work normal 9-5, Monday to Friday hours while he's being trained. Then, he will work swing shift, I assume same days, for three months. After that, he will go to nights, and stay there for quite a while. He also will be going to Issaquah, which is even further than the hour commute he currently has to Bellevue.
We have one really good car, and we have a beater with a misfiring ignition, which no one seems to be able to fix and we don't expect to have for long. As long as the engine stays somewhat cold, it does ok. But that means you can't drive it much further than a bus stop. Once DH gets on the funky shifts, we think he will need the van, which leaves me with the beater or nothing. Which is ok, but still, not wonderful. Especially for cub scout meetings late in the day. With overtime, he may not return on time, and I may not be able to get there either, because he may have the van. We'll see how long the beater lasts.
We think this will be temporary, but I sure am glad I listened to that little voice in my head that said, "You really don't want to sign the kids up for basketball or swimming this winter." I wasn't sure why that voice was there, but now I know. God is awfully good to me. I have a great guardian angel. And here I thought I was just saving money.
So, good news: Microsoft benefits are numerous and wonderful. The job has tons of upward mobility and rewards for good work. In this sagging economy, we won the lottery, basically. My husband is the coolest and God is good.
Bad news: long commute, not able to buy a new car but will make do with what we have for now. Low man on totem pole for time being. Gotta figure out how to make buses work for new location. Night shift will be a bear, but we've done it before.
Nope, it's all good news. I can live with inconvenience. I have lived with far worse than that! :)
I'm so proud of my honey!!!!
Monday, November 24, 2008
Alexander
Once upon a time, I did not live in the town I live in, in Western Washington. I have, in fact, lived in at least five towns in W. WA. Once upon a time, when I lived in Renton, and my 8 year old was really 1-2, and I had been married for three years, not nine, I used to nanny. Most of my current friends that I see on a weekly or monthly basis never knew me as a working mom. I worked 40 hours a week from when I graduated college until 3.5 years ago. I will fondly remember April Fools Day, 2005, as the day I gained freedom. And that is why I never get bored with being at home with my kids. Tired and cranky, yes, but never, ever, do I think the grass is greener on the other side of that fence. It is one of those gifts God gave me.
I am not putting down those who have to work. I'm simply giving thanks to God for my own personal situation, and I am saying that many of my friends did not work after they had children. But I did. They just didn't know me back then. I didn't have time to make friends or keep them, at the time. I was trying to survive.
Before actual crisis mode hit, though, I was a nanny at two homes. One was in Mill Creek, and when they didn't need me anymore, I found a job about five miles down the road. Robert and Elizabeth needed a nanny for their son, Alexander, who was born very, very early and had multiple disabilities, even without being born early. He was such a skinny little chicken, and about my son's age, had he been born on time.
I spent the next year with them, and it was a rough year, because that was the year they found out he had something wrong with his immune system. Eventually the closest diagnosis they had was aplastic anemia. Not Good. They tried two adult stem cell transplants, after finding an exact donor in Germany. No luck. The doctors actually said to take him home and let him die, because with all his problems, he was a "waste of resources". Rallying their strength, they called around, and they found out he could still get a real bone marrow transplant from the same donor. He got one, and it worked.
Here is the whole story.
I think I'm mentioned in "the first 22 months". The boy you see is the one I remember. I was around when those pics were taken.
Alexander has continued to have problems, but he's cheerful and alive. His parents had twins afterwards, and they are normal and happy, a boy and a girl. I got a change of address note from their mom and wrote to ask how things were going. Today I learned that Alexander lost his sight last year, but he's doing ok. It was very sad for me to hear, but I'm glad he is still alive and doing relatively well.
I should add that the stress of being in the hospital with Alexander and my own healthy son took a toll after a couple of months, and I had to quit. God was with me on that one, because their old, beloved nanny came back to them, having gotten very tired of the position she'd left them for when I was hired. I am so happy to hear that she is still with them. She was perfect for them, and I'm sure she still is. She probably saved Alexander's life numerous times, and has no children, so she was truly devoted to him. That's what he needed.
I have never forgotten him or his family, so I thought I'd write about it. I always felt a bit guilty for leaving right then, but I do know it was for the best. That was when my two year stint in daycare began, and the next two years were stressful enough!
God bless and keep that family. I love them dearly.
I am not putting down those who have to work. I'm simply giving thanks to God for my own personal situation, and I am saying that many of my friends did not work after they had children. But I did. They just didn't know me back then. I didn't have time to make friends or keep them, at the time. I was trying to survive.
Before actual crisis mode hit, though, I was a nanny at two homes. One was in Mill Creek, and when they didn't need me anymore, I found a job about five miles down the road. Robert and Elizabeth needed a nanny for their son, Alexander, who was born very, very early and had multiple disabilities, even without being born early. He was such a skinny little chicken, and about my son's age, had he been born on time.
I spent the next year with them, and it was a rough year, because that was the year they found out he had something wrong with his immune system. Eventually the closest diagnosis they had was aplastic anemia. Not Good. They tried two adult stem cell transplants, after finding an exact donor in Germany. No luck. The doctors actually said to take him home and let him die, because with all his problems, he was a "waste of resources". Rallying their strength, they called around, and they found out he could still get a real bone marrow transplant from the same donor. He got one, and it worked.
Here is the whole story.
I think I'm mentioned in "the first 22 months". The boy you see is the one I remember. I was around when those pics were taken.
Alexander has continued to have problems, but he's cheerful and alive. His parents had twins afterwards, and they are normal and happy, a boy and a girl. I got a change of address note from their mom and wrote to ask how things were going. Today I learned that Alexander lost his sight last year, but he's doing ok. It was very sad for me to hear, but I'm glad he is still alive and doing relatively well.
I should add that the stress of being in the hospital with Alexander and my own healthy son took a toll after a couple of months, and I had to quit. God was with me on that one, because their old, beloved nanny came back to them, having gotten very tired of the position she'd left them for when I was hired. I am so happy to hear that she is still with them. She was perfect for them, and I'm sure she still is. She probably saved Alexander's life numerous times, and has no children, so she was truly devoted to him. That's what he needed.
I have never forgotten him or his family, so I thought I'd write about it. I always felt a bit guilty for leaving right then, but I do know it was for the best. That was when my two year stint in daycare began, and the next two years were stressful enough!
God bless and keep that family. I love them dearly.
Post #301 The Goonie House
This is the Goonies House.
If you have never seen it, I haven't either. And I'm from Astoria. Really! The movie, "Goonies", is unabashadly known to be filmed in Astoria, OR, and people actually come specifically to the town of 10,000 just to see it.
Really? Have they no life?
I have no idea what the address is. I guess when I go there for Thanksgiving, I should grab my sisters and we should all go see it. I'll have to ask the nice people at the Pig and Pancake where it is. They must know.
Just to say we did.
If you have never seen it, I haven't either. And I'm from Astoria. Really! The movie, "Goonies", is unabashadly known to be filmed in Astoria, OR, and people actually come specifically to the town of 10,000 just to see it.
Really? Have they no life?
I have no idea what the address is. I guess when I go there for Thanksgiving, I should grab my sisters and we should all go see it. I'll have to ask the nice people at the Pig and Pancake where it is. They must know.
Just to say we did.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Where I'd like to be
I guess I shouldn't have visited in June. It just makes me homesick. It also makes me want to save money more badly. I guess that's a good thing.
Hello, Albion, CA.
New Fun Toy: Librarything
Omigoodness. I found a great thing the other day. I had been wondering what it was, but hadn't dared look.
It is a wonderful database tool, which is connected to Amazon and the Library of Congress, among other things. You type in part of the title, and the rest comes up and you pick the one you want and enter it. You can use "tags" to sort them, and then you find out what you have and what you don't. You can keep it private or share with others. I'm so excited, because honestly, I have a hard time deciding what to get rid of and what to keep, and finding what I need when I want to use it is hard. I always find it later and say, "I could have used that last month."
Homeschooling stuff is especially in need. I shudder to think what the total number is going to be....
Library Thing
It is a wonderful database tool, which is connected to Amazon and the Library of Congress, among other things. You type in part of the title, and the rest comes up and you pick the one you want and enter it. You can use "tags" to sort them, and then you find out what you have and what you don't. You can keep it private or share with others. I'm so excited, because honestly, I have a hard time deciding what to get rid of and what to keep, and finding what I need when I want to use it is hard. I always find it later and say, "I could have used that last month."
Homeschooling stuff is especially in need. I shudder to think what the total number is going to be....
Library Thing
Friday, November 21, 2008
Helen Keller website for kids
Today, stemming from one tiny sentence in Gabe's English book, we googled Helen Keller and found this website. It has a lovely interactive slideshow of Helen's life, and is well worth reading. It also has a book list and actual old movies of her life.
http://www.afb.org/braillebug/hkmuseum.asp
I love homeschooling!
http://www.afb.org/braillebug/hkmuseum.asp
I love homeschooling!
Thursday, November 20, 2008
1929 vs. 2008 news article
I thought this was at least a fairly level headed article. There is a lot of craziness in comparisons lately, but it's good to at least look at history for lessons for the present.
Run-up to Great Depression and today's recession havesome eerie similarities, but many important differences
By Dean Calbreath
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
October 5, 2008
On the campaign trail, Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin worries aloud that the nation “could be on that path” to the Great Depression. Her Democratic rival, Joe Biden, compares this year's election to the Depression-era clash between Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt.
Associated Press
Stockbrokers at the New York Stock Exchange on Oct. 25, 1929, the day after "Black Thursday."
Associated Press
Traders Peter Edelson (right) and John Porcelli Jr. worked the NYSE floor last week.
On Capitol Hill, politicians argue that last week's $700 billion bailout was necessary to stave off the threat of another depression.
On Wall Street, bearish market analysts have been arguing for months that a repeat of 1929 is possible. “It seems to me a near certainty that we're about to enter something I have long called 'The Greater Depression,' ” Doug Casey, author of the best-selling “Crisis Investing,” warned subscribers to his newsletter last week.
Most economists downplay the idea that we're approaching another depression. The general consensus is that even though we are almost certainly in a recession, the downturn will not reach the depths of the Great Depression, in which one in four Americans lost their jobs, hundreds of factories shut their doors and thousands of banks closed as depositors pulled out their money.
There are, after all, a number of important differences between 1929 and 2008, including government safeguards created in the 1930s to prevent a similar collapse from occurring again.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. stands ready to prevent the type of bank run that marked the true beginning of the Great Depression. Thanks to changes introduced over the past two weeks, the FDIC guarantees bank deposits of up to $250,000, as well as the health of the nation's money market funds.
Unemployment insurance, another 1930s innovation, is designed to prevent Americans from going homeless or hungry after losing their jobs. The program typically offers at least six months' pay to jobless workers, but because of the recent spike in layoffs, Congress last week extended the pay by seven to 13 weeks.
Nevertheless, some of the similarities between 1929 and 2008 are eerie.
Not unlike today, the crash of 1929 was preceded by a decade of deregulation, cheap credit, housing bubbles, rising inflation, rampant stock market speculation, faltering employment, stagnant wages and a growing gap between the wealth of executives on Wall Street and the cash-strapped consumers on Main Street.
To jump-start the economy after a recession in 1920-21, the Federal Reserve slashed interest rates, similar to what then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan did following the recession of 2001.
Although wages for most workers were stagnant during the 1920s, Americans tried to keep pace with rising inflation by borrowing money. They used credit for such newfangled gadgets as cars, radios, refrigerators, washers, dryers and vacuum cleaners.
Lawrence Mishel, who heads the Economic Policy Institute, said that such overreliance on credit – similar to the recent reliance on credit cards and home equity loans – could not be sustained over the long run.
“You can't run an economy without having enough income for workers to spend on consumption,” Mishel said. “It's important to grow an economy the old-fashioned way: earning money, and then spending what you've earned.”
As in the recent past, the cheap credit in the 1920s led to a housing boom, fueled by five-year, balloon-payment mortgages. When the mortgages came due, the homeowners had the choice of paying the balance, refinancing, selling the property or going into default – similar to the choices facing adjustable-rate mortgage holders today.
Of course, as long as interest rates were low and real estate prices were going up, there was no reason to default. A mania for real estate developed, especially in Florida and Southern California.
In San Diego, for instance, the total value of building permits jumped 80 percent between 1920 and 1926. The supply of homes soon outstripped demand. In 1927, five times as many homes were built in San Diego as were sold. Home values dropped and construction faltered. Between 1927 and 1928, the value of building permits in San Diego plummeted 86 percent.
By 1929, homeowners could not keep up with their payments. Months before the stock market crashed, home-sale ads in The San Diego Union were full of phrases such as “price slashed,” “must sacrifice all,” “big reduction” and “must sell immediately.”
“Asking 60 percent of what property is worth,” a homeowner in Hillcrest wrote back then. “Any offer above 1/2 considered.”
