I'm sorry, I know she says she's not a cat person, but she's kind of asking for it here.
Kathleen Cochrane of Fox8 News doing your basic local fuzzy animal story.
I'd love to see the workman's comp paperwork for this one...
Since when do yowls like that indicate that an animal is having "fun"? Just because it's cute and fuzzy doesn't mean it likes you. They could have placed the cat up on a table or something, but nooooooo the ditsy reporter had to hold it, and in a very uncomfortable position.
Respect the cats, people. They are miniature predators with minds of their own. That's why we love them.
She's lucky the cat only boxed her ears and didn't go for her eyes.
The social, cultural, spiritual, political, academic, and literary rantings of a slightly strange Catholic English teacher.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Early American Feminists were Pro-Life.
This includes Susan B. Anthony and Sarah F. Norton.
Old news, but worth reiterating once in awhile.
To read more, click here.
And here are some folks who are carrying that legacy forward.
Old news, but worth reiterating once in awhile.
To read more, click here.
And here are some folks who are carrying that legacy forward.
Wedding Vows!
Catholic wedding vows are just gorgeous. I know, because I took them myself along with my husband. *blissful sigh*
They take up a lot of space on paper, but boy do they go fast when you take them.
Here's a sample.I've inserted our own names because "name 1" and "name 2" just do not sound terribly romantic, do they?
They take up a lot of space on paper, but boy do they go fast when you take them.
Here's a sample.I've inserted our own names because "name 1" and "name 2" just do not sound terribly romantic, do they?
Invitation to the Rite of Marriage
Celebrant introduces the rite of marriage with these or similar words:
My dear friends, you have come together in this church so that the Lord may seal and strengthen your love in the presence of the Church's minister and this community. Christ abundantly blesses this love. He has already consecrated you in baptism and now he enriches and strengthens you by a special sacrament so that you may assume the duties of marriage in mutual and lasting fidelity. And so, in the presence of the Church, I ask you to state your intentions.
Stating Intentions
Celebrant:
Alan and Christina, have you come here freely and without reservation
to give yourselves to each other in marriage?
Alan: I have.
Christina: I have.
Celebrant:
Will you love and honor each other as man and wife
for the rest of your lives?
Alan: I will.
Christina: I will.
Celebrant:
Will you accept children lovingly form God
and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?
Alan: I will.
Christina: I will.
Exchange of Consent (Marriage Vows)
Groom
I, Alan, take you, Christina, to be my wife.
I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health.
I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.
Bride or
I, Christina, take you, Alan, to be my husband.
I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health.
I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.
Celebrant:
You have declared your consent before the church.
May the Lord in his goodness strengthen your consent
and fill your both with his blessings.
What God has joined, no one must divide.
All: Amen.
Blessing of Rings {Options available}
A
Celebrant: May the Lord bless + these rings
which you give to each other as the sign of your love and fidelity.
All: Amen.
Exchange Of Rings
Groom
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Bride
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
"I choose not to cooperate"--Spiritual Mr. Spock?
Yes, I watch Star Trek. I'm not the kind of Trekkie/Trekker, who runs around wearing a Starfleet uniform to the supermarket or anything, but I have a healthy enjoyment of the show..So, back to Mr. Spock. Naturally, such a beloved character had to make a guest appearance on Star Trek the Next Generation. During that particular episode, he found himself being held hostage by hostile aliens, who demanded that he do as they said, or be killed. His response, in his cool, dispassionate, Vulcan manner was as follows:
"Since it is logical to conclude that you will kill us in any event, I choose not to cooperate."
Probably one of my favorite Spock lines of all time. It's so applicable to everyday life.
Take for example, people who get annoyed (or belligerent) when they see acts of personal piety. Catholic Mom recently blogged on the subject. She writes
Rich Leonardi writes of his transition to receiving Communion on the tongue. This is not a required transition. Rich in no way suggests it makes him more Catholic than those who receive in the hand .... But predictably, someone objects to this practice with the words “I don't understand why people like you think that your way is always better. And that you are in someway a better Catholic.” I cringe at that comment because it is such sentiments that keep me from wearing a veil. Personally I find the idea of wearing a veil appealing. ... It is a desire to mark my unique womanly vocation within the Church. At the same time it is a personal reminder of the necessary humility with which I should approach Our Lord. ...We have a dozen or so women in our parish who regularly wear a veil. I have heard others murmuring, “I don’t know why she has to act so holy. There is just no reason to fall back to the old ways. It is just too showy!” I don’t want to be “showy”. I don’t want to be a distraction to those around me. So I am still bareheaded. Maybe someday.
I understand her trepidation. Coming from a region of the US where veils were considered not only too old fashioned, but anachronistic and anti-feminist, I probably would have been excoriated (at least behind my back) for wearing one in many parishes. It's too bad. People shouldn't feel threatened by someone else's act of personal devotion, and the rest of us shouldn't feel cowed by their displeasure. But, there it is.
Despite my own uneasiness about veils, as my wedding approached, I became increasingly aware of how profound my vocation as a wife would be, and I began to want to let it be visible. More visible than any ring I'd ever want to wear. At least, anyway, while I go to mass. I suppose I was inspired by the veil I wore when I took my wedding vows, and some of the nuns I have seen, who wear their vocations so humbly in both their dress and their demeanor. So a day or two before my wedding, I went out and bought a little chapel veil. I started wearing it about a month after I married. It took me a little while, even then, to get over myself and not be so self-conscious about it.
It's been good for me. I like having something to wear that reminds me it's time to quiet down and really be there for mass. In some ways it works like blinders do on a horse, helping me avoid unnecessary distractions. I'm less likely to spend time before mass chitchatting. I dress in a more subdued way than I used to. I generally feel more prayerful.
Having moved away from where I used to live, to a place where personal piety isn't quite so controversial, I haven't had much opportunity to be insulted to my face over it. I'm one of only two women I regularly see at the same mass wearing one, but on those rare occasions when anyone says something, it's been positive so far. It's possible my ethnic background helps, though. Some people probably just assume it's a Hispanic thing. It should be interesting to see what happens when I start making visits back to my natal territories, though.
Anyway, when I made the choice to wear the veil, I also made the choice to take any criticism that might come from it. If another person feels that threatened by a little piece of lace, there's a good chance I won't be able to avoid annoying them anyway. And, since it's logical to conclude that they'll dislike me in any event, I choose not to cooperate. :)
Migraines: Another reason to consider NFP...
Those of us who have migraine headaches already know we hate them.The British Medical Journal says they also double our risk of stroke.
Goody.
And if your migraines come with an aura it gets even better:
Those with migraine with aura were at even greater risk than those with migraine without aura. Finally, migraineurs who used oral contraceptives were eight times more likely to have a stroke than those not using these agents.
Oh, and if you smoke while on the pill, the risk is even higher.
Now I know some of you think you just can't live without your birth control pills. But is it really worth that kind of risk?
Something to think about.
Symptothermal Natural Family Planning is one of the few methods whose success rates compare to the Pill.
Just a thought.
------------------
Update:
Ladies, if you think your migraines may be connected to PMS, charting methods associated with natural family planning can help you determine if this is true. With the help of a doctor familiar with your method, you might even be able to do something about it without the use of synthetic hormones. This is especially the case for those of you using the Creighton Model Fertility Care System, especially if you have access to a doctor familiar with NaProTechnology. See the "Natural Family Planning" and "Infertility Support" tabs for links to more information.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Which states plan to mandate Gardasil?