By that point, the “smart money” of investors and speculators had left the housing market in favor of the stock market – a reverse of what happened this decade, when the smart money left the stock market after the dot-com crash of 2000-01 and started flooding the housing market.
The speculators were aided by the close ties between banks and Wall Street investment firms. When the home mortgage market was drying up, banks built a new line of business by lending money to stock investors.
Using this borrowed cash, the speculators furiously bid up share prices. Between December 1927 and December 1928, the Dow Jones industrial average jumped 50 percent, from a record-breaking 200 points to an even more astounding 300 points. Money from foreign investors – mostly English and Canadians, instead of today's Chinese, Saudis and Japanese – flooded the market.
By early 1929, the skyrocketing prices caused a number of economists to worry that a bubble was forming in the stock market, fueled by credit. The Fed tried to choke off speculative trading by raising interest rates on the loans that investors used to buy stocks.
In late summer 1929, stock prices began to fall. Banks stopped lending to investors, jacked up interest rates to cover the risk and began calling in loans. This credit crunch accelerated the downturn on Wall Street, just like the current credit crunch, which is related to fears about the value of mortgage-backed securities.
Between September and October 1929, the market lost 40 percent of its value. The decline continued through 1933, when the Dow was 89 percent below its peak. Hundreds of companies went out of business. Others were forced to shed workers. Jittery bank customers, concerned about the safety of the financial system, cashed out their savings accounts, causing widespread bank failures.
With those runs on banks, which occurred months after the stock market collapsed, the Great Depression had begun.
Most economists doubt that the nation could see a repeat of that kind of economic collapse.
Most important, economists say, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke have studied the Depression and are working to avoid its pitfalls. Bernanke's studies concluded that the Great Depression could have been blunted if the government had pumped more money into the financial system.
Bolstered by that belief, Bernanke and Paulson have adopted a much more activist stance than their counterparts did in the 1930s – pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the market, bailing out failing financial firms and keeping interest rates low to ward off a credit crunch.
Ross Starr, an economist at the University of California San Diego who knew Bernanke during his days at Stanford in the 1980s, said that if the Fed had not taken the type of action it has in recent months, “you would be faced with a lot of businesses going under and a rise in bankruptcies, since capital could not be mobilized to help the economy.”
Under a best-case scenario, Starr said, the economy may be in a recession that lasts through the end of this year or the beginning of 2009. “If we're lucky, that's all we'll get,” he said. “But if we're unlucky, it will probably be the worst thing we've seen since the 1940s.”
Indeed, some economists warn that even some of the steps the government has taken could lead to a different set of economic problems.
For instance, the multibillion-dollar bailouts and low interest rates could lead to a spike in inflation. And Congress' decision to float a $700 billion bailout bill while introducing multibillion-dollar tax breaks could rob the next president of the ability to introduce New Deal-like economic stimulus programs.
Instead of a depression, then, some economists say our current situation could be more analogous to the oil-related “stagflation” of the 1970s, which haunted the presidencies of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter; or the collapse of the Tokyo real estate and stock markets in the early 1990s, leading to a “lost decade” for the Japanese economy.
“Comparing 1929 to 2008 is a bit like comparing a Model T to a 2008 Chevy,” said Sung Won Sohn, an economist at California State University Channel Islands. “They're both cars, but that doesn't mean they're both the same.”
Dean Calbreath: (619) 293-1891; dean.calbreath@uniontrib.com
Run-up to Great Depression and today's recession havesome eerie similarities, but many important differences
By Dean Calbreath
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
October 5, 2008
On the campaign trail, Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin worries aloud that the nation “could be on that path” to the Great Depression. Her Democratic rival, Joe Biden, compares this year's election to the Depression-era clash between Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt.
Associated Press
Stockbrokers at the New York Stock Exchange on Oct. 25, 1929, the day after "Black Thursday."
Associated Press
Traders Peter Edelson (right) and John Porcelli Jr. worked the NYSE floor last week.
On Capitol Hill, politicians argue that last week's $700 billion bailout was necessary to stave off the threat of another depression.
On Wall Street, bearish market analysts have been arguing for months that a repeat of 1929 is possible. “It seems to me a near certainty that we're about to enter something I have long called 'The Greater Depression,' ” Doug Casey, author of the best-selling “Crisis Investing,” warned subscribers to his newsletter last week.
Most economists downplay the idea that we're approaching another depression. The general consensus is that even though we are almost certainly in a recession, the downturn will not reach the depths of the Great Depression, in which one in four Americans lost their jobs, hundreds of factories shut their doors and thousands of banks closed as depositors pulled out their money.
There are, after all, a number of important differences between 1929 and 2008, including government safeguards created in the 1930s to prevent a similar collapse from occurring again.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. stands ready to prevent the type of bank run that marked the true beginning of the Great Depression. Thanks to changes introduced over the past two weeks, the FDIC guarantees bank deposits of up to $250,000, as well as the health of the nation's money market funds.
Unemployment insurance, another 1930s innovation, is designed to prevent Americans from going homeless or hungry after losing their jobs. The program typically offers at least six months' pay to jobless workers, but because of the recent spike in layoffs, Congress last week extended the pay by seven to 13 weeks.
Nevertheless, some of the similarities between 1929 and 2008 are eerie.
Not unlike today, the crash of 1929 was preceded by a decade of deregulation, cheap credit, housing bubbles, rising inflation, rampant stock market speculation, faltering employment, stagnant wages and a growing gap between the wealth of executives on Wall Street and the cash-strapped consumers on Main Street.
To jump-start the economy after a recession in 1920-21, the Federal Reserve slashed interest rates, similar to what then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan did following the recession of 2001.
Although wages for most workers were stagnant during the 1920s, Americans tried to keep pace with rising inflation by borrowing money. They used credit for such newfangled gadgets as cars, radios, refrigerators, washers, dryers and vacuum cleaners.
Lawrence Mishel, who heads the Economic Policy Institute, said that such overreliance on credit – similar to the recent reliance on credit cards and home equity loans – could not be sustained over the long run.
“You can't run an economy without having enough income for workers to spend on consumption,” Mishel said. “It's important to grow an economy the old-fashioned way: earning money, and then spending what you've earned.”
As in the recent past, the cheap credit in the 1920s led to a housing boom, fueled by five-year, balloon-payment mortgages. When the mortgages came due, the homeowners had the choice of paying the balance, refinancing, selling the property or going into default – similar to the choices facing adjustable-rate mortgage holders today.
Of course, as long as interest rates were low and real estate prices were going up, there was no reason to default. A mania for real estate developed, especially in Florida and Southern California.
In San Diego, for instance, the total value of building permits jumped 80 percent between 1920 and 1926. The supply of homes soon outstripped demand. In 1927, five times as many homes were built in San Diego as were sold. Home values dropped and construction faltered. Between 1927 and 1928, the value of building permits in San Diego plummeted 86 percent.
By 1929, homeowners could not keep up with their payments. Months before the stock market crashed, home-sale ads in The San Diego Union were full of phrases such as “price slashed,” “must sacrifice all,” “big reduction” and “must sell immediately.”
“Asking 60 percent of what property is worth,” a homeowner in Hillcrest wrote back then. “Any offer above 1/2 considered.”
By that point, the “smart money” of investors and speculators had left the housing market in favor of the stock market – a reverse of what happened this decade, when the smart money left the stock market after the dot-com crash of 2000-01 and started flooding the housing market.
The speculators were aided by the close ties between banks and Wall Street investment firms. When the home mortgage market was drying up, banks built a new line of business by lending money to stock investors.
Using this borrowed cash, the speculators furiously bid up share prices. Between December 1927 and December 1928, the Dow Jones industrial average jumped 50 percent, from a record-breaking 200 points to an even more astounding 300 points. Money from foreign investors – mostly English and Canadians, instead of today's Chinese, Saudis and Japanese – flooded the market.
By early 1929, the skyrocketing prices caused a number of economists to worry that a bubble was forming in the stock market, fueled by credit. The Fed tried to choke off speculative trading by raising interest rates on the loans that investors used to buy stocks.
In late summer 1929, stock prices began to fall. Banks stopped lending to investors, jacked up interest rates to cover the risk and began calling in loans. This credit crunch accelerated the downturn on Wall Street, just like the current credit crunch, which is related to fears about the value of mortgage-backed securities.
Between September and October 1929, the market lost 40 percent of its value. The decline continued through 1933, when the Dow was 89 percent below its peak. Hundreds of companies went out of business. Others were forced to shed workers. Jittery bank customers, concerned about the safety of the financial system, cashed out their savings accounts, causing widespread bank failures.
With those runs on banks, which occurred months after the stock market collapsed, the Great Depression had begun.
Most economists doubt that the nation could see a repeat of that kind of economic collapse.
Most important, economists say, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke have studied the Depression and are working to avoid its pitfalls. Bernanke's studies concluded that the Great Depression could have been blunted if the government had pumped more money into the financial system.
Bolstered by that belief, Bernanke and Paulson have adopted a much more activist stance than their counterparts did in the 1930s – pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the market, bailing out failing financial firms and keeping interest rates low to ward off a credit crunch.
Ross Starr, an economist at the University of California San Diego who knew Bernanke during his days at Stanford in the 1980s, said that if the Fed had not taken the type of action it has in recent months, “you would be faced with a lot of businesses going under and a rise in bankruptcies, since capital could not be mobilized to help the economy.”
Under a best-case scenario, Starr said, the economy may be in a recession that lasts through the end of this year or the beginning of 2009. “If we're lucky, that's all we'll get,” he said. “But if we're unlucky, it will probably be the worst thing we've seen since the 1940s.”
Indeed, some economists warn that even some of the steps the government has taken could lead to a different set of economic problems.
For instance, the multibillion-dollar bailouts and low interest rates could lead to a spike in inflation. And Congress' decision to float a $700 billion bailout bill while introducing multibillion-dollar tax breaks could rob the next president of the ability to introduce New Deal-like economic stimulus programs.
Instead of a depression, then, some economists say our current situation could be more analogous to the oil-related “stagflation” of the 1970s, which haunted the presidencies of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter; or the collapse of the Tokyo real estate and stock markets in the early 1990s, leading to a “lost decade” for the Japanese economy.
“Comparing 1929 to 2008 is a bit like comparing a Model T to a 2008 Chevy,” said Sung Won Sohn, an economist at California State University Channel Islands. “They're both cars, but that doesn't mean they're both the same.”
Dean Calbreath: (619) 293-1891; dean.calbreath@uniontrib.com
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Help me on a presentation!
Hello Readers!
I would like some help. I promised in January to give a talk to my homeschool group on "Engaging the Culture". I know where I want to go, but only sort of. The reason I want to have this conversation is because I think sometimes if someone has been homeschooling for a while, say 10 or 20 years, they get a little insular and focus mostly on "getting my family to heaven". I know as Catholic homeschoolers that is our ultimate goal, and it's one that gets neglected a lot. However, I strongly feel my children will be spending a great deal of time in the world before they get to Heaven, and I don't want them to be at a disadvantage while living in the world, but not of it.
My DH is in the tech industry, so we get quite a smattering of the culture from him, because at work is the "wave of the future" and all the fun gadgets people use and OVER USE. (As a digression, I went to a play the other night, and many teens next to me where texting on their gadgets the whole darn play! It was a beautiful play, but they thought it was ok because they weren't noisy. Let me just tell you how annoying a blue light flashing on and off is!!) The thing is, for people in their 20's and younger, this is how they operate. Many older people are also a little addicted. A friend of mine says he saw a bishop texting during a Mass, I kid you not. Ouch.
Technology is not the only point of my talk. Part of it is how do you defend yourself, keep the faith, and still have friends who are different from you, especially as our kids go out more and more without their parents. Some of them will get part time jobs, and be surrounded by folks who rather violently disagree with them.
Also, we have a lot of infighting. Take Sarah Palin, for instance. A lot of very conservative people felt she should stay home with her kids, while others were thrilled to see such a pro-life politician who sounded like a normal person, was a strong person, and had a family that showed real support to its members.
I think I will use "How Not To Share Your Faith" as a jumping point, because it shows how to be charitable and still strong, which is a hard balance.
Does anyone have some other ideas of a way to organize this talk? It's very unorganized at the moment. Keep in mind all age groups.
I would like some help. I promised in January to give a talk to my homeschool group on "Engaging the Culture". I know where I want to go, but only sort of. The reason I want to have this conversation is because I think sometimes if someone has been homeschooling for a while, say 10 or 20 years, they get a little insular and focus mostly on "getting my family to heaven". I know as Catholic homeschoolers that is our ultimate goal, and it's one that gets neglected a lot. However, I strongly feel my children will be spending a great deal of time in the world before they get to Heaven, and I don't want them to be at a disadvantage while living in the world, but not of it.