Here is a list of states with links to the related legislation.
Some are only requiring insurance coverage of the vaccine, others mandating that the vaccine go to certain age groups of girls before they enter school. Others are doing different things.
At this point, the states in which Gardasil-Related legislation has been introduced are as follows:
Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, California, Connecticut, DC, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia.
That's 36 states, and The District of Columbia.
The website also tracks the status of various bills and executive orders.
Some are only requiring insurance coverage of the vaccine, others mandating that the vaccine go to certain age groups of girls before they enter school. Others are doing different things.
At this point, the states in which Gardasil-Related legislation has been introduced are as follows:
Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, California, Connecticut, DC, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia.
That's 36 states, and The District of Columbia.
The website also tracks the status of various bills and executive orders.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
2008 Presidential Rat Race: Tancredo & Catholics
A rumor reached me through a commenter that Tom Tancredo may be anti-Catholic. I thought this worth investigation. My conclusion? He is minimally guilty of stupidity and carelessness. I don't have enough evidence at this point to say for sure that he is anti-Catholic. This would require a pattern, and there's not enough data here for that.
The heart of this controversy, at least according to some of the other blogs out there is a brief conversation on the July 19 edition of "Today's Issues", a conservative Christian talk show on American Family Radio. Tancredo has been critical of statements from the American Catholic Bishops on immigration policy. The bishops have expressed disappointment with several of the proposed solutions to the question of illegal immigration. A caller suggested that their perspective is part of a sinister conspiracy for the Church to take over the country. Here's the section of the conversation that is generating discussions:
CALLER, "LORETTA FROM TENNESSEE": First off, there's a church that says to its judges, if you have to choose between the church and the Constitution, choose the church. Secondly, there is a document, it must be available because I got it. I think was written by Pope Leo the Twelfth, the Fifteenth. I can never get those roman numerals right. And the document is entitled 'Making America Catholic.' There is another thing, this is the first time in US history that we have had a majority of Catholics on the Supreme Court. And I think the immigration issue may be more of getting immigrants into this country to present a bloc of voters that are voting one way from that standpoint. It's just a thought. (...)
TANCREDO: The caller does bring up an interesting point in terms of the enormous power and prestige of the Catholic Church in this debate. They are very, very heavily involved in the open borders movement.
FEMALE CO-HOST: Really?
TANCREDO: Oh, yes m'am. The National Council of Bishops have written extensively on this. They have certainly attacked me and a lot of others who want to secure the borders. A lot of motives have been ascribed to them. I can't speak to it. I was raised a Catholic, spent 12 years in Catholic schools. I'm an evangelical Presbyterian today. So i can't really speak to the motivation of the church. But the lady does have a point about the church's involvement. Also, the Mormon Church is heavily involved in the issue. Heavily, heavily supportive of open borders.
The transcript doesn't show it, but before Tancredo responds, the provide an almost musical chorus of hmming and ooing and ahhing over the caller's interesting statements. (You can listen to the whole show by opening this link in windows media player, or another program that handles .wma files. The interview begins about 12 minutes into the show. Listener calls begin about 41 minutes into the show.)
Now, the idea that the Church uses immigration to take over the country is an old one, going back a long way the US's relatively short history. It is clear that the caller subscribes to this. Tancredo, in saying that she has a point is at the very least making a rather dangerous political error.
But, is he Anti-Catholic? I'm not ready to make up my mind yet. I'd certainly say he put his foot in it though.
I will say this though: If the Catholic Church is as powerful as the conspiracy theorists think, and if it is really determined to do an organized takeover of the U.S, it would have happened already.
Here is what the Bishops have said recently about immigration issues.
As to any documents by Pope Leo the THIRTEENTH, under the title the caller gives, I can find none. At least, not with google anyway. My search did reveal a lot of websites pointing to anti-catholic conspiracy theories such as that which the caller mentions. The Archives at the University of Notre Dame lists the title "Making America Catholic by Order of Pope Pius X - Roman Catholic Principles as defined by Popes, Prelates and Priests" in a list of anti-Catholic publications. Ironically, the caller also comments that this show has some of the most astute listeners she has ever heard, and then presents the existence of this supposed papal documents as FACT. Which means, Miss Loretta from Tennessee, you need to check the authenticity of your sources and facts before you make statements on national radio.
Hat Tips:
Max Blumenthal
The heart of this controversy, at least according to some of the other blogs out there is a brief conversation on the July 19 edition of "Today's Issues", a conservative Christian talk show on American Family Radio. Tancredo has been critical of statements from the American Catholic Bishops on immigration policy. The bishops have expressed disappointment with several of the proposed solutions to the question of illegal immigration. A caller suggested that their perspective is part of a sinister conspiracy for the Church to take over the country. Here's the section of the conversation that is generating discussions:
CALLER, "LORETTA FROM TENNESSEE": First off, there's a church that says to its judges, if you have to choose between the church and the Constitution, choose the church. Secondly, there is a document, it must be available because I got it. I think was written by Pope Leo the Twelfth, the Fifteenth. I can never get those roman numerals right. And the document is entitled 'Making America Catholic.' There is another thing, this is the first time in US history that we have had a majority of Catholics on the Supreme Court. And I think the immigration issue may be more of getting immigrants into this country to present a bloc of voters that are voting one way from that standpoint. It's just a thought. (...)
TANCREDO: The caller does bring up an interesting point in terms of the enormous power and prestige of the Catholic Church in this debate. They are very, very heavily involved in the open borders movement.
FEMALE CO-HOST: Really?
TANCREDO: Oh, yes m'am. The National Council of Bishops have written extensively on this. They have certainly attacked me and a lot of others who want to secure the borders. A lot of motives have been ascribed to them. I can't speak to it. I was raised a Catholic, spent 12 years in Catholic schools. I'm an evangelical Presbyterian today. So i can't really speak to the motivation of the church. But the lady does have a point about the church's involvement. Also, the Mormon Church is heavily involved in the issue. Heavily, heavily supportive of open borders.
The transcript doesn't show it, but before Tancredo responds, the provide an almost musical chorus of hmming and ooing and ahhing over the caller's interesting statements. (You can listen to the whole show by opening this link in windows media player, or another program that handles .wma files. The interview begins about 12 minutes into the show. Listener calls begin about 41 minutes into the show.)
Now, the idea that the Church uses immigration to take over the country is an old one, going back a long way the US's relatively short history. It is clear that the caller subscribes to this. Tancredo, in saying that she has a point is at the very least making a rather dangerous political error.
But, is he Anti-Catholic? I'm not ready to make up my mind yet. I'd certainly say he put his foot in it though.
I will say this though: If the Catholic Church is as powerful as the conspiracy theorists think, and if it is really determined to do an organized takeover of the U.S, it would have happened already.
Here is what the Bishops have said recently about immigration issues.
As to any documents by Pope Leo the THIRTEENTH, under the title the caller gives, I can find none. At least, not with google anyway. My search did reveal a lot of websites pointing to anti-catholic conspiracy theories such as that which the caller mentions. The Archives at the University of Notre Dame lists the title "Making America Catholic by Order of Pope Pius X - Roman Catholic Principles as defined by Popes, Prelates and Priests" in a list of anti-Catholic publications. Ironically, the caller also comments that this show has some of the most astute listeners she has ever heard, and then presents the existence of this supposed papal documents as FACT. Which means, Miss Loretta from Tennessee, you need to check the authenticity of your sources and facts before you make statements on national radio.
Hat Tips:
Max Blumenthal
Monday, March 12, 2007
2008 Presidential Rat Race: Starting Positions
Some candidates have issues. Others stand on issues. A few avoid issues altogether.
I've been doing a little homework. Here's what I've learned about some of these candidates and their positions with regard to three current hotbutton issues that should matter to every conscientious Catholic voter.
The information here was taken from SelectSmart.com.
Their source references are duplicated here, where possible. Such sources include public statements by candidates, satisfaction ratings from organizations, and public voting records. They also link to candidate websites.
I've been doing a little homework. Here's what I've learned about some of these candidates and their positions with regard to three current hotbutton issues that should matter to every conscientious Catholic voter.
Candidate | Abortion | Embryonic Stem Cell Research | Same-Sex Marriage |
Biden | Pro-abortion; 100% Planned Parenthood score in most recent ratings. Source | Supports | Supports |
Brownback | Pro-Life."Abortion ends a human life...I believe we should strive to fully embrace a culture of life through our national politics. I will continue to fight to protect life at every stage." Source Has support of Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life. | Opposes. Source | "Marriage is the union of one man and one woman." Source |
Clark | Pro-abortion.Source. | Supports. Source. | Supports gay domestic partnership benefits. Source. |
Clinton | Pro-Abortion | Supports.. | Voted against constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. Supports gay domestic partnership benefits. |
| Dodd | Pro-Abortion. Supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 100% in 2006. Source | Supports Source | Opposes constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. |
| Edwards | Pro-Abortion. Supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2003 | Supports | Supports civil unions, but not same sex marriages |
| Gingrich | Moderately pro-life. Favors abortion only for cases of incest, rape, or when the life of the mother is endangered. Source | Supports domestic partner benefits, "unsure" about same-sex mariage. | |
| Giuliani | Pro-Choice. Supports public funding of abortion as a "constitutional right" | Supports | Supports Domestic Partnerships |
| Hagel | Moderately Pro-Life: Supports abortion when the life of the mother is endangered | Opposes Federal support. Source | Voted for an amendment to the Constitution to define a marriage as a union between only a man and a woman |
| Huckabee | Moderately pro-life. Supports abortion when the life of the mother is endangered. Opposes public funding for abortions organizations that advocate or perform abortions Source | Opposes same-sex marriage. Says we should “support gay couples” | |
| Hunter | Pro-life. National Right to Life Committee gives Hunter a 100% score. | Opposes | Opposes civil unions |
Kucinich | Pro-Abortion | Supports | Supports gay marriage (Opposes marriage amendment.) |
| McCain | Moderately Pro Choice. 75% rating from NRLC. | Supports on existing lines, opposes on new. | Supports civil unions, opposes gay marriage. |
McManigal | Pro-choice. Opposes restrictions. Opposes federal funding of abortion. | Opposes federal funding. Supports private. | Supports gay marriage |
Obama | Pro-Choice. 100% ratings from Planned Parenthood and NARAL | Supports | Opposes gay marriage, supports civil unions. |
Paul | Pro-Life | Opposes expansion | Supports Civil Unions |
| Richardson | Pro-Abortion. Opposed Partial Birth Abortion ban. | Supports | Opposes same sex marriage, suppots civil unions |
Romney | Pro-abortion as Mass. Governor. Flipped to Pro-life when running for President. | Vetoed a Mass. Stem cell research bill. | Supports domestic partnerships, opposes marriage and civil unions. Supports homosexual adoption. |
Tancredo | Pro-Life | Opposes funding. | Opposes same-sex marriage |
The information here was taken from SelectSmart.com.
Their source references are duplicated here, where possible. Such sources include public statements by candidates, satisfaction ratings from organizations, and public voting records. They also link to candidate websites.
It's better to be sick in some states than others
According to the National Right to Life Committee, you are more likely to share the tragic and outrageous fate of Terri Schiavo in some states than in others. In the worst states, even your own advance directives requesting fluids and nutrition can be overruled by doctors.
Scary? Definitely.
Read more.
See a Map.
Scary? Definitely.
Read more.
See a Map.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Phobias, anxieties, and Lent.
Very often, phobias diminish one's ability to participate fully in the life experience one is supposed to have.
At other times, they can teach valuable lessons.
Like this one.
Hat Tip: Happy Catholic.
At other times, they can teach valuable lessons.
Like this one.
Hat Tip: Happy Catholic.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Monkey Muffins!
I love watching M*A*S*H. It's a perfect balance of goofy humor and serious social commentary.
Colonel Potter is one of my favorite characters. He is the kind of authority figure I think anyone can respect. He takes his role seriously, but has good horse sense when it comes to dealing with people. Ideal characteristics for a commander and a doctor, or any kind of leader, for that matter.
One other aspect of Potter's character that I like is his old-fashioned politeness, even in his most gruff moments. This forces him to use the kind of verbal creativity sorely lacking among most of the rest of us when we are frustrated. Where most people would utter a tired string of hackneyed expletives, often referring to bovine excrement, Potter expresses anger forcefully, uniquely, and without compromising his character.
TV Acres lists some of his catchphrases:
"Horse Hockey!" - When the veteran military career officer Colonel Sherman Potter (Harry Morgan) got angry at his troops on the military comedy M*A*S*H/CBS/1972-83 he shouted phrases like "Horse Hockey!" But the power of his putdowns came mostly from his "bark" rather than his bite. The following is a select list of some of his best blusters and bravado: Buffalo Bagels!, Buffalo Chips!, Beaver Biscuits!, Bull Cookies!, Cow Cookies!, Geeze Louise!, Great Ceasar's Ghost!, Great Horse Hockey!, Mother McCree!, Mule Fritters!, Pigeon Pellets!, Pony Pucks!, Road Apples!, Sufferin' Sheepdip!, Sweet Limburger!, and What in the Name of Sam Hill!
You have to give the show's writers some creativity points here, I think.
But, you may not know that Monkey Muffins, another exclamation of Potter's are not only something certain zoo animals throw around. They are also a food.
A google search for the words "monkey muffins" yields some rather interesting recipes, including one called "Cheeky Monkey Muffins". 'Nuff said.
Colonel Potter is one of my favorite characters. He is the kind of authority figure I think anyone can respect. He takes his role seriously, but has good horse sense when it comes to dealing with people. Ideal characteristics for a commander and a doctor, or any kind of leader, for that matter.
One other aspect of Potter's character that I like is his old-fashioned politeness, even in his most gruff moments. This forces him to use the kind of verbal creativity sorely lacking among most of the rest of us when we are frustrated. Where most people would utter a tired string of hackneyed expletives, often referring to bovine excrement, Potter expresses anger forcefully, uniquely, and without compromising his character.
TV Acres lists some of his catchphrases:
"Horse Hockey!" - When the veteran military career officer Colonel Sherman Potter (Harry Morgan) got angry at his troops on the military comedy M*A*S*H/CBS/1972-83 he shouted phrases like "Horse Hockey!" But the power of his putdowns came mostly from his "bark" rather than his bite. The following is a select list of some of his best blusters and bravado: Buffalo Bagels!, Buffalo Chips!, Beaver Biscuits!, Bull Cookies!, Cow Cookies!, Geeze Louise!, Great Ceasar's Ghost!, Great Horse Hockey!, Mother McCree!, Mule Fritters!, Pigeon Pellets!, Pony Pucks!, Road Apples!, Sufferin' Sheepdip!, Sweet Limburger!, and What in the Name of Sam Hill!