My DH is in the tech industry, so we get quite a smattering of the culture from him, because at work is the "wave of the future" and all the fun gadgets people use and OVER USE. (As a digression, I went to a play the other night, and many teens next to me where texting on their gadgets the whole darn play! It was a beautiful play, but they thought it was ok because they weren't noisy. Let me just tell you how annoying a blue light flashing on and off is!!) The thing is, for people in their 20's and younger, this is how they operate. Many older people are also a little addicted. A friend of mine says he saw a bishop texting during a Mass, I kid you not. Ouch.
Technology is not the only point of my talk. Part of it is how do you defend yourself, keep the faith, and still have friends who are different from you, especially as our kids go out more and more without their parents. Some of them will get part time jobs, and be surrounded by folks who rather violently disagree with them.
Also, we have a lot of infighting. Take Sarah Palin, for instance. A lot of very conservative people felt she should stay home with her kids, while others were thrilled to see such a pro-life politician who sounded like a normal person, was a strong person, and had a family that showed real support to its members.
I think I will use "How Not To Share Your Faith" as a jumping point, because it shows how to be charitable and still strong, which is a hard balance.
Does anyone have some other ideas of a way to organize this talk? It's very unorganized at the moment. Keep in mind all age groups.
Awesome news, or how to win against abortion!
I did not know this, and I'm so glad to see it. Hooray for caring about women, their babies, and their families!
http://www.time.com/time/2007/abortions/
Turns out there are way more crisis pregnancy centers than there are abortion clinics. That is great news!
http://www.time.com/time/2007/abortions/
Turns out there are way more crisis pregnancy centers than there are abortion clinics. That is great news!
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
An enlightening conversation
Wow.
I just had the most interesting facebook conversation ever. I'd like to copy and paste it here, but I'm going to let my friend emotionally prepare to march in the Boston gay rights protest tomorrow and not bother him about letting me print our conversation here. But I have copied and pasted it into a document, because I think it was a very, very clear indicator that those who are gay and those who do not agree with gay marriage can still be friends and still talk about it. And not even get mad!
My friend and I were in college together, and I remember him from my very first week there. We've kept in touch more or less over the last 14 years. What I was surprised by was that he actually agrees with me on nearly everything else that I think is important. He's against the pro-choice agenda, for instance. Very much so. But he feels persecuted, and wants to make his voice heard.
I disagree with him pretty strongly, but we have been very friendly and gentle with our language, and it has enabled us to speak coherently and ask thoughtful questions without breaking down and saying, "You're just wrong!", which is so tempting sometimes. I try to keep my reasoning fairly un-biblical, just because these laws we are arguing about are secular laws, not church laws, and so I can't use an overtly religious argument to defend my thinking and be taken seriously by all sides.
I do think gay marriage is going to win out, but I am worried that those who feel "persecuted" will become the "persecutors". I was glad to find that my friend also feared this. It is good to know, and we agree that we need less calling each other the "enemy", and more seeing each other as human beings, worthy of love.
I will try to post later about our conversation. It's not quite over yet, so I will wait a bit and see how it plays out.
Just some food for thought.
I just had the most interesting facebook conversation ever. I'd like to copy and paste it here, but I'm going to let my friend emotionally prepare to march in the Boston gay rights protest tomorrow and not bother him about letting me print our conversation here. But I have copied and pasted it into a document, because I think it was a very, very clear indicator that those who are gay and those who do not agree with gay marriage can still be friends and still talk about it. And not even get mad!
My friend and I were in college together, and I remember him from my very first week there. We've kept in touch more or less over the last 14 years. What I was surprised by was that he actually agrees with me on nearly everything else that I think is important. He's against the pro-choice agenda, for instance. Very much so. But he feels persecuted, and wants to make his voice heard.
I disagree with him pretty strongly, but we have been very friendly and gentle with our language, and it has enabled us to speak coherently and ask thoughtful questions without breaking down and saying, "You're just wrong!", which is so tempting sometimes. I try to keep my reasoning fairly un-biblical, just because these laws we are arguing about are secular laws, not church laws, and so I can't use an overtly religious argument to defend my thinking and be taken seriously by all sides.
I do think gay marriage is going to win out, but I am worried that those who feel "persecuted" will become the "persecutors". I was glad to find that my friend also feared this. It is good to know, and we agree that we need less calling each other the "enemy", and more seeing each other as human beings, worthy of love.
I will try to post later about our conversation. It's not quite over yet, so I will wait a bit and see how it plays out.
Just some food for thought.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The Fuzzy
For the uninitiated, Grace, our number three child, has a "Fuzzy". THE Fuzzy. It looks like this:
It is from IKEA. We have bought two of them so far, because we wore the first one out when Grace was one. The second one made us a bit wiser, and so we do not wash it often, and we keep on big piece, and cut off smaller pieces for Grace to have. That way, if she loses one, we can cut off another piece of the "master" fuzzy.
That fuzzy was not supposed to leave home.
Which is why I figured it would just turn up someday, in a toy bin or under the bed.
But no... we still had a small one, but the big one had disappeared for three months, give or take. Surely someone had just not called us yet, and we would still find it. But that trip to IKEA was in the offing, because our little Dominic seems to like the Fuzzy, too, and so does our friend Rikki's kiddo.
In the meanwhile, today, I offered up one of my children to science. Ha ha... I accepted the invitation to bring my youngest to the UW to be in a study at I-LABS, or the Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences. The main book to come of these studies so far is called "The Scientist in the Crib", which my mom gave me when I had my youngest. And so I have sacrificed all of my children but one so far to these studies. And that one child goes to another place next door for his own little studies.
As we entered, we said hello and went to the family waiting room which has many fun educational toys and a tv and a couch, and then I looked at the floor.
What did I see?
THE FUZZY.
It had been there for three months, with many children to love it and cherish it and put their boogers on it. But it was STILL THERE!
I think I was more overjoyed than Gracie was. Though I must add, she has not let go of it yet, and it's been four hours.
On the way home I handed a piece to Rikki for her kid, and I lopped off another piece for the experimented-upon child. He doesn't seem as attached as she does, but maybe he'll like it better at bedtime.
I just had to share my utter joy at the small things in life.
The experiment went well, by the way. I always enjoy finding out what fun little tricks they will try to play on my children. :)
It is from IKEA. We have bought two of them so far, because we wore the first one out when Grace was one. The second one made us a bit wiser, and so we do not wash it often, and we keep on big piece, and cut off smaller pieces for Grace to have. That way, if she loses one, we can cut off another piece of the "master" fuzzy.
That fuzzy was not supposed to leave home.
Which is why I figured it would just turn up someday, in a toy bin or under the bed.
But no... we still had a small one, but the big one had disappeared for three months, give or take. Surely someone had just not called us yet, and we would still find it. But that trip to IKEA was in the offing, because our little Dominic seems to like the Fuzzy, too, and so does our friend Rikki's kiddo.
In the meanwhile, today, I offered up one of my children to science. Ha ha... I accepted the invitation to bring my youngest to the UW to be in a study at I-LABS, or the Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences. The main book to come of these studies so far is called "The Scientist in the Crib", which my mom gave me when I had my youngest. And so I have sacrificed all of my children but one so far to these studies. And that one child goes to another place next door for his own little studies.
As we entered, we said hello and went to the family waiting room which has many fun educational toys and a tv and a couch, and then I looked at the floor.
What did I see?
THE FUZZY.
It had been there for three months, with many children to love it and cherish it and put their boogers on it. But it was STILL THERE!
I think I was more overjoyed than Gracie was. Though I must add, she has not let go of it yet, and it's been four hours.
On the way home I handed a piece to Rikki for her kid, and I lopped off another piece for the experimented-upon child. He doesn't seem as attached as she does, but maybe he'll like it better at bedtime.
I just had to share my utter joy at the small things in life.
The experiment went well, by the way. I always enjoy finding out what fun little tricks they will try to play on my children. :)
McCain "adviser" was a HOAX!
Holy Schmoley. I think I will just up and say that my friends who said that the internet was "of the devil" and I thought they were nuts, might have been right on this level.
This is just completely nuts. I'm going to run off and join a commune, and not watch the news anymore. At least they found out.
This is just completely nuts. I'm going to run off and join a commune, and not watch the news anymore. At least they found out.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Parental rights and a UN problem
This is going to be a problem, to say the least. Please read, reflect, and check the website www.parentalrights.org for more information.
I know people think they are helping us by creating utopia, but what it really will be is a lot of fear of doing the "wrong thing". Please stand up for families before it is too late by writing to any congresspeople you can think of. Our president-to-be is already involved in this project, along with at least one congresswoman from my own state.
What’s Wrong with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
Posted by: admin on February 12th, 2008
Tag(s): Constitutional Amendment • Convention on the Rights of the Child • Danger to Parental Rights • international law • parental rights
It’s usually looked upon as a positive means of holding countries accountable to protect children. But the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is so much more than that.
When the UNCRC was brought up for ratification in 1995, the core group of Senators in opposition concluded that this treaty marked a significant departure from the originally constituted relationship between state and child. They found, in fact, that it was literally incompatible with the right of parents to raise their children as well as a wholesale giveaway of U.S. sovereignty.
But why?
Widespread concerns about the UNCRC stem from the treaty’s repeated emphasis on one key principle used to guide all decisions affecting children: consideration of the “best interests of the child.” This principle underlies all of the rights found in the Convention.
Article 3 of the CRC provides that “in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”
In other words, policies affecting children at all levels of society and government should have the child’s best interest as the primary concern.
The trouble occurs when this principle appears as a guiding principle for parents in article 18(1), which states that “Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.”
Who knows best?
The Convention’s emphasis on the “best interests” principle is a sharp break from American law.
In the 1993 case of Reno v. Flores, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the ‘best interests of the child’ is not the legal standard that governs parents’ or guardians’ exercise of their custody.” In the 2000 case of Troxel v. Granville, the Court struck down a grandparent visitation statute because decisions about the child were made “solely on the judge’s determination of the child’s best interests,” without regard to the wishes of the parent.
The Court’s decisions in Reno and Troxel reflect a fundamental tenet of American family law, which recognizes that parents typically act in the best interests of their children. Indeed, “United States case law is replete with examples of parents fighting for the best interests of their children,” ranging from a child’s right to an education to the right of personal injury compensation. Except in cases where a parent has been proven to be “unfit,” American law presumes that the parent is acting in the best interests of the child, and defers to that parent’s decision.
The UNCRC’s Brave New World
But the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child changes all of that. The treaty supplants this traditional presumption in favor of parents with a new presumption in favor of the state.
According to Geraldine van Bueren, an international scholar who assisted in the drafting of the CRC, the language of “best interests provides decision and policy makers with the authority to substitute their own decisions for either the child’s or the parents’, providing it is based on considerations of the best interests of the child.”
So instead of placing the burden of proof on the government to prove that a parent is unfit, the Convention places the burden of proof on – yes, parents. Any parent who claims that other interests might just be more important than the state’s characterization of the “best interest” of the child could end up battling the state to protect their rights as a parent.
Where do we go from here?
There is a solution to this dilemma. The strongest, most effective way of protecting children and parents from an alarming state-based agenda is to amend the Constitution to protect parental rights. This can only take place through the concerted efforts of millions of dedicated parents across the United States.
Two immediate action items
Maybe you’ve already signed the petition to protect parental rights. If so, we encourage you to take the next step of telling your friends about this important issue. And if you haven’t yet joined the campaign, consider joining today. For a gift of $25 or more, you and your family can take a firm stand in the battle to protect and preserve parental rights.
I know people think they are helping us by creating utopia, but what it really will be is a lot of fear of doing the "wrong thing". Please stand up for families before it is too late by writing to any congresspeople you can think of. Our president-to-be is already involved in this project, along with at least one congresswoman from my own state.
What’s Wrong with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
Posted by: admin on February 12th, 2008
Tag(s): Constitutional Amendment • Convention on the Rights of the Child • Danger to Parental Rights • international law • parental rights
It’s usually looked upon as a positive means of holding countries accountable to protect children. But the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is so much more than that.
When the UNCRC was brought up for ratification in 1995, the core group of Senators in opposition concluded that this treaty marked a significant departure from the originally constituted relationship between state and child. They found, in fact, that it was literally incompatible with the right of parents to raise their children as well as a wholesale giveaway of U.S. sovereignty.
But why?
Widespread concerns about the UNCRC stem from the treaty’s repeated emphasis on one key principle used to guide all decisions affecting children: consideration of the “best interests of the child.” This principle underlies all of the rights found in the Convention.
Article 3 of the CRC provides that “in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”
In other words, policies affecting children at all levels of society and government should have the child’s best interest as the primary concern.
The trouble occurs when this principle appears as a guiding principle for parents in article 18(1), which states that “Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.”
Who knows best?
The Convention’s emphasis on the “best interests” principle is a sharp break from American law.
In the 1993 case of Reno v. Flores, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the ‘best interests of the child’ is not the legal standard that governs parents’ or guardians’ exercise of their custody.” In the 2000 case of Troxel v. Granville, the Court struck down a grandparent visitation statute because decisions about the child were made “solely on the judge’s determination of the child’s best interests,” without regard to the wishes of the parent.