You have to give the show's writers some creativity points here, I think.
But, you may not know that Monkey Muffins, another exclamation of Potter's are not only something certain zoo animals throw around. They are also a food.
A google search for the words "monkey muffins" yields some rather interesting recipes, including one called "Cheeky Monkey Muffins". 'Nuff said.
El Salvador
For those who speak even less Spanish than I, that's "The Savior"
The country named after Him needs Him very especially.
Bill describes what he learned in a visit. It needs no commentary. The situation speaks for itself.
The country named after Him needs Him very especially.
Bill describes what he learned in a visit. It needs no commentary. The situation speaks for itself.
Friday, March 9, 2007
Real June bugs--In March!
One of the great things about living in a place with great biodiversity is that my inner child always has something to look at.
The downside is, my inner gardener always has something to be annoyed about.
Like weeds that grow visibly in only a few hours.
Or massive numbers of June bugs invading my yard, and leaving their ravenous spawn behind to kill my garden over the summer.
Maybe we should bring the fire ants back. Those would take care of part of the problem, anyway.
Or we could just let them kill the grass. Mowing and weeding a lawn is a pain, anyway.
The downside is, my inner gardener always has something to be annoyed about.
Like weeds that grow visibly in only a few hours.
Or massive numbers of June bugs invading my yard, and leaving their ravenous spawn behind to kill my garden over the summer.
Maybe we should bring the fire ants back. Those would take care of part of the problem, anyway.
Or we could just let them kill the grass. Mowing and weeding a lawn is a pain, anyway.
Time for some comic relief!
So the news lately has been such that it would raise the blood pressure of even the calmest, most rational human being to dangerous levels.
It has, however been scientifically proven that cute fuzzy animals help us to stay calm, and keep the old blood pressure within reasonable levels.
This is why God made cats. And why He inspired people to video tape them.
It has, however been scientifically proven that cute fuzzy animals help us to stay calm, and keep the old blood pressure within reasonable levels.
This is why God made cats. And why He inspired people to video tape them.
"The Pornification of the Culture"
That was the topic of Laura Ingraham's radio show today. She covered several relevant issues, including the distribution of porn on the internet, and on cell phones (where teens and young adults often have easy access to it), pole dancing and strip teasing classes being offered to women who want "exercise" and a way to spice up their marriages (as if sexual objectification is a valid reason for marriage), "hookups" and drunken orgies among high school and college students, immodest clothing in stores for girls as young as four or five (to which I briefly alluded in my last post.)
Young girls are learning from the culture, and sometimes even from the behavior of their parents, that boys don't want girls who don't look good, and as a Washington Post article points out, "looking good" and "looking sexy" have become synonymous for girls and women in the present culture.
Which means married people are buying into the lie that marriage means a lifelong entitlement to sexually objectify one's spouse, and not a mutual relationship of love and self-giving.
It means some mothers are starting to think it's cute to dress their little girls in sexualized clothing, so they can look like mommy (and some dads are either nowhere to be found, or otherwise unwilling or unable to do anything about it.)
It means little girls who want to look pretty are starting to go for the low-cut tops, the short skirts, the tiny bikinis, and the thong underwear.
It means their friends and their older brothers and sisters in high school and college are talking to them about parties and hookups, and their parents may or may not be.
It means websites and magazines directed at teens and twenty somethings (which middle school kids are often allowed to read) contain more tips on attracting male attention and making oneself as sexually desirable both in and out of bed as possible.
It means people publicly talking about places (some of which are fairly public) in which they like to have sex, to make things more exciting.
And then we discover that 12 year olds (who often have an exaggerated impression of their own maturity and want to act like high school and college-age people) had a 30 second sexual encounter openly in a classroom while other students watch, and keep a lookout for the teacher.
This cultural excrement was bound to have an effect sooner or later. Looks like it's happening sooner.
Young girls are learning from the culture, and sometimes even from the behavior of their parents, that boys don't want girls who don't look good, and as a Washington Post article points out, "looking good" and "looking sexy" have become synonymous for girls and women in the present culture.
Which means married people are buying into the lie that marriage means a lifelong entitlement to sexually objectify one's spouse, and not a mutual relationship of love and self-giving.
It means some mothers are starting to think it's cute to dress their little girls in sexualized clothing, so they can look like mommy (and some dads are either nowhere to be found, or otherwise unwilling or unable to do anything about it.)
It means little girls who want to look pretty are starting to go for the low-cut tops, the short skirts, the tiny bikinis, and the thong underwear.
It means their friends and their older brothers and sisters in high school and college are talking to them about parties and hookups, and their parents may or may not be.
It means websites and magazines directed at teens and twenty somethings (which middle school kids are often allowed to read) contain more tips on attracting male attention and making oneself as sexually desirable both in and out of bed as possible.
It means people publicly talking about places (some of which are fairly public) in which they like to have sex, to make things more exciting.
And then we discover that 12 year olds (who often have an exaggerated impression of their own maturity and want to act like high school and college-age people) had a 30 second sexual encounter openly in a classroom while other students watch, and keep a lookout for the teacher.
This cultural excrement was bound to have an effect sooner or later. Looks like it's happening sooner.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
On the Raymond Park Middle School sex scandal:
---------------------------
Update: 10/21/07: Speaking of Moral Outrage...
I am both astonished and enraged to find that my words from this post have been taken out of context and posted on a site that seeks to loosen statutory rape laws to make it easier for adults to have "consensual" sex with minors. I would voice my opinions on their site, but I simply will not sign up for a membership to a website whose purpose and content I find morally reprehensible. At least they had the decency to link over here. Maybe one or two of those readers will find out how I define moral outrage.
I am in no way in favor of their agenda. It is my opinion that teens should not be having sex at all, hence my disgust with the Maine school district preparing to distribute birth control pills to students as young as 11 years old--yet another idiotic strategy that will make young girls easier for adults to exploit. In fact, I'm completely against any sex outside of marriage.
The "Moral Outrage" site seeks to change laws so that people can claim that they did not know the age of the minor with whom they had sex, after they get in trouble with the law for doing so.
Don't give me that "I didn't know she wasn't 18" crap. If you kept it in your pants until you were properly married, you wouldn't even have the problem.
In the post below, my purpose is to clarify nature of the ongoing degradation of our culture's moral fiber. I consider increases in teen sex to be a symptom of this disease. This post is meant to be a call to adults to exercise their authority over their culture and their children, so that we can fix the problem. I note that teenagers, especially middle school age do a lot of stupid, destructive things, whether or not we want them to. Careless sex is one of them. On the other hand, so is drunk driving, but that doesn't mean I have to hand them the keys.
'nuff said. Enjoy my original post below.
---------------------------
I have been a middle school student. I have (briefly) spent time as teaching at a middle school. I have even been a substitute at that level. Such experiences have laid quite bare to me the numerous ways in which we as a culture (and thus our media and our schools along with us) have failed my own generation, and the ones that have come after it.
This is why I am rarely surprised anymore when I hear about twelve-year-olds having sex. Say what you like about how unbelievable it is, or about how they are too young. It should be unbelievable. They are far beyond too young. That doesn't keep it from happening. That's why some middle school bathrooms are closely monitored by school staff members.