The Court’s decisions in Reno and Troxel reflect a fundamental tenet of American family law, which recognizes that parents typically act in the best interests of their children. Indeed, “United States case law is replete with examples of parents fighting for the best interests of their children,” ranging from a child’s right to an education to the right of personal injury compensation. Except in cases where a parent has been proven to be “unfit,” American law presumes that the parent is acting in the best interests of the child, and defers to that parent’s decision.
The UNCRC’s Brave New World
But the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child changes all of that. The treaty supplants this traditional presumption in favor of parents with a new presumption in favor of the state.
According to Geraldine van Bueren, an international scholar who assisted in the drafting of the CRC, the language of “best interests provides decision and policy makers with the authority to substitute their own decisions for either the child’s or the parents’, providing it is based on considerations of the best interests of the child.”
So instead of placing the burden of proof on the government to prove that a parent is unfit, the Convention places the burden of proof on – yes, parents. Any parent who claims that other interests might just be more important than the state’s characterization of the “best interest” of the child could end up battling the state to protect their rights as a parent.
Where do we go from here?
There is a solution to this dilemma. The strongest, most effective way of protecting children and parents from an alarming state-based agenda is to amend the Constitution to protect parental rights. This can only take place through the concerted efforts of millions of dedicated parents across the United States.
Two immediate action items
Maybe you’ve already signed the petition to protect parental rights. If so, we encourage you to take the next step of telling your friends about this important issue. And if you haven’t yet joined the campaign, consider joining today. For a gift of $25 or more, you and your family can take a firm stand in the battle to protect and preserve parental rights.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
In Memoriam
70 Years since the beginning of Very Bad Things. Have you ever met a Holocaust Survivor? I have. If you ever see an Anne Frank exhibit near you, go to it. Take the day off. They won't live forever. Your kids need to meet someone with this tatoo on their arm.
Kristallnacht should have been a warning. Whenever people go after someone, even if you don't agree with them, even if you disagree strongly, if people's basic human rights, like food and water and safety, are gone, do not look the other way if there is something you could do.
Please also remember that when we're dealing with Iran, we're dealing with people who say this never happened, while actual survivors are still alive! Many people deny it happened at all, in many countries, including ours. We must remember.
If you click on the cartoon, it will enlarge, I think.
Kristallnacht should have been a warning. Whenever people go after someone, even if you don't agree with them, even if you disagree strongly, if people's basic human rights, like food and water and safety, are gone, do not look the other way if there is something you could do.
Please also remember that when we're dealing with Iran, we're dealing with people who say this never happened, while actual survivors are still alive! Many people deny it happened at all, in many countries, including ours. We must remember.
If you click on the cartoon, it will enlarge, I think.
The picture is from...
Seattle, circa 1933, I believe. That's the black and white picture I posted on Sunday. Good guess Rikki, but my towns in CA don't have any buildings more than three stories tall. That's probably Sodo we're looking at, but somebody correct me. I'm not that great at knowing my way around Seattle proper.
The hill in the background may look familiar. I think I-90 now goes to the left of it, and I-5 right to left in front of it. Those are shantytowns in the foreground, or "Hoovervilles", as they were called in the Great Depression. They were named for a president who did the wrong thing when faced with what Obama is facing now. Not that there were many "right" things to do. No one knew what it was when it started, did they? And that's what worries me.
Many government programs are in place now to keep that level of awfulness from happening again, but for better or for worse, this time it's global. One thing that makes me laugh every single time I hear it is that "the government assures us that all the money they are using to bail out AIG and other places will be returned to the American people". Yeah. Like all the other government programs that were invented for some reason or other and are still there? Like the "temporary housing" I lived in at Gonzaga that was one of the most popular dorms and is still there, 40 years later, even though they have built lots and lots of new ones? Right.
Here's the book I picked up at the library which breaks down what happened very simply. My grandparents were young people for most of this, my parents born during WWII. They could have been in this book. I think they were lucky not to have children til the economy was back on its feet, thanks to, of all things, war.
The hill in the background may look familiar. I think I-90 now goes to the left of it, and I-5 right to left in front of it. Those are shantytowns in the foreground, or "Hoovervilles", as they were called in the Great Depression. They were named for a president who did the wrong thing when faced with what Obama is facing now. Not that there were many "right" things to do. No one knew what it was when it started, did they? And that's what worries me.
Many government programs are in place now to keep that level of awfulness from happening again, but for better or for worse, this time it's global. One thing that makes me laugh every single time I hear it is that "the government assures us that all the money they are using to bail out AIG and other places will be returned to the American people". Yeah. Like all the other government programs that were invented for some reason or other and are still there? Like the "temporary housing" I lived in at Gonzaga that was one of the most popular dorms and is still there, 40 years later, even though they have built lots and lots of new ones? Right.
Here's the book I picked up at the library which breaks down what happened very simply. My grandparents were young people for most of this, my parents born during WWII. They could have been in this book. I think they were lucky not to have children til the economy was back on its feet, thanks to, of all things, war.
Conspiracy Theory
So... the Washington Times is already turning on Obama, huh? That didn't take long...
I'm keeping this here to refer to when they send me to re-education camp. I'm sorely un-educated, don't you know. Incredibly backward. Yadda yadda.
On the other hand, it may be that he went to his first ever intelligence briefing, and said, "Oh, #%^*,that's why Bush has been doing what he's doing, but no one knows because it's got high security clearance all over it. And now I have to do that job and explain to the people why we're not doing anything I said I would."
I'm betting he's having a real hangover after the high of that election.
EXCLUSIVE: Agenda disappears from Obama Web site
Stephen Dinan (Contact)
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
President-elect Barack Obama over the weekend scrubbed his transition Web site, deleting most of what had been a massive agenda for his first term that appears on his campaign's site.
Gone from Change.gov are the promises on how an Obama administration would handle 25 agenda items — from Iraq and immigration to taxes and urban policy — which the campaign first laid out on the Web site www.BarackObama.com.
As The Washington Times first reported Monday morning, the official agenda on Change.gov has been boiled down to one vague paragraph proclaiming a plan "to revive the economy, to fix our health care, education, and social security systems, to define a clear path to energy independence, to end the war in Iraq responsibly and finish our mission in Afghanistan, and to work with our allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, among many other domestic and foreign policy objectives."
"We are currently retooling the Web site," said Obama transition spokesman Nick Shapiro.
The 25 agenda items and Mr. Obama's action items for each are still available on Mr. Obama's campaign site.
The Obama team announced Change.gov on Wednesday, but because of an early glitch, the site wasn't available to the public until Thursday. The agenda items, which were active for at least part of the weekend, appeared to have been deleted by late Saturday.
RELATED STORIES:
• Dems see inroads in Northern Virginia's exurbs
• Inside the Beltway: Hang in there, Cheney
• McCain advisers defend Sarah Palin
During the campaign, Mr. Obama harnessed the Internet with incredible success, communicating with millions of supporters and providing live streaming video of his appearances. Mr. Obama said it was part of his commitment to transparency and is expected to translate much of that to www.WhiteHouse.gov when he takes office.
But political technology professionals said it appeared that Mr. Obama's team had been too abrupt with Change.gov and didn't want the new administration tied to the campaign's list.
"I believe they were a bit out in front of themselves and realized after the fact that they didn't want to limit their agenda/priorities to what they put on the Web site before they had a clear picture of America's needs in a postelection environment," said David All, who as founder of Slatecard.com helped pioneer grass-roots online political donations for conservatives.
Conservative interest groups demanded that Mr. Obama repost his agenda to make it clear where he wants to lead the country.
"Does this represent a shift in Mr. Obama's position on Iraq?" said Brian Wise, executive director of Military Families United, which advocates for finishing the military mission in Iraq.
Grover Norquist, president of conservative activist group Americans for Tax Reform, blasted Mr. Obama for deleting the agenda.
"This is the opposite of transparency," he said. His organization posted to its Web site, www.atr.org, a scanned copy of a printout of the "Economy" section of Mr. Obama's agenda.
Change.gov still contains pages about how to apply for jobs in the Obama administration, biographies of top transition team members and a call for Americans to serve as volunteers and for students to perform 50 hours of community service. The site also has press releases and a transition blog.
I'm keeping this here to refer to when they send me to re-education camp. I'm sorely un-educated, don't you know. Incredibly backward. Yadda yadda.
On the other hand, it may be that he went to his first ever intelligence briefing, and said, "Oh, #%^*,that's why Bush has been doing what he's doing, but no one knows because it's got high security clearance all over it. And now I have to do that job and explain to the people why we're not doing anything I said I would."
I'm betting he's having a real hangover after the high of that election.
EXCLUSIVE: Agenda disappears from Obama Web site
Stephen Dinan (Contact)
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
President-elect Barack Obama over the weekend scrubbed his transition Web site, deleting most of what had been a massive agenda for his first term that appears on his campaign's site.
Gone from Change.gov are the promises on how an Obama administration would handle 25 agenda items — from Iraq and immigration to taxes and urban policy — which the campaign first laid out on the Web site www.BarackObama.com.
As The Washington Times first reported Monday morning, the official agenda on Change.gov has been boiled down to one vague paragraph proclaiming a plan "to revive the economy, to fix our health care, education, and social security systems, to define a clear path to energy independence, to end the war in Iraq responsibly and finish our mission in Afghanistan, and to work with our allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, among many other domestic and foreign policy objectives."
"We are currently retooling the Web site," said Obama transition spokesman Nick Shapiro.
The 25 agenda items and Mr. Obama's action items for each are still available on Mr. Obama's campaign site.
The Obama team announced Change.gov on Wednesday, but because of an early glitch, the site wasn't available to the public until Thursday. The agenda items, which were active for at least part of the weekend, appeared to have been deleted by late Saturday.
RELATED STORIES:
• Dems see inroads in Northern Virginia's exurbs
• Inside the Beltway: Hang in there, Cheney
• McCain advisers defend Sarah Palin
During the campaign, Mr. Obama harnessed the Internet with incredible success, communicating with millions of supporters and providing live streaming video of his appearances. Mr. Obama said it was part of his commitment to transparency and is expected to translate much of that to www.WhiteHouse.gov when he takes office.
But political technology professionals said it appeared that Mr. Obama's team had been too abrupt with Change.gov and didn't want the new administration tied to the campaign's list.
"I believe they were a bit out in front of themselves and realized after the fact that they didn't want to limit their agenda/priorities to what they put on the Web site before they had a clear picture of America's needs in a postelection environment," said David All, who as founder of Slatecard.com helped pioneer grass-roots online political donations for conservatives.
Conservative interest groups demanded that Mr. Obama repost his agenda to make it clear where he wants to lead the country.
"Does this represent a shift in Mr. Obama's position on Iraq?" said Brian Wise, executive director of Military Families United, which advocates for finishing the military mission in Iraq.
Grover Norquist, president of conservative activist group Americans for Tax Reform, blasted Mr. Obama for deleting the agenda.
"This is the opposite of transparency," he said. His organization posted to its Web site, www.atr.org, a scanned copy of a printout of the "Economy" section of Mr. Obama's agenda.
Change.gov still contains pages about how to apply for jobs in the Obama administration, biographies of top transition team members and a call for Americans to serve as volunteers and for students to perform 50 hours of community service. The site also has press releases and a transition blog.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Urban farming
I think I'm going to use part of this winter to really dream up a great garden this year. I saw one that was totally inspirational last year in Davis, CA, and maybe the gardener will help me with my plans. City gardening can be amazingly "fruitful".
Here's something I came across today. Yes, I know, I was on the internet almost all day. I know. I have no life.
Food from your backyard
As the global food crisis drags on, urban farmers are on the rise. NBC's Dawna Friesen looks at cutting costs by growing your own dinner.
Here's something I came across today. Yes, I know, I was on the internet almost all day. I know. I have no life.
Food from your backyard
As the global food crisis drags on, urban farmers are on the rise. NBC's Dawna Friesen looks at cutting costs by growing your own dinner.
Guessing game
To introduce another topic, I'd like y'all to guess when and where this is. I'll give you a few days, but I can't wait to hear.
:)
How we got child #4
I'm thrilled to see this article in a major newspaper. Of course, only in a Mormon city would it even get published. I dare major newspapers to add this to theirs!
We found out through this same bunch that I had a progesterone issue, which resulted in two miscarriages, four months apart. The second one was truly awful, requiring emergency surgery. This group of doctors can help a lot of people. There was no one in Seattle who could help me: I went to the best there was, and he was wrong. Had I followed his directions, I'd have had a third miscarriage. This, even though my problem was extremely minor compared to some.
Someday, I'll blog more about that, but for now, here's a great article.