I am, however, astonished to hear about this happening in a classroom, with other students watching, and acting as lookouts to keep the teacher from being aware of the situation. In light of such things, I'd say the controversial surveys of sexual behavior in kids that age are not as off base as some people think they are. If this can happen in a classroom, think of what is happening in private. It's easier to combat the worsening trends if we have data.
There are a number of issues I could comment upon here. Class size in a lab setting, for instance. Or classroom management. But, one of the reasons many in my profession prefer to teach high school kids is that middle school ones are, despite their shorter stature, much harder to manage, especially in large groups.
Middle school kids will say things to each other that most adults, and even many teens would be embarrassed to say in public. (I could give examples of one or two things that were said to my face when I was that age, but, as I said, such things are usually not the stuff of polite conversation.)
Kids in early adolescence have the impulse control of two-year-olds, and the hormones of, well, teenagers.
Couple that with extreme desire to either gain attention, or conform to the group, you can get some pretty evil little conspiracies.
Now, granted, the worst I have personally come across is a class full of kids conspiring to make the day a misery for their substitute teacher. (Being a substitute teacher in junior high ought to be worthy of a congressional medal for bravery.)
But that they would conspire to do worse is not as far a stretch as one might think.
So when I hear that two sixth graders were able to have sex in shop class, with the aid of their peers, and under the very nose of an experienced teacher (And believe me, anyone who is able to stay in middle school long enough to be "experienced" either knows and enjoys what he is doing, or can't find another job.) I am shocked at first, but as the shock wears off, it begins to make sense to me.
We live in an increasingly permissive and fractured society. Families are falling apart at higher rates, and more children are seeking disordered sources of comfort. Children are exposed to sexualized imagery and behavior at younger and younger ages. I often see 12 year old kids watching R-rated movies, frequently with their parents present. Last summer I saw what appeared to be a four year old girl toddling around at the zoo in a mini skirt, bare midriff top, and knee-high boots (Her mother was even worse). When I was in sixth grade, people were already starting to have boy/girlfriends. Ten years later when I began my student teaching, kids that age were reported to be performing sex acts in bathrooms, or while they are home alone after school waiting for their parents to get home from work. It gets a little more out of control every year.
Classrooms are the next logical step.
This is a wake up call for us. We adults have a responsibility to be careful what we expose our kids to, to know what they are hearing about from the culture, their schools, and their friends, and a duty to counteract negative messages unequivocally, no matter when our kids receive them. We can't avoid the discussion by sticking our heads in the ground and saying they're too young to hear about this at age 11 or 12, when they already have heard. We can't dress our young daughters up like Paris Hilton or Christina Aguilera, but expect them to grow up to be sexually well-adjusted. Sex is not supposed to be a spectator sport. But pop stars, Bratz dolls, reality TV, and other such rubbish are teaching our kids otherwise from a very young age, even without our permission.
Wake up, everyone. Believe it or not, it can still go further downhill from here.
_______________________
Related Links:
Digital Journal
The Courier Mail
CNN Video
Update: 10/21/07: Speaking of Moral Outrage...
I am both astonished and enraged to find that my words from this post have been taken out of context and posted on a site that seeks to loosen statutory rape laws to make it easier for adults to have "consensual" sex with minors. I would voice my opinions on their site, but I simply will not sign up for a membership to a website whose purpose and content I find morally reprehensible. At least they had the decency to link over here. Maybe one or two of those readers will find out how I define moral outrage.
I am in no way in favor of their agenda. It is my opinion that teens should not be having sex at all, hence my disgust with the Maine school district preparing to distribute birth control pills to students as young as 11 years old--yet another idiotic strategy that will make young girls easier for adults to exploit. In fact, I'm completely against any sex outside of marriage.
The "Moral Outrage" site seeks to change laws so that people can claim that they did not know the age of the minor with whom they had sex, after they get in trouble with the law for doing so.
Don't give me that "I didn't know she wasn't 18" crap. If you kept it in your pants until you were properly married, you wouldn't even have the problem.
In the post below, my purpose is to clarify nature of the ongoing degradation of our culture's moral fiber. I consider increases in teen sex to be a symptom of this disease. This post is meant to be a call to adults to exercise their authority over their culture and their children, so that we can fix the problem. I note that teenagers, especially middle school age do a lot of stupid, destructive things, whether or not we want them to. Careless sex is one of them. On the other hand, so is drunk driving, but that doesn't mean I have to hand them the keys.
'nuff said. Enjoy my original post below.
---------------------------
I have been a middle school student. I have (briefly) spent time as teaching at a middle school. I have even been a substitute at that level. Such experiences have laid quite bare to me the numerous ways in which we as a culture (and thus our media and our schools along with us) have failed my own generation, and the ones that have come after it.
This is why I am rarely surprised anymore when I hear about twelve-year-olds having sex. Say what you like about how unbelievable it is, or about how they are too young. It should be unbelievable. They are far beyond too young. That doesn't keep it from happening. That's why some middle school bathrooms are closely monitored by school staff members.
I am, however, astonished to hear about this happening in a classroom, with other students watching, and acting as lookouts to keep the teacher from being aware of the situation. In light of such things, I'd say the controversial surveys of sexual behavior in kids that age are not as off base as some people think they are. If this can happen in a classroom, think of what is happening in private. It's easier to combat the worsening trends if we have data.
There are a number of issues I could comment upon here. Class size in a lab setting, for instance. Or classroom management. But, one of the reasons many in my profession prefer to teach high school kids is that middle school ones are, despite their shorter stature, much harder to manage, especially in large groups.
Middle school kids will say things to each other that most adults, and even many teens would be embarrassed to say in public. (I could give examples of one or two things that were said to my face when I was that age, but, as I said, such things are usually not the stuff of polite conversation.)
Kids in early adolescence have the impulse control of two-year-olds, and the hormones of, well, teenagers.
Couple that with extreme desire to either gain attention, or conform to the group, you can get some pretty evil little conspiracies.
Now, granted, the worst I have personally come across is a class full of kids conspiring to make the day a misery for their substitute teacher. (Being a substitute teacher in junior high ought to be worthy of a congressional medal for bravery.)
But that they would conspire to do worse is not as far a stretch as one might think.
So when I hear that two sixth graders were able to have sex in shop class, with the aid of their peers, and under the very nose of an experienced teacher (And believe me, anyone who is able to stay in middle school long enough to be "experienced" either knows and enjoys what he is doing, or can't find another job.) I am shocked at first, but as the shock wears off, it begins to make sense to me.
We live in an increasingly permissive and fractured society. Families are falling apart at higher rates, and more children are seeking disordered sources of comfort. Children are exposed to sexualized imagery and behavior at younger and younger ages. I often see 12 year old kids watching R-rated movies, frequently with their parents present. Last summer I saw what appeared to be a four year old girl toddling around at the zoo in a mini skirt, bare midriff top, and knee-high boots (Her mother was even worse). When I was in sixth grade, people were already starting to have boy/girlfriends. Ten years later when I began my student teaching, kids that age were reported to be performing sex acts in bathrooms, or while they are home alone after school waiting for their parents to get home from work. It gets a little more out of control every year.
Classrooms are the next logical step.