We found out through this same bunch that I had a progesterone issue, which resulted in two miscarriages, four months apart. The second one was truly awful, requiring emergency surgery. This group of doctors can help a lot of people. There was no one in Seattle who could help me: I went to the best there was, and he was wrong. Had I followed his directions, I'd have had a third miscarriage. This, even though my problem was extremely minor compared to some.
Someday, I'll blog more about that, but for now, here's a great article.
a class reunion
Here's a picture of how many people showed up to the class of 1998 GU reunion. It's kinda fuzzy and dark, but apparently we were the biggest returning class yet. DH and I are in the upper right. It's really hard to tell, though.
Yay, us!
Go Gonzaga, class of 1998. And many happy thoughts for Fr. Spitzer, who hopes to be somewhere else by next year.
FOCA -- huge threat to our constitution and many other things
Please sign the petition you'll find here. I told a pro-life person about this and he said, "What is that?" Um... it's really scary, that's what it is. It's a steamroller and will mow over other state's rights to limit abortion. Obama says it will be one of the first things he signs into law. You'd think the economy would be more important. Or Iraq. So hopefully it will be further down his list.
Please spread the word!
http://www.fightfoca.com/
Please spread the word!
http://www.fightfoca.com/
Friday, November 7, 2008
Latin Mass and its music
This is beautiful. I love the explanation...
http://videos.sacbee.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=2368122
http://videos.sacbee.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=2368122
Thursday, November 6, 2008
I added to my websites
If people like, they can see the websites I either think are important, or else I check them weekly or daily. They are pretty neat! They are listed on the right. If you have questions about them, please ask.
Blogs are like crack, really. Don't look at them.
:)
Blogs are like crack, really. Don't look at them.
:)
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Den Beste - superblogger
Huh. I looked up this guy with DH tonight since we liked his blog about the election. Turns out he's been around for a while. I started reading his ideas on moral relativism and why it's wrong philisophically and doesn't actually work long-term, and this is what I found. The hotlinks don't come through, so please click the link in the title, and you will find all the links he mentions. Very, very interesting.
My brain hurts.
Steven Den Beste - Godfather of Bloggers
Scott Kirwin
Recently Glenn Reynolds mentioned the folks at the Surviving Grady baseball blog have published a book, and he also added that he thinks it's time that Steven Den Beste did the same. I wholeheartedly agree. Some of you may not be familiar with the name, since Den Beste stopped blogging about current events over a year and a half ago. However the retired engineer from San Diego was one of the godfathers of the blogosphere - along with Reynolds, Andrew Sullivan, and a handful of others. While the history of the blogosphere is still being blogged the writing of Den Beste stands as a milestone in the development of "New Media" and its challenge to the Mainstream Media (MSM).
His writings have influenced a complete generation of bloggers. Before LGF. Before Powerline. Before INDC Journal and even Dean's World, there was USS Clueless. I began blogging as a way of expressing myself in the weeks after 9-11. I remember the helplessness that I can only express using the title of one of Harlan Ellison's best works: I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream. For a month I was silent, stunned as I reexamined my beliefs, some of which crumbled to expose others that lay like bedrock underneath. During that time I discovered that web logs, which had seemed yet another example of navel gazing in an overly narcissistic culture, had changed into what they are today: another medium for news and analysis. And no one's analysis was better than Steven Den Beste's.
What we're doing is right and it is necessary. Awful things are going to happen, and we're going to do some of them. But worse things would have happened if we had not done this, and that's all that matters. - Oct 10, 2001
Before Den Beste, it was extremely difficult to find well written and thought out pieces anywhere on the web. Such work was the domain of the MSM. Depending on your flavor of politics one had the New Republic or National Review. For Science essays there was Stephen Jay Gould writing for Natural History and the occasional piece in Wired or Scientific American.
However Den Beste was a master synthesizer in the mold of James Burke and could take two seemingly unconnected events and weave them together into a whole that was much greater than the sum of its parts. How did the Burgess Shale fossils relate to World War 3? Click here to find out. He had a patience for his readership that has been lost by many modern writers. He could walk you through his argument showing why life is rare in the Universe without leaving you behind or losing you in digressions. He recognized and labeled trends such as the divide between Wilsonians - those supporting a trans-nationalist idealism - and Jacksonians - those rooted in a populist based conservativism.
While some of his best writing in my opinion is that touching upon his experiences in Engineering (my old blog, The Razor, isn't indexed so I can't find these posts. Besides, it would take too much time since a good part of my early writings often included phrases like "Read the entire thing" with hyperlinks to a Den Beste post), his philosophical musings are what really hit home to me at an extremely critical time in my intellectual development.
After 9-11 I realized that I had previously been indoctrinated in moral and cultural relativism. During the weeks that followed I began to examine (and uproot in most cases but not all) these beliefs and attitudes that I had held unquestioningly since my college days at that bastion of PC indoctrination: the UC system in California. One post in particular by Den Beste made me realize the folly in my thinking:
If our attackers are automatons with no moral responsibility, then they are mad dogs, and so we should fight back, for if we don't they will surely attack us again.. If, on the other hand, they have free will, then we are justified by their acts in visiting punishment on them — and killing them anyway. Neither point of view justifies pacifism on our part.
And if they are responding to things we did, then would we not in turn be responding to things they did? If they are not culpable for attacking us, how would we be culpable for responding in kind? If their attack on us was ethically neutral because they were responding to things we did to them, then our counterattack will equally be ethically neutral because we will in turn be responding to things they did. Ultimately no-one is responsible for anything, and ethics again becomes a null-set.
Deep down this theory assumes that we are not the same as them. We really can think, we really can make decisions, but they ultimately are stupid creatures who merely respond to their environment. It is deeply chauvinistic. It is only by assuming a gargantuan moral inequivalency that this argument stands. (Oct 4, 2001 )
This article, along with an article by Francis Beckwith titled "Philosophical Problems With Moral Relativism" influenced my intellectual growth in a way that hadn't happened since the Jesuits had their hooks in me in high school. Accompanied by a new-found sobriety this growth has made my writing better. It has sharpened my intellect and allowed me to ride through some pretty tough times. In the past books have had this power, but in 2001-2 it was Steven Den Beste's writing at USS Clueless.
Den Beste stopped writing about current events for a variety of reasons including his health and dealing with nutjobs. He still writes about anime and slips in the odd event at Chizumatic. However I would love nothing better than to read a book of his previous work and maybe even a new piece or two.
For those of you who weren't around back then, Den Beste has a page of what he thinks are his best posts. However he has culled out too much, so it wouldn't hurt to read the entire thing; it just would be easier to read it in a book.
My brain hurts.
Steven Den Beste - Godfather of Bloggers
Scott Kirwin
Recently Glenn Reynolds mentioned the folks at the Surviving Grady baseball blog have published a book, and he also added that he thinks it's time that Steven Den Beste did the same. I wholeheartedly agree. Some of you may not be familiar with the name, since Den Beste stopped blogging about current events over a year and a half ago. However the retired engineer from San Diego was one of the godfathers of the blogosphere - along with Reynolds, Andrew Sullivan, and a handful of others. While the history of the blogosphere is still being blogged the writing of Den Beste stands as a milestone in the development of "New Media" and its challenge to the Mainstream Media (MSM).
His writings have influenced a complete generation of bloggers. Before LGF. Before Powerline. Before INDC Journal and even Dean's World, there was USS Clueless. I began blogging as a way of expressing myself in the weeks after 9-11. I remember the helplessness that I can only express using the title of one of Harlan Ellison's best works: I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream. For a month I was silent, stunned as I reexamined my beliefs, some of which crumbled to expose others that lay like bedrock underneath. During that time I discovered that web logs, which had seemed yet another example of navel gazing in an overly narcissistic culture, had changed into what they are today: another medium for news and analysis. And no one's analysis was better than Steven Den Beste's.
What we're doing is right and it is necessary. Awful things are going to happen, and we're going to do some of them. But worse things would have happened if we had not done this, and that's all that matters. - Oct 10, 2001
Before Den Beste, it was extremely difficult to find well written and thought out pieces anywhere on the web. Such work was the domain of the MSM. Depending on your flavor of politics one had the New Republic or National Review. For Science essays there was Stephen Jay Gould writing for Natural History and the occasional piece in Wired or Scientific American.
However Den Beste was a master synthesizer in the mold of James Burke and could take two seemingly unconnected events and weave them together into a whole that was much greater than the sum of its parts. How did the Burgess Shale fossils relate to World War 3? Click here to find out. He had a patience for his readership that has been lost by many modern writers. He could walk you through his argument showing why life is rare in the Universe without leaving you behind or losing you in digressions. He recognized and labeled trends such as the divide between Wilsonians - those supporting a trans-nationalist idealism - and Jacksonians - those rooted in a populist based conservativism.
While some of his best writing in my opinion is that touching upon his experiences in Engineering (my old blog, The Razor, isn't indexed so I can't find these posts. Besides, it would take too much time since a good part of my early writings often included phrases like "Read the entire thing" with hyperlinks to a Den Beste post), his philosophical musings are what really hit home to me at an extremely critical time in my intellectual development.
After 9-11 I realized that I had previously been indoctrinated in moral and cultural relativism. During the weeks that followed I began to examine (and uproot in most cases but not all) these beliefs and attitudes that I had held unquestioningly since my college days at that bastion of PC indoctrination: the UC system in California. One post in particular by Den Beste made me realize the folly in my thinking:
If our attackers are automatons with no moral responsibility, then they are mad dogs, and so we should fight back, for if we don't they will surely attack us again.. If, on the other hand, they have free will, then we are justified by their acts in visiting punishment on them — and killing them anyway. Neither point of view justifies pacifism on our part.
And if they are responding to things we did, then would we not in turn be responding to things they did? If they are not culpable for attacking us, how would we be culpable for responding in kind? If their attack on us was ethically neutral because they were responding to things we did to them, then our counterattack will equally be ethically neutral because we will in turn be responding to things they did. Ultimately no-one is responsible for anything, and ethics again becomes a null-set.
Deep down this theory assumes that we are not the same as them. We really can think, we really can make decisions, but they ultimately are stupid creatures who merely respond to their environment. It is deeply chauvinistic. It is only by assuming a gargantuan moral inequivalency that this argument stands. (Oct 4, 2001 )
This article, along with an article by Francis Beckwith titled "Philosophical Problems With Moral Relativism" influenced my intellectual growth in a way that hadn't happened since the Jesuits had their hooks in me in high school. Accompanied by a new-found sobriety this growth has made my writing better. It has sharpened my intellect and allowed me to ride through some pretty tough times. In the past books have had this power, but in 2001-2 it was Steven Den Beste's writing at USS Clueless.
Den Beste stopped writing about current events for a variety of reasons including his health and dealing with nutjobs. He still writes about anime and slips in the odd event at Chizumatic. However I would love nothing better than to read a book of his previous work and maybe even a new piece or two.
For those of you who weren't around back then, Den Beste has a page of what he thinks are his best posts. However he has culled out too much, so it wouldn't hurt to read the entire thing; it just would be easier to read it in a book.
Sarcasm, sarcasm, everywhere....
I saw this note somewhere under an article saying that Rahm Emmanuel will be chief of staff in the new presidency. This comment cracked me up completely. Nice to know how realistic to be. I have a friend who lives in Chicago and seemed to like him, but well, this shows not everyone does.
Hope he takes the position. Can't wait to see the reaction of the US when they finally meet a whole bunch of Chicago Dems. In Chicago, with only Dems (no GOP holding ANY office)... We have low taxes. Free public transportation, no crime AT ALL, gas is nearly free (like $0.25 per gallon). There is zero corruption. Real estate taxes... what is that? Yup. Dems everywhere as far as the eye can see. It's utopia. The sun is always shining. Never snows. Roads are open with no congestion. Gonna be somethin when the Dems are veto-proof there in DC. Bill Daley too!. He's the Brother of King Richard the Bulldozer. Nope. There is NO WAY that Chicago Dems taking over Washington could possibly be bad for America.
Amber M
Hope he takes the position. Can't wait to see the reaction of the US when they finally meet a whole bunch of Chicago Dems. In Chicago, with only Dems (no GOP holding ANY office)... We have low taxes. Free public transportation, no crime AT ALL, gas is nearly free (like $0.25 per gallon). There is zero corruption. Real estate taxes... what is that? Yup. Dems everywhere as far as the eye can see. It's utopia. The sun is always shining. Never snows. Roads are open with no congestion. Gonna be somethin when the Dems are veto-proof there in DC. Bill Daley too!. He's the Brother of King Richard the Bulldozer. Nope. There is NO WAY that Chicago Dems taking over Washington could possibly be bad for America.
Amber M
Hee hee
I wanna t shirt.
I guess it might get me shot.
Have I mentioned liberals have no sense of humor? Usually?
Muah ha ha...
For similar garb, go to www.thatdarnconservative.com
Enjoy your new job, Mr. Obama
The greeting party is already on. How about that?
Russia
Hamas and Israel
England
There are, of course, huge parties going on in Kenya and Indonesia.
I wonder how much Obama is finding out about the world right now? I wonder if he bit off more than he can chew. He'd better appoint some seriously amazing cabinet members.
Russia
Hamas and Israel
England
There are, of course, huge parties going on in Kenya and Indonesia.
I wonder how much Obama is finding out about the world right now? I wonder if he bit off more than he can chew. He'd better appoint some seriously amazing cabinet members.
My thoughts exactly. Only better.
The Common Room had this link and I clicked on it. It cracked me up. Especially the very last line...
President Obama
I hate writing that.
Well, there it is. The only consolation is how amazing it is that a black person became president, which many people never thought they would see. The KKK must be just having fits right now. I can take some solace in that. After all, not that long ago, in the great state of WA, it was illegal for little old me to marry my Filipino husband. Hard to imagine now, isn't it? Especially when your friend says one day, "Oh yeah, I forgot you guys are a biracial couple." I loved that. It cracked me up that someone "forgot". You know who you are... :)
I think that in a couple years, despite having a fully democratic congress, Mr. Obama will fail to achieve everything he promised, because it's so huge it's just not likely. If he can fix health care, we'll all breathe easy, but I think that will mean we all have to give up a lot of freedoms. We'll see how that plays out.
Obama as Commander In Chief gives me the willies, and I'm sure it does the soldiers, too, but again, we'll see who he appoints to where.
Yikes.
I guess there's unity, but I think it's for the wrong reasons. What I don't get is how a person who is black can say that they are voting for Obama just to make history, because he is black. Not because he has already done great things, or because of his character, or even because they agree with him. Just because he's black. And that's not backwards racism? I really don't understand how people don't grasp the irony here.
Please pray for America. Please pray that the constitution remains intact, that people remember that half of the popular vote was not for Obama and that they don't agree with a thing he says. Please remember us if suddenly our rights as people who do not believe in abortion or gay marriage get trampled on, and suddenly free speech is gone. And those of us who believe in the good, the true, the beautiful, forget your differences and unite when it is really important.
God bless America. Our Lady, pray for us.
Well, there it is. The only consolation is how amazing it is that a black person became president, which many people never thought they would see. The KKK must be just having fits right now. I can take some solace in that. After all, not that long ago, in the great state of WA, it was illegal for little old me to marry my Filipino husband. Hard to imagine now, isn't it? Especially when your friend says one day, "Oh yeah, I forgot you guys are a biracial couple." I loved that. It cracked me up that someone "forgot". You know who you are... :)
I think that in a couple years, despite having a fully democratic congress, Mr. Obama will fail to achieve everything he promised, because it's so huge it's just not likely. If he can fix health care, we'll all breathe easy, but I think that will mean we all have to give up a lot of freedoms. We'll see how that plays out.
Obama as Commander In Chief gives me the willies, and I'm sure it does the soldiers, too, but again, we'll see who he appoints to where.
Yikes.
I guess there's unity, but I think it's for the wrong reasons. What I don't get is how a person who is black can say that they are voting for Obama just to make history, because he is black. Not because he has already done great things, or because of his character, or even because they agree with him. Just because he's black. And that's not backwards racism? I really don't understand how people don't grasp the irony here.
Please pray for America. Please pray that the constitution remains intact, that people remember that half of the popular vote was not for Obama and that they don't agree with a thing he says. Please remember us if suddenly our rights as people who do not believe in abortion or gay marriage get trampled on, and suddenly free speech is gone. And those of us who believe in the good, the true, the beautiful, forget your differences and unite when it is really important.
God bless America. Our Lady, pray for us.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Pulitzer prizes
It occurred to me I might be an idiot, and only Americans can get Pulitzers, which would be why O'Brien doesn't get one. But then I looked it up. I don't think O'Brien qualifies, because of this, but maybe he does. I don't think he has a weekly column, but maybe he should get one, just to qualify.
9. Must I be a U.S. citizen to apply for a Pulitzer Prize?
Only U.S. citizens are eligible to apply for the Prizes in Letters, Drama and Music (with the exception of the History category in Letters where the book must be a history of the United States but the author may be of any nationality). For the Journalism competition, entrants may be of any nationality but work must have appeared in a U.S. newspaper published at least once a week or on a newspaper's Web site.
9. Must I be a U.S. citizen to apply for a Pulitzer Prize?
Only U.S. citizens are eligible to apply for the Prizes in Letters, Drama and Music (with the exception of the History category in Letters where the book must be a history of the United States but the author may be of any nationality). For the Journalism competition, entrants may be of any nationality but work must have appeared in a U.S. newspaper published at least once a week or on a newspaper's Web site.
Author Michael O'Brien
This is a fascinating letter, especially if you have read any of Michael O'Brien's books. This guy deserves a Pulitzer, and some people wonder if the reason no one considers that fact is because of anti-Catholic bias. If it's religious, it can't possibly get a nod like a Pulitzer. He's very, very good, well researched, and amazing at making his stories seem real. If you haven't read them yet, I encourage you to pick up one of his books. Fr. Elijah will make more sense if you read the others, but it's also fine on its own.
Enjoy!
Michael O'Brien Newsletter Regarding Barack Obama and the Question of the Anti-Christ
All Saints Day, 1 November 2008
Dear Friends,
From just north of the border, we Canadians, like other people throughout the world, are observing and praying for the coming federal election in the United States of America. I would prefer to keep private my counsel about political choices, because it is not my country. However, I am receiving letters from American subscribers and visitors to my studio website asking me some rather surprising questions about Barack Obama, related to one of my novels.
During the past year I have read a number of his pronouncements, and saw the smoke and mirrors beneath the rhetoric, but couldn't understand why everyone south of the border (the other south of the border, the 49th parallel) was getting so excited about him, both pro and con. Then a few weeks ago a German friend called me immediately after Obama's speech in Berlin, to say that the presidential candidate had mesmerized the crowds, and that a commentator on German television had said: "We have just heard the next President of the United States...and the future President of the World." My friend felt that Obama bore an uncanny resemblance to the fictional character of the President in my novel Father Elijah. I have received several other letters saying the same thing and asking what I thought about it.
From my own reading of Obama's declarations and stated positions, I knew he was an ultra-liberal, a social revolutionary with visionary pretensions. But the Antichrist? No, not possible, I thought. I felt that he was too shallow a man to be the Son of Perdition, the Man of Sin, the Beast of the Book of Revelation. And I still think so. Obama is a crowd-pleaser with just the right ethos of idealistic crusader. That the crusade and the banners under which it marches are evil does not automatically prove that he is the Antichrist.
But now that I have seen the video of the Berlin speech I think there is more here than meets the eye. He is indeed a powerful manipulator of crowds, even as he appears ever so humble and wholesomely charming. I doubt that he is the long-prophesied ruler of the world, but I also believe that he is a carrier of a deadly moral virus, indeed a kind of anti-apostle spreading concepts and agendas that are not only anti-Christ but anti-human as well. In this sense he is of the spirit of Antichrist (perhaps without knowing it), and probably is one of several key figures in the world who (knowingly or unknowingly) will be instrumental in ushering in the time of great trial for the Church under its last and worst persecution, amidst the numerous other tribulations prophesied in the books of Daniel and Revelation, and letters of St Paul, St. John, and St. Peter.
Of course the mystique that has grown up around him is endlessly reinforced by the liberal media, which presents him to us as a high-minded humanist, a kind of secular messiah (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 675). Yet when all the rhetoric is boiled down to its substance, the man is advocating unlimited state-sanctioned murder, and compounds it by indulging in habitual falsehood. He is well accustomed to playing loose with the truth whenever it is expedient for him to do so; or else he is the victim of the largest memory lapses in recorded history; or perhaps he is just not careful about how he expresses things——a blurring or selectivity regarding facts for the purpose of aggrandizing his public image. There is a controversy currently raging in the (admittedly unreliable) forum of the internet, prompted by an African-American talk show host in Los Angeles who listed 39 significant details that Barack Obama claimed were facts about himself, but on further investigation were proved to be simply untrue. There has been some wild-fire debunking of the debunking, and then more counter-debunking, but it remains obvious that forthrightness and clarity are not major concerns in the Obama camp.
What are we to make of a man who has appeared out of semi-obscurity and become, nearly overnight, so very much an idol of the popular imagination? That he intends to become the most effective advocate of murder of the unborn ever seen in America should give us pause. Murder and lies are as old as the lands east of Eden, of course, but when they are charmingly packaged, proposed as reasonable and just policies (with a smile, a resonant voice, and an appealing flash of the eyes), one begins to wonder just what is afoot in the modern age. It brings to mind a passage from the first Act of Shakespeare's Hamlet:
"That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..."
The line is from a scene where prince Hamlet has just encountered the ghost of his father, who informs his son that he was poisoned by his own brother Claudius (the "smiling, damned villain"), who after murdering him, seized the king's crown and his queen.
Barack Obama is an image-maker, creating his own myth as he goes along. This would be a sad defect in any human being, but it takes on ominous proportions in a person who may become, after November 4th, one of the most powerful figures in the world. How is it possible that such a tragic turn of events may come about, if indeed a majority of Americans choose to believe the smile and the myth? Why is it that so many people have come to believe that a mirage is reality, even destiny? Do pro-Obama voters hanker for a world figure who would heal old divisions between races and religions, thus heralding a new age for mankind? During this time of near intolerable tensions, does he appear to be the one who can reconcile Islam and Christianity, Africa and America, occident and orient, black and white, rich and poor? Do they see his racial origins as a symbolic victory over the history of racial oppression? Do they see in him the good-hearted "under-dog", the gutsy street fighter who agitates for the rights of the "little guy," whose meteoric rise to a position of maximum influence represents themselves enthroned at last in the high seat of power? Is this why they ignore his every grave fault and hungrily consume his vague idealist platitudes as if these were a kind of new gospel for the third millennium? Our hero. Our visionary. Our Great Friend and spokesman in the forum of the world?
Clearly, contemporary man needs heroes. But why not choose a genuine one, why not look a little deeper and work a little harder to find a man of courage and principle, and if it helps in the historical healing process, why not a very different kind of black man, say a person like Alan Keyes, a scholar, former ambassador, experienced in different levels of government, and (it might be added) an African-American married to a woman from India. Moreover, he is a devout Catholic who believes in moral absolutes and has amply proved that he will stand firm to defend them regardless of the cost to his own career. He knows that kings and presidents cannot usurp the natural law, the moral order of the universe, without bringing down judgment upon their nations. But it need not be Keyes. It might be any number of other men and women of clear thought and clear principle. Surely there are "Ten Just Men" still out there somewhere in America. So why Obama? And why does he rise and rise as his mouth smiles and smiles, exuding sincerity as he speaks lies and death?
And why, most horribly, most shamefully, are so many Christians of malformed or unformed conscience supporting him? Is it because they have never been clearly instructed in the truth, never understood the foundation upon which the moral cosmos is built? Is morality for them merely another system of abstract "values" in a crowded playing field of such systems, from which one may pick and choose? In the case of Catholics, for example, have they been blinded by a diet of theological nuances and deadly little loopholes offered to them by the committees of national episcopal conferences — committees that have absolutely no authority over Catholics, yet which are widely revered as a kind of alternative Magisterium? Have they been deadened by a habitual dismissing or dissembling of the solid teaching given to them by the universal Church under Peter? Have they grown accustomed to listening to opinion shapers who tell them that certain excellent apostolic Bishops in America who teach the truth without compromise are merely hidebound reactionaries, moralistic extremists, contemporary manifestations of those old boogymen who still haunt the American psyche — the Chillingworths and Dimmesdales and the judges in The Scarlet Letter? And so it goes, this over-reaction to Puritanism played out over centuries, an over-reaction that breeds tragedies a thousand times worse than Salem's. Lies compounding on lies, and it all floats on an ocean of spilled innocent blood. And who can gaze at that ocean (or be splashed by it) without coming to a radical choice: One either turns away into a deeper state of denial, or one turns heart and mind toward the splendor of Truth, and changes one's life accordingly.
Is this why many of our Catholic people have become impulse-driven impressionists? Of course, the blindness is not due to the failure of pastors alone. The Ministry of Disinformation (by which I mean most modern media) has played a major role. There is also the erosion of truth in the education systems, combined with the gradual confusion and weakening of conscience through our addiction to the "soma" drugs supplied by the entertainment industry. Other factors may be the war in Iraq, or Republican economics, or the Bush administration, or the structure of Capitalism itself, or any number of prudential questions in the sociopolitical order, all of which are presently tangled nests of moral dilemma. But why do they not see that these questions are secondary to the fundamental issue of life itself? Why would they replace one reigning oligarchy with another kind of oligarchy — moreover, one that would kill vast numbers of its own citizens?