This is a wake up call for us. We adults have a responsibility to be careful what we expose our kids to, to know what they are hearing about from the culture, their schools, and their friends, and a duty to counteract negative messages unequivocally, no matter when our kids receive them. We can't avoid the discussion by sticking our heads in the ground and saying they're too young to hear about this at age 11 or 12, when they already have heard. We can't dress our young daughters up like Paris Hilton or Christina Aguilera, but expect them to grow up to be sexually well-adjusted. Sex is not supposed to be a spectator sport. But pop stars, Bratz dolls, reality TV, and other such rubbish are teaching our kids otherwise from a very young age, even without our permission.
Wake up, everyone. Believe it or not, it can still go further downhill from here.
_______________________
Related Links:
Digital Journal
The Courier Mail
CNN Video
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Here's an idea for those credit card commercials:
Summer shopping at Sak's Fifth Avenue:
Two piece halter bikini: $295
Donna Karan Smocked sun dress: $1, 695
Bottega Handbag: $6,520
Putting it all back, and getting something that looks just as good at Target:
Priceless.
Two piece halter bikini: $295
Donna Karan Smocked sun dress: $1, 695
Bottega Handbag: $6,520
Putting it all back, and getting something that looks just as good at Target:
Priceless.
2008 Presidential Rat Race: Rudy asks for sell out.
The former New York Mayor expects pro-life voters to compromise their values in the interests of party success. But an opinion piece from the National Catholic Register shows that he is completely out of touch with the priorities of pro-life voters. We are smarter than you think Rudy. We know how the system works. You can appoint all the pro-life judges you want, but we don't trust you to support pro-life legislation.
No Deal, Rudy
Rudy Giuliani hopes pro-lifers will accept a bargain and support his bid to be president. We won't.
BY The Editors
March 11-17, 2007 Issue
Posted 3/6/07 at 8:00 AM
They are saying that the next GOP presidential candidate might very well be a pro-abortion Republican who promises not to push that issue and is strong on other issues.
They hope that pro-lifers will “be reasonable,” not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and go along quietly.
We won’t.
Republicans and Democrats in 1980 took radically different approaches to the right to life. Republicans wrote into their party platform that all abortions should be outlawed. Democrats wrote into their party platform that not only should abortion be legal, but families should be forced to pay for others’ abortions through their taxes.
Democratic leaders have been utterly committed to their party platform. But there’s a movement afoot for Republicans to shrug off this plank of the party platform altogether, and give a pro-abortion politician the reins of the party and, they hope, the White House.
In particular, Rudy Giuliani has become a favorite for president of conservative talk-show hosts, and pro-war and tough-on-crime Republicans. He’s also way ahead in polls like Newsweek’s, though it’s anyone guess what such polls mean so early in the process.
The way the pro-Rudy argument goes is this: For the past three decades, social conservatives have had the luxury of insisting on purity in the Republican Party. Their clout was such that any candidate had to undergo a “forced conversion” before running for national office. But 9/11 changed that. Now, extremist Islam and the war on terror are such all-consuming issues, and we can’t be so caught up with abortion anymore.
Since Giuliani is committed to the war on terror and is a great crisis manager with a track record rooting out the gangs of New York, we shouldn’t demand that he be pro-life, but instead we should be willing to make a deal.
Rudy’s deal: He’ll promise not to push the pro-abortion agenda, and he’ll nominate judges in the mold of Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Pro-lifers in the Republican Party in return would support him, but keep insisting that the party stay pro-life, and fight our fiercest pro-life battles at the state level, where they belong.
That seems like a good deal, at first blush. We’re well aware that “forced conversions” to the pro-life fold are far from the ideal. Think of the candidacy of Bob Dole in 1996. And it is true that the fight against judicial tyranny is an immense front in the battle for the right to life. Transforming the courts is a prerequisite to victory elsewhere.
But what dooms the deal from the start is the fact that it totally misunderstands what pro-lifers care about in the first place.
Read the entire article.
No Deal, Rudy
Rudy Giuliani hopes pro-lifers will accept a bargain and support his bid to be president. We won't.
BY The Editors
March 11-17, 2007 Issue
Posted 3/6/07 at 8:00 AM
They are saying that the next GOP presidential candidate might very well be a pro-abortion Republican who promises not to push that issue and is strong on other issues.
They hope that pro-lifers will “be reasonable,” not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and go along quietly.
We won’t.
Republicans and Democrats in 1980 took radically different approaches to the right to life. Republicans wrote into their party platform that all abortions should be outlawed. Democrats wrote into their party platform that not only should abortion be legal, but families should be forced to pay for others’ abortions through their taxes.
Democratic leaders have been utterly committed to their party platform. But there’s a movement afoot for Republicans to shrug off this plank of the party platform altogether, and give a pro-abortion politician the reins of the party and, they hope, the White House.
In particular, Rudy Giuliani has become a favorite for president of conservative talk-show hosts, and pro-war and tough-on-crime Republicans. He’s also way ahead in polls like Newsweek’s, though it’s anyone guess what such polls mean so early in the process.
The way the pro-Rudy argument goes is this: For the past three decades, social conservatives have had the luxury of insisting on purity in the Republican Party. Their clout was such that any candidate had to undergo a “forced conversion” before running for national office. But 9/11 changed that. Now, extremist Islam and the war on terror are such all-consuming issues, and we can’t be so caught up with abortion anymore.
Since Giuliani is committed to the war on terror and is a great crisis manager with a track record rooting out the gangs of New York, we shouldn’t demand that he be pro-life, but instead we should be willing to make a deal.
Rudy’s deal: He’ll promise not to push the pro-abortion agenda, and he’ll nominate judges in the mold of Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Pro-lifers in the Republican Party in return would support him, but keep insisting that the party stay pro-life, and fight our fiercest pro-life battles at the state level, where they belong.
That seems like a good deal, at first blush. We’re well aware that “forced conversions” to the pro-life fold are far from the ideal. Think of the candidacy of Bob Dole in 1996. And it is true that the fight against judicial tyranny is an immense front in the battle for the right to life. Transforming the courts is a prerequisite to victory elsewhere.
But what dooms the deal from the start is the fact that it totally misunderstands what pro-lifers care about in the first place.
Read the entire article.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Golden Age of Radio meets Information Age
Sometimes while I'm puttering around my craft studio, I like to listen to KCEA over the internet. This is one of the better things to come out of the California Bay Area lately. Its a station that plays old Big Band and swing music from the20's through the 40's. If you live in the Atherton/Menlo Park area, you can get it over the old FM radio waves, as well.
Oh yes. Blissfully free of commercials, except for the odd nostalgic piece thrown in for atmosphere.
Oh yes. Blissfully free of commercials, except for the odd nostalgic piece thrown in for atmosphere.
Vital Organ Transplant
As we speak, our parish is getting its new organ installed. We are upgrading from your standard-issue electronic church organ to an honest to goodness old-fashioned pipe organ. (That's like trading in your old economy Ford sedan for a high-end classic sports car.) We are talking hundreds of pipes here. Over a thousand actually. It takes a couple of weeks to tune all of them, but it should be ready by Easter Vigil. Apparently the organ's former home was in an Episcopal parish in Massachusetts, which was getting its own replacement. Another welcome convert, you could say.
The installation is providing the parish and its choir with an opportunity to explore some of the a-cappella musical gems produced by the Church, mostly from before the Marty Haugen era.
Good stuff.