"I call on heaven and earth today to witness against you: I have set before you life or death, blessing or curse. Choose life, then, so that you and your descendants may live...." (Deuteronomy 30:19)
May God bless and guide you,
in Jesus our Saviour,
with prayers and fasting,
Michael O'Brien
PS: For those interested in a concise examination of the moral parameters of voting in the forthcoming election, I urge you to read an excellent article by Dr. Mark Miravalle, professor of Theology at Franciscan University, Steubenville, available at the following link: http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/index.php?option=com_conte...
Enjoy!
Michael O'Brien Newsletter Regarding Barack Obama and the Question of the Anti-Christ
All Saints Day, 1 November 2008
Dear Friends,
From just north of the border, we Canadians, like other people throughout the world, are observing and praying for the coming federal election in the United States of America. I would prefer to keep private my counsel about political choices, because it is not my country. However, I am receiving letters from American subscribers and visitors to my studio website asking me some rather surprising questions about Barack Obama, related to one of my novels.
During the past year I have read a number of his pronouncements, and saw the smoke and mirrors beneath the rhetoric, but couldn't understand why everyone south of the border (the other south of the border, the 49th parallel) was getting so excited about him, both pro and con. Then a few weeks ago a German friend called me immediately after Obama's speech in Berlin, to say that the presidential candidate had mesmerized the crowds, and that a commentator on German television had said: "We have just heard the next President of the United States...and the future President of the World." My friend felt that Obama bore an uncanny resemblance to the fictional character of the President in my novel Father Elijah. I have received several other letters saying the same thing and asking what I thought about it.
From my own reading of Obama's declarations and stated positions, I knew he was an ultra-liberal, a social revolutionary with visionary pretensions. But the Antichrist? No, not possible, I thought. I felt that he was too shallow a man to be the Son of Perdition, the Man of Sin, the Beast of the Book of Revelation. And I still think so. Obama is a crowd-pleaser with just the right ethos of idealistic crusader. That the crusade and the banners under which it marches are evil does not automatically prove that he is the Antichrist.
But now that I have seen the video of the Berlin speech I think there is more here than meets the eye. He is indeed a powerful manipulator of crowds, even as he appears ever so humble and wholesomely charming. I doubt that he is the long-prophesied ruler of the world, but I also believe that he is a carrier of a deadly moral virus, indeed a kind of anti-apostle spreading concepts and agendas that are not only anti-Christ but anti-human as well. In this sense he is of the spirit of Antichrist (perhaps without knowing it), and probably is one of several key figures in the world who (knowingly or unknowingly) will be instrumental in ushering in the time of great trial for the Church under its last and worst persecution, amidst the numerous other tribulations prophesied in the books of Daniel and Revelation, and letters of St Paul, St. John, and St. Peter.
Of course the mystique that has grown up around him is endlessly reinforced by the liberal media, which presents him to us as a high-minded humanist, a kind of secular messiah (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 675). Yet when all the rhetoric is boiled down to its substance, the man is advocating unlimited state-sanctioned murder, and compounds it by indulging in habitual falsehood. He is well accustomed to playing loose with the truth whenever it is expedient for him to do so; or else he is the victim of the largest memory lapses in recorded history; or perhaps he is just not careful about how he expresses things——a blurring or selectivity regarding facts for the purpose of aggrandizing his public image. There is a controversy currently raging in the (admittedly unreliable) forum of the internet, prompted by an African-American talk show host in Los Angeles who listed 39 significant details that Barack Obama claimed were facts about himself, but on further investigation were proved to be simply untrue. There has been some wild-fire debunking of the debunking, and then more counter-debunking, but it remains obvious that forthrightness and clarity are not major concerns in the Obama camp.
What are we to make of a man who has appeared out of semi-obscurity and become, nearly overnight, so very much an idol of the popular imagination? That he intends to become the most effective advocate of murder of the unborn ever seen in America should give us pause. Murder and lies are as old as the lands east of Eden, of course, but when they are charmingly packaged, proposed as reasonable and just policies (with a smile, a resonant voice, and an appealing flash of the eyes), one begins to wonder just what is afoot in the modern age. It brings to mind a passage from the first Act of Shakespeare's Hamlet:
"That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..."
The line is from a scene where prince Hamlet has just encountered the ghost of his father, who informs his son that he was poisoned by his own brother Claudius (the "smiling, damned villain"), who after murdering him, seized the king's crown and his queen.
Barack Obama is an image-maker, creating his own myth as he goes along. This would be a sad defect in any human being, but it takes on ominous proportions in a person who may become, after November 4th, one of the most powerful figures in the world. How is it possible that such a tragic turn of events may come about, if indeed a majority of Americans choose to believe the smile and the myth? Why is it that so many people have come to believe that a mirage is reality, even destiny? Do pro-Obama voters hanker for a world figure who would heal old divisions between races and religions, thus heralding a new age for mankind? During this time of near intolerable tensions, does he appear to be the one who can reconcile Islam and Christianity, Africa and America, occident and orient, black and white, rich and poor? Do they see his racial origins as a symbolic victory over the history of racial oppression? Do they see in him the good-hearted "under-dog", the gutsy street fighter who agitates for the rights of the "little guy," whose meteoric rise to a position of maximum influence represents themselves enthroned at last in the high seat of power? Is this why they ignore his every grave fault and hungrily consume his vague idealist platitudes as if these were a kind of new gospel for the third millennium? Our hero. Our visionary. Our Great Friend and spokesman in the forum of the world?
Clearly, contemporary man needs heroes. But why not choose a genuine one, why not look a little deeper and work a little harder to find a man of courage and principle, and if it helps in the historical healing process, why not a very different kind of black man, say a person like Alan Keyes, a scholar, former ambassador, experienced in different levels of government, and (it might be added) an African-American married to a woman from India. Moreover, he is a devout Catholic who believes in moral absolutes and has amply proved that he will stand firm to defend them regardless of the cost to his own career. He knows that kings and presidents cannot usurp the natural law, the moral order of the universe, without bringing down judgment upon their nations. But it need not be Keyes. It might be any number of other men and women of clear thought and clear principle. Surely there are "Ten Just Men" still out there somewhere in America. So why Obama? And why does he rise and rise as his mouth smiles and smiles, exuding sincerity as he speaks lies and death?
And why, most horribly, most shamefully, are so many Christians of malformed or unformed conscience supporting him? Is it because they have never been clearly instructed in the truth, never understood the foundation upon which the moral cosmos is built? Is morality for them merely another system of abstract "values" in a crowded playing field of such systems, from which one may pick and choose? In the case of Catholics, for example, have they been blinded by a diet of theological nuances and deadly little loopholes offered to them by the committees of national episcopal conferences — committees that have absolutely no authority over Catholics, yet which are widely revered as a kind of alternative Magisterium? Have they been deadened by a habitual dismissing or dissembling of the solid teaching given to them by the universal Church under Peter? Have they grown accustomed to listening to opinion shapers who tell them that certain excellent apostolic Bishops in America who teach the truth without compromise are merely hidebound reactionaries, moralistic extremists, contemporary manifestations of those old boogymen who still haunt the American psyche — the Chillingworths and Dimmesdales and the judges in The Scarlet Letter? And so it goes, this over-reaction to Puritanism played out over centuries, an over-reaction that breeds tragedies a thousand times worse than Salem's. Lies compounding on lies, and it all floats on an ocean of spilled innocent blood. And who can gaze at that ocean (or be splashed by it) without coming to a radical choice: One either turns away into a deeper state of denial, or one turns heart and mind toward the splendor of Truth, and changes one's life accordingly.
Is this why many of our Catholic people have become impulse-driven impressionists? Of course, the blindness is not due to the failure of pastors alone. The Ministry of Disinformation (by which I mean most modern media) has played a major role. There is also the erosion of truth in the education systems, combined with the gradual confusion and weakening of conscience through our addiction to the "soma" drugs supplied by the entertainment industry. Other factors may be the war in Iraq, or Republican economics, or the Bush administration, or the structure of Capitalism itself, or any number of prudential questions in the sociopolitical order, all of which are presently tangled nests of moral dilemma. But why do they not see that these questions are secondary to the fundamental issue of life itself? Why would they replace one reigning oligarchy with another kind of oligarchy — moreover, one that would kill vast numbers of its own citizens?
"I call on heaven and earth today to witness against you: I have set before you life or death, blessing or curse. Choose life, then, so that you and your descendants may live...." (Deuteronomy 30:19)
May God bless and guide you,
in Jesus our Saviour,
with prayers and fasting,
Michael O'Brien
PS: For those interested in a concise examination of the moral parameters of voting in the forthcoming election, I urge you to read an excellent article by Dr. Mark Miravalle, professor of Theology at Franciscan University, Steubenville, available at the following link: http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/index.php?option=com_conte...
from Because I Said So...
This is totally how it works in my family. You can only get sick at certain times. This lady has the greatest blog and is coming out with a book. Somebody buy it for me, ok?
Saturday, November 1, 2008
What? I Can't Hear You!
Jackson didn't feel well when I picked him up at school for lunch yesterday. He didn't want to go back to school; he just wanted to lie down. On the other hand, he really didn't want to miss the Halloween festivities. He didn't have a fever so I left it up to him and told him he could stay home with my parents who were watching Clay and Brooklyn or he could go back to school with me. He chose to stick it out and return to school.
After class, he went trick-or-treating with some friends and their parents. After a few minutes, he came home complaining that his ear hurt.
"Well, it's a holiday so it stands to reason that someone would get sick."
"I'm not sick. My ear just hurts," Jackson corrected me.
"We'll see," I said. "We'll see."
Jackson woke up today with horrible pain in his ear. It was before 9:00 AM when he told me his ear was hurting really badly.
"Don't you know you're supposed to wait until Saturday night or Sunday to tell me you can't take the ear pain and need to see the doctor?" I asked Jackson.
"Huh?" came his confused reply.
"I believe the rule is that you can only get sick Saturday night, Sunday, holidays, or on vacation. You're confusing me by getting sick during regular office hours."
Jackson wasn't amused.
I called the office when they opened at 9:00 and drove Jackson over to be seen. The doctor took a look at his ear and said something reassuring like, "Yikes! That is one nasty infection!"
A stop at the drug store and $20 later, we came home and he took his first dose. He lay down and starting really crying that he was in pain. I got some Motrin, but before I could give it to him, he said, "Huh, my ear feels better now. It doesn't hurt. Weird. It feels all drippy and wet though. I still can't hear with this ear though."
"What?" I asked him.
"I still can't hear with this ear," he repeated.
"What?"
"I still can't hear with this ear," he repeated again.
"What? I can't hear you."
"I still can't....MOM! Stop it!"
LOL! Ahhh, that one never gets old.
I took a look and sure enough, his ear was draining blood and stuff. "Well, it's been a year since someone had a perforated ear drum. I guess it's about time for another one. Come to think of it, it's been several months since strep throat made its rounds through our family too..."
*****Head on over to my review blog HERE for some awesome giveaways over the next week or two.*****
Posted by Dawn at 11:59 AM 33 comments Links to this post
Saturday, November 1, 2008
What? I Can't Hear You!
Jackson didn't feel well when I picked him up at school for lunch yesterday. He didn't want to go back to school; he just wanted to lie down. On the other hand, he really didn't want to miss the Halloween festivities. He didn't have a fever so I left it up to him and told him he could stay home with my parents who were watching Clay and Brooklyn or he could go back to school with me. He chose to stick it out and return to school.
After class, he went trick-or-treating with some friends and their parents. After a few minutes, he came home complaining that his ear hurt.
"Well, it's a holiday so it stands to reason that someone would get sick."
"I'm not sick. My ear just hurts," Jackson corrected me.
"We'll see," I said. "We'll see."
Jackson woke up today with horrible pain in his ear. It was before 9:00 AM when he told me his ear was hurting really badly.
"Don't you know you're supposed to wait until Saturday night or Sunday to tell me you can't take the ear pain and need to see the doctor?" I asked Jackson.
"Huh?" came his confused reply.
"I believe the rule is that you can only get sick Saturday night, Sunday, holidays, or on vacation. You're confusing me by getting sick during regular office hours."
Jackson wasn't amused.
I called the office when they opened at 9:00 and drove Jackson over to be seen. The doctor took a look at his ear and said something reassuring like, "Yikes! That is one nasty infection!"
A stop at the drug store and $20 later, we came home and he took his first dose. He lay down and starting really crying that he was in pain. I got some Motrin, but before I could give it to him, he said, "Huh, my ear feels better now. It doesn't hurt. Weird. It feels all drippy and wet though. I still can't hear with this ear though."
"What?" I asked him.
"I still can't hear with this ear," he repeated.
"What?"
"I still can't hear with this ear," he repeated again.
"What? I can't hear you."
"I still can't....MOM! Stop it!"
LOL! Ahhh, that one never gets old.
I took a look and sure enough, his ear was draining blood and stuff. "Well, it's been a year since someone had a perforated ear drum. I guess it's about time for another one. Come to think of it, it's been several months since strep throat made its rounds through our family too..."
*****Head on over to my review blog HERE for some awesome giveaways over the next week or two.*****
Posted by Dawn at 11:59 AM 33 comments Links to this post
A well-educated Pope
Contrary to popular belief, the Church believes in science, too. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Vatican
Pope says no to chaos, points to God as author of universe
Vatican City, Oct 31, 2008 / 12:56 pm (CNA).- On Friday, the first of a four day meeting held by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the topic of evolution, Pope Benedict drew a hard line against those who say that God did not create the universe.
Pope Benedict’s 15 minute-long speech to the academics was packed with theological reflection and insight into the issues that the scientific and academic communities must grapple with to come to a fuller understanding of the universe.
The Holy Father began his talk by pointing out that both Pius XII and John Paul II emphasized that "there is no opposition between faith's understanding of creation and the evidence of the empirical sciences.”
Benedict XVI then traced the development of philosophical thought on the origins of the universe. “Philosophy in its early stages had proposed images to explain the origin of the cosmos on the basis of one or more elements of the material world. This genesis was not seen as a creation, but rather a mutation or transformation."
As the philosophical world further contemplated life’s origins, it came to realize that, "In order to develop and evolve, the world must first 'be,' and thus have come from nothing into being. It must be created, in other words, by the first Being who is such by essence," the Pope explained.
"To state that the foundation of the cosmos and its developments is the provident wisdom of the Creator is not to say," Benedict XVI said, referencing St. Thomas Aquinas, "that creation has only to do with the beginning of the history of the world and of life. It implies, rather, that the Creator founds these developments and supports them, underpins them and sustains them continuously."
The Pope also drew on Galileo who "saw nature as a book whose author is God in the same way that Scripture has God as its author." Contrary to those theories of evolution that describe creation as emerging from chaos, Pope Benedict asserted that "this image also helps us to understand that the world, far from originating out of chaos, resembles an ordered book; it is a cosmos."
Moreover, mankind is more than a “simple living being,” the Pope stressed, in fact, he is a “spiritual being” that has a capacity for God and is transcendent in nature. This is why, he concluded, "the Magisterium of the Church has constantly affirmed that 'every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not 'produced' by the parents - and also that it is immortal.' This points to the distinctiveness of anthropology and invites exploration of it by modern thought."
Pope Benedict XVI closed his address by recalling the words of his predecessor John Paul II to the academy in November 2003: "scientific truth, which is itself a participation in divine Truth, can help philosophy and theology to understand ever more fully the human person and God’s Revelation about man, a Revelation that is completed and perfected in Jesus Christ. For this important mutual enrichment in the search for the truth and the benefit of mankind, I am, with the whole Church, profoundly grateful."
Vatican
Pope says no to chaos, points to God as author of universe
Vatican City, Oct 31, 2008 / 12:56 pm (CNA).- On Friday, the first of a four day meeting held by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the topic of evolution, Pope Benedict drew a hard line against those who say that God did not create the universe.
Pope Benedict’s 15 minute-long speech to the academics was packed with theological reflection and insight into the issues that the scientific and academic communities must grapple with to come to a fuller understanding of the universe.
The Holy Father began his talk by pointing out that both Pius XII and John Paul II emphasized that "there is no opposition between faith's understanding of creation and the evidence of the empirical sciences.”
Benedict XVI then traced the development of philosophical thought on the origins of the universe. “Philosophy in its early stages had proposed images to explain the origin of the cosmos on the basis of one or more elements of the material world. This genesis was not seen as a creation, but rather a mutation or transformation."
As the philosophical world further contemplated life’s origins, it came to realize that, "In order to develop and evolve, the world must first 'be,' and thus have come from nothing into being. It must be created, in other words, by the first Being who is such by essence," the Pope explained.
"To state that the foundation of the cosmos and its developments is the provident wisdom of the Creator is not to say," Benedict XVI said, referencing St. Thomas Aquinas, "that creation has only to do with the beginning of the history of the world and of life. It implies, rather, that the Creator founds these developments and supports them, underpins them and sustains them continuously."
The Pope also drew on Galileo who "saw nature as a book whose author is God in the same way that Scripture has God as its author." Contrary to those theories of evolution that describe creation as emerging from chaos, Pope Benedict asserted that "this image also helps us to understand that the world, far from originating out of chaos, resembles an ordered book; it is a cosmos."
Moreover, mankind is more than a “simple living being,” the Pope stressed, in fact, he is a “spiritual being” that has a capacity for God and is transcendent in nature. This is why, he concluded, "the Magisterium of the Church has constantly affirmed that 'every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not 'produced' by the parents - and also that it is immortal.' This points to the distinctiveness of anthropology and invites exploration of it by modern thought."
Pope Benedict XVI closed his address by recalling the words of his predecessor John Paul II to the academy in November 2003: "scientific truth, which is itself a participation in divine Truth, can help philosophy and theology to understand ever more fully the human person and God’s Revelation about man, a Revelation that is completed and perfected in Jesus Christ. For this important mutual enrichment in the search for the truth and the benefit of mankind, I am, with the whole Church, profoundly grateful."
Election Day is finally, finally here
Well, I'm praying my fanny off, hoping for the best but fearing the worst. But at least the day has come and we can get on with the next part soon, I hope. Today I will drop off my mail-in ballot at the library (I didn't know they were open for business yesterday, or I would have dropped it off then). I will also return a waffle maker I bought with my birthday money that didn't work on one side. ARGH. Half done waffles really baked my morning yesterday. Good thing, for once, I held on to the receipt.
I got a phone call from a Dino Rossi (for Governor) volunteer last night. The poor guy was so nervous, he sounded like he could barely talk. Someone must have chewed him out. I told him he could absolutely count on my vote. I have to say, making calls is not something I can do. I can stand on the Planned Parenthood sidewalk and pray, but somehow cold calling freaks me out. Go figure.
One kid is up and the others are not, but I really should clean the house as Rosary will be at our house for the next two Wednesdays.
I've been using mvelopes.com to keep track of my money and I have made one fascinating observation. Having my kids in sports and activities is EXPENSIVE. Therefore, I have decided to put off swimming lessons til spring instead of doing them in winter like I normally do. Sadness, but really, I should spend this winter doing all the indoor things I meant to do, anyway. Like organizing. Remember how I gave up grading papers to work on ME this year? Yeah... I like procrastinating. But as the weather gets worse, I will be forced to do what I meant to do, and that's a good thing. Then maybe next year I can grade again.
Well, keep praying folks, no matter how the election turns out.
If Obama wins, and it looks like he may, I can't wait to see what happens in a year or two when the press finds out they've been had and he's just another politician.
I got a phone call from a Dino Rossi (for Governor) volunteer last night. The poor guy was so nervous, he sounded like he could barely talk. Someone must have chewed him out. I told him he could absolutely count on my vote. I have to say, making calls is not something I can do. I can stand on the Planned Parenthood sidewalk and pray, but somehow cold calling freaks me out. Go figure.
One kid is up and the others are not, but I really should clean the house as Rosary will be at our house for the next two Wednesdays.
I've been using mvelopes.com to keep track of my money and I have made one fascinating observation. Having my kids in sports and activities is EXPENSIVE. Therefore, I have decided to put off swimming lessons til spring instead of doing them in winter like I normally do. Sadness, but really, I should spend this winter doing all the indoor things I meant to do, anyway. Like organizing. Remember how I gave up grading papers to work on ME this year? Yeah... I like procrastinating. But as the weather gets worse, I will be forced to do what I meant to do, and that's a good thing. Then maybe next year I can grade again.
Well, keep praying folks, no matter how the election turns out.
If Obama wins, and it looks like he may, I can't wait to see what happens in a year or two when the press finds out they've been had and he's just another politician.
Monday, November 3, 2008
40 Days for Life is over ... for now.
This fall I participated in 40 Days for Life. It was very interesting. Every time I went out on the sidewalk, I heard stories I needed to hear. The last one was a woman who has been doing ministry by going to jails to talk with people. At one visit, a woman was being released from jail and intended to have an abortion when she got out. This woman who has been visiting offered to help her get help to raise the baby and to find ways for her to stay off drugs and the boyfriend to stay off alcohol. The baby was born ten days ago, and the parents are referring to this woman as "grandma". They are staying off the bad stuff because of her. She is making a real difference in lives, not just by holding signs and protesting abortion, but dedicating a portion of her life to supporting strangers when they need someone most. If all of us reached out to just one person in this way, this world would certainly be a different place. It was so good to hear her story.
Here is the news release from this fall's 40 Days for Life.
National 40 Days for Life Campaign Director David Bereit
Washington DC, Nov 1, 2008 / 12:03 pm (CNA).- The pro-life organization 40 Days for Life is nearing the end of its Fall campaign of prayer, fasting, and vigils near abortion facilities. Leaders claimed the campaign helped save 441 babies from abortion and advanced outreach to those who suffer the aftereffects of or have assisted in abortions.
The campaign began on September 24 and included participants in 175 communities in 47 states and two Canadian provinces. It formally ends on Sunday.
“Even after praying and fasting for 40 days - and being involved in vigils that in many cities went round the clock, seven days a week -many of the people who are participating in this campaign simply don't want to see it end," said David Bereit, national campaign director of 40 Days for Life. "Tens of thousands of people have prayed in front of abortion facilities, many for the first time. They see the impact of that peaceful presence, and they yearn to keep going."
"People across the country have expressed an interest in getting involved in the effort to end abortion," Bereit continued, "but far too often, they didn't know where to start. 40 Days for Life provided a starting point. Now they've seen what can happen; and now that they've taken that first step, they're eagerly anticipating additional opportunities for continuing their pro-life outreach."
Bereit added that the campaign’s vigils show the importance of being physically present at the clinics.
“This is where the evil of abortion is committed; this is where the evil of abortion must be confronted. People who seek the services of abortionists are people who have lost hope. The sight of people engaged in peaceful, prayerful vigil sends a message of hope at precisely the time these women need it the most. We must - and we will - continue to be present to offer that hope.”
Some volunteers in some cities are discussing extending the daily vigils, even until the clinics are closed. Volunteers have reportedly expressed interest in becoming involved in sidewalk counseling, post-abortion ministry and pregnancy resource centers.
“We know of at least 441 lives that were saved from abortion as a result of the 40 Days for Life effort thus far," said Bereit. "But those are not the only lives that have been changed. We hear every day about people seeking help who have been dealing with abortion experiences - some of them have been hurting for more than 30 years. There are people in the abortion industry who have been touched by this effort. They, too, are witnessing the power of prayer at work first hand.”
“We've seen the evidence that God has blessed this effort, and we can't wait to see where He will lead us next,” Bereit concluded.
Here is the news release from this fall's 40 Days for Life.
National 40 Days for Life Campaign Director David Bereit
Washington DC, Nov 1, 2008 / 12:03 pm (CNA).- The pro-life organization 40 Days for Life is nearing the end of its Fall campaign of prayer, fasting, and vigils near abortion facilities. Leaders claimed the campaign helped save 441 babies from abortion and advanced outreach to those who suffer the aftereffects of or have assisted in abortions.
The campaign began on September 24 and included participants in 175 communities in 47 states and two Canadian provinces. It formally ends on Sunday.
“Even after praying and fasting for 40 days - and being involved in vigils that in many cities went round the clock, seven days a week -many of the people who are participating in this campaign simply don't want to see it end," said David Bereit, national campaign director of 40 Days for Life. "Tens of thousands of people have prayed in front of abortion facilities, many for the first time. They see the impact of that peaceful presence, and they yearn to keep going."
"People across the country have expressed an interest in getting involved in the effort to end abortion," Bereit continued, "but far too often, they didn't know where to start. 40 Days for Life provided a starting point. Now they've seen what can happen; and now that they've taken that first step, they're eagerly anticipating additional opportunities for continuing their pro-life outreach."
Bereit added that the campaign’s vigils show the importance of being physically present at the clinics.
“This is where the evil of abortion is committed; this is where the evil of abortion must be confronted. People who seek the services of abortionists are people who have lost hope. The sight of people engaged in peaceful, prayerful vigil sends a message of hope at precisely the time these women need it the most. We must - and we will - continue to be present to offer that hope.”
Some volunteers in some cities are discussing extending the daily vigils, even until the clinics are closed. Volunteers have reportedly expressed interest in becoming involved in sidewalk counseling, post-abortion ministry and pregnancy resource centers.
“We know of at least 441 lives that were saved from abortion as a result of the 40 Days for Life effort thus far," said Bereit. "But those are not the only lives that have been changed. We hear every day about people seeking help who have been dealing with abortion experiences - some of them have been hurting for more than 30 years. There are people in the abortion industry who have been touched by this effort. They, too, are witnessing the power of prayer at work first hand.”
“We've seen the evidence that God has blessed this effort, and we can't wait to see where He will lead us next,” Bereit concluded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