While we are on our classical instruments kick, the parish also invested in a cute little harpsichord for the chapel. My husband discusses it here. For those of you who have never heard a harpsichord, I recommend that you watch the film Amadeus, in which the instrument features prominently. It looks very much like a piano, but its unique sound is due to the fact that the strings are plucked, as opposed to piano strings which are hit by hammers.
The installation is providing the parish and its choir with an opportunity to explore some of the a-cappella musical gems produced by the Church, mostly from before the Marty Haugen era.
Good stuff.
While we are on our classical instruments kick, the parish also invested in a cute little harpsichord for the chapel. My husband discusses it here. For those of you who have never heard a harpsichord, I recommend that you watch the film Amadeus, in which the instrument features prominently. It looks very much like a piano, but its unique sound is due to the fact that the strings are plucked, as opposed to piano strings which are hit by hammers.
Caution: Literature Nerd Meme ahead.
Hat tip: Refuge for the Literate.
Instructions: in bold=have read the book; in italics=want to read the book; with crosses=own the book; with asterisks=unfamiliar with the book. (as in "never heard of it")
1. The Da Vinci Code (Dan Brown)
2. †Pride and Prejudice (Jane Austen)
3. †To Kill A Mockingbird (Harper Lee)
4. Gone With The Wind (Margaret Mitchell)
5. †The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (Tolkien)
6. †The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring (Tolkien)
7. †The Lord of the Rings: Two Towers (Tolkien)
8. †Anne of Green Gables (L.M. Montgomery)
9. *Outlander (Diana Gabaldon)
10. *A Fine Balance (Rohinton Mistry)
11. †Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Rowling)
12. Angels and Demons (Dan Brown)
13. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (Rowling)
14. A Prayer for Owen Meany (John Irving)
15. †Memoirs of a Geisha (Arthur Golden)
16. †Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (Rowling)
17. *Fall on Your Knees (Ann-Marie MacDonald)
18. *The Stand (Stephen King)
19. †Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Rowling)
20. †Jane Eyre (Charlotte Bronte)
21. †The Hobbit (Tolkien)
22. †The Catcher in the Rye (J.D. Salinger)
23. †Little Women (Louisa May Alcott)
24. The Lovely Bones (Alice Sebold)
25. Life of Pi (Yann Martel)
26. †The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (Douglas Adams)
27. †Wuthering Heights (Emily Bronte)
28. †The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe (C. S. Lewis)
29. East of Eden (John Steinbeck)
30. †Tuesdays with Morrie (Mitch Albom)
31. Dune (Frank Herbert)
32. *The Notebook (Nicholas Sparks)
33. Atlas Shrugged (Ayn Rand)
34. †1984 (Orwell)
35. The Mists of Avalon (Marion Zimmer Bradley)
36. *The Pillars of the Earth (Ken Follett)
37. *The Power of One (Bryce Courtenay)
38. *I Know This Much is True (Wally Lamb)
39. *The Red Tent (Anita Diamant)
40. †The Alchemist (Paulo Coelho)
41. *The Clan of the Cave Bear (Jean M. Auel)
42. The Kite Runner (Khaled Hosseini)
43. *Confessions of a Shopaholic (Sophie Kinsella)
44. The Five People You Meet In Heaven (Mitch Albom)
45. †Bible (I've read parts, anyway)
46. Anna Karenina (Tolstoy)
47. †The Count of Monte Cristo (Alexandre Dumas)
48. Angela’s Ashes (Frank McCourt)
49. †The Grapes of Wrath (John Steinbeck)
50. *She’s Come Undone (Wally Lamb)
51. The Poisonwood Bible (Barbara Kingsolver)
52. † A Tale of Two Cities (Dickens)
53. Ender’s Game (Orson Scott Card)
54. †Great Expectations (Dickens)
55. †The Great Gatsby (Fitzgerald)
56. *The Stone Angel (Margaret Laurence)
57. †Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Rowling)
58. *The Thorn Birds (Colleen McCullough)
59. *The Handmaid’s Tale (Margaret Atwood)
60. *The Time Traveller’s Wife (Audrew Niffenegger)
61. †Crime and Punishment (Fyodor Dostoyevsky) (I've only read the first chapter)
62. The Fountainhead (Ayn Rand)
63. War and Peace (Tolstoy)
64. †Interview With The Vampire (Anne Rice)
65. *Fifth Business (Robertson Davies)
66. *One Hundred Years Of Solitude (Gabriel Garcia Marquez)
67. The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants (Ann Brashares)
68. Catch-22 (Joseph Heller)
69. Les Miserables (Hugo)
70. †The Little Prince (Antoine de Saint-Exupery)
71. Bridget Jones’ Diary (Fielding)
72. Love in the Time of Cholera (Marquez)
73. Shogun (James Clavell)
74. The English Patient (Michael Ondaatje)
75. †The Secret Garden (Frances Hodgson Burnett)
76. *The Summer Tree (Guy Gavriel Kay)
77. *A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (Betty Smith)
78. *The World According To Garp (John Irving)
79. *The Diviners (Margaret Laurence)
80. †Charlotte’s Web (E.B. White)
81. *Not Wanted On The Voyage (Timothy Findley)
82. †Of Mice And Men (Steinbeck)
83. *Rebecca (Daphne DuMaurier)
84. *Wizard’s First Rule (Terry Goodkind)
85. †Emma (Jane Austen)
86. Watership Down (Richard Adams)
87. †Brave New World (Aldous Huxley)
88. *The Stone Diaries (Carol Shields)
89. *Blindness (Jose Saramago)
90. *Kane and Abel (Jeffrey Archer)
91. *In The Skin Of A Lion (Ondaatje)
92. †Lord of the Flies (Golding)
93. The Good Earth (Pearl S. Buck)
94. *The Secret Life of Bees (Sue Monk Kidd)
95. The Bourne Identity (Robert Ludlum)
96. The Outsiders (S.E. Hinton)
97. White Oleander (Janet Fitch)
98. *A Woman of Substance (Barbara Taylor Bradford)
99. The Celestine Prophecy (James Redfield)
100. †Ulysses (James Joyce) (Read most of it, want to re-read)
Instructions: in bold=have read the book; in italics=want to read the book; with crosses=own the book; with asterisks=unfamiliar with the book. (as in "never heard of it")
1. The Da Vinci Code (Dan Brown)
2. †Pride and Prejudice (Jane Austen)
3. †To Kill A Mockingbird (Harper Lee)
4. Gone With The Wind (Margaret Mitchell)
5. †The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (Tolkien)
6. †The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring (Tolkien)
7. †The Lord of the Rings: Two Towers (Tolkien)
8. †Anne of Green Gables (L.M. Montgomery)
9. *Outlander (Diana Gabaldon)
10. *A Fine Balance (Rohinton Mistry)
11. †Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Rowling)
12. Angels and Demons (Dan Brown)
13. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (Rowling)
14. A Prayer for Owen Meany (John Irving)
15. †Memoirs of a Geisha (Arthur Golden)
16. †Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (Rowling)
17. *Fall on Your Knees (Ann-Marie MacDonald)
18. *The Stand (Stephen King)
19. †Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Rowling)
20. †Jane Eyre (Charlotte Bronte)
21. †The Hobbit (Tolkien)
22. †The Catcher in the Rye (J.D. Salinger)
23. †Little Women (Louisa May Alcott)
24. The Lovely Bones (Alice Sebold)
25. Life of Pi (Yann Martel)
26. †The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (Douglas Adams)
27. †Wuthering Heights (Emily Bronte)
28. †The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe (C. S. Lewis)
29. East of Eden (John Steinbeck)
30. †Tuesdays with Morrie (Mitch Albom)
31. Dune (Frank Herbert)
32. *The Notebook (Nicholas Sparks)
33. Atlas Shrugged (Ayn Rand)
34. †1984 (Orwell)
35. The Mists of Avalon (Marion Zimmer Bradley)
36. *The Pillars of the Earth (Ken Follett)
37. *The Power of One (Bryce Courtenay)
38. *I Know This Much is True (Wally Lamb)
39. *The Red Tent (Anita Diamant)
40. †The Alchemist (Paulo Coelho)
41. *The Clan of the Cave Bear (Jean M. Auel)
42. The Kite Runner (Khaled Hosseini)
43. *Confessions of a Shopaholic (Sophie Kinsella)
44. The Five People You Meet In Heaven (Mitch Albom)
45. †Bible (I've read parts, anyway)
46. Anna Karenina (Tolstoy)
47. †The Count of Monte Cristo (Alexandre Dumas)
48. Angela’s Ashes (Frank McCourt)
49. †The Grapes of Wrath (John Steinbeck)
50. *She’s Come Undone (Wally Lamb)
51. The Poisonwood Bible (Barbara Kingsolver)
52. † A Tale of Two Cities (Dickens)
53. Ender’s Game (Orson Scott Card)
54. †Great Expectations (Dickens)
55. †The Great Gatsby (Fitzgerald)
56. *The Stone Angel (Margaret Laurence)
57. †Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Rowling)
58. *The Thorn Birds (Colleen McCullough)
59. *The Handmaid’s Tale (Margaret Atwood)
60. *The Time Traveller’s Wife (Audrew Niffenegger)
61. †Crime and Punishment (Fyodor Dostoyevsky) (I've only read the first chapter)
62. The Fountainhead (Ayn Rand)
63. War and Peace (Tolstoy)
64. †Interview With The Vampire (Anne Rice)
65. *Fifth Business (Robertson Davies)
66. *One Hundred Years Of Solitude (Gabriel Garcia Marquez)
67. The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants (Ann Brashares)
68. Catch-22 (Joseph Heller)
69. Les Miserables (Hugo)
70. †The Little Prince (Antoine de Saint-Exupery)
71. Bridget Jones’ Diary (Fielding)
72. Love in the Time of Cholera (Marquez)
73. Shogun (James Clavell)
74. The English Patient (Michael Ondaatje)
75. †The Secret Garden (Frances Hodgson Burnett)
76. *The Summer Tree (Guy Gavriel Kay)
77. *A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (Betty Smith)
78. *The World According To Garp (John Irving)
79. *The Diviners (Margaret Laurence)
80. †Charlotte’s Web (E.B. White)
81. *Not Wanted On The Voyage (Timothy Findley)
82. †Of Mice And Men (Steinbeck)
83. *Rebecca (Daphne DuMaurier)
84. *Wizard’s First Rule (Terry Goodkind)
85. †Emma (Jane Austen)
86. Watership Down (Richard Adams)
87. †Brave New World (Aldous Huxley)
88. *The Stone Diaries (Carol Shields)
89. *Blindness (Jose Saramago)
90. *Kane and Abel (Jeffrey Archer)
91. *In The Skin Of A Lion (Ondaatje)
92. †Lord of the Flies (Golding)
93. The Good Earth (Pearl S. Buck)
94. *The Secret Life of Bees (Sue Monk Kidd)
95. The Bourne Identity (Robert Ludlum)
96. The Outsiders (S.E. Hinton)
97. White Oleander (Janet Fitch)
98. *A Woman of Substance (Barbara Taylor Bradford)
99. The Celestine Prophecy (James Redfield)
100. †Ulysses (James Joyce) (Read most of it, want to re-read)
Monday, March 5, 2007
Birth Control is for the Squirrels.
Today's oddball news comes from you, Santa Monica, CA. These are your tax dollars at work:
Contraceptive vaccine! Once again , reproduction is a disease.
At least this is one population control endeavor that makes sense. Squirrels are cute, but they also carry fleas, and (unlike people) really are incapable of self-restraint.
Of course, the reason given for this measure in the CNN article is the fact that they don't want to kill them.
My alternate headline?
Santa Monican Sissys can't kill Superfluous Squirrels.
Source: CNN
Thanks to my brother for the tip!
_______________
Edit: Some of the comments on this story by Dave Barry's readers are worth a look.
SANTA MONICA, California (AP) -- Officials have tried poison, gassing and euthanasia to control a breeding frenzy among squirrels in a city park here. Now, they plan to give birth control a shot.
Under a new program to start this summer, squirrels in Palisades Park will be injected with an immuno-contraceptive vaccine to stunt their sexual development.
Contraceptive vaccine! Once again , reproduction is a disease.
At least this is one population control endeavor that makes sense. Squirrels are cute, but they also carry fleas, and (unlike people) really are incapable of self-restraint.
Of course, the reason given for this measure in the CNN article is the fact that they don't want to kill them.
My alternate headline?
Santa Monican Sissys can't kill Superfluous Squirrels.
Source: CNN
Thanks to my brother for the tip!
_______________
Edit: Some of the comments on this story by Dave Barry's readers are worth a look.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Teachers: Never let reality hinder your ideology:
Read this post by Desperate Irish Housewife on the story below:
As they watched their elementary-age students playing with Legos, Ann Pelo and Kendra Pelojoaquin saw some disturbing trends.
...some kids hoarded the "best" pieces, denied their classmates any access at all to the pretend town they were building, and displayed other undesirable behavior surrounding ownership and the social power it conveys.
So the teachers banned Legos, and worked with the kids to surface the issues raised by the ways they had been using the popular building blocks.
Unfortunately, despite its disapproval of private property rights, Rethinking Schools wants you to pay to see the entire article.
No thanks.
It's not that Rethinking Schools never contributes anything useful to the teaching profession. As my mom often says, "even a stopped clock is right twice a day".
But telling kids that having power is in and of itself evil is unrealistic and irresponsible. Kids should be taught to use power responsibly. Competitiveness and selfishness are part of human nature. They've been around as long as history exists (and even Rethinking Schools can't change that). The thing that allows capitalism to be stable is that human selfishness. Now I'm not advocating that we should all start trampling on each other for the sake of looking out for number one. What I do believe is that we should be teaching young people to use their freedom to create justice. And if one is going to do that, one needs to have power. The powerless cannot do anything to make the world more just. The powerful can.
But people with power are also people with obligations. These teachers could have used the opportunity to teach lessons about how power and responsibility go together. They could have created a realistic simulation in which duty comes with ownership. Maintenance of property, paying bills, property taxes, and so on. Or, they cold have given the kids abusing power a chance to be at the receiving end of an injustice in such a simulation. In short, they could have taught these kids real virtue by teaching them the benefits of sharing voluntarily rather than by force. But instead they showed how little faith they really have in their kids' ability to learn by taking the cop-out and banning the Legos.
As an example of an alternative, DIH points out another school where students went through a simulation of the way the British Empire taxed the American Colonies. The result? An angry letter to King George, and the early stages of revolution. A seizure of power by the oppressed masses. Had the Rethinking Schools gals given their kids some time, those on the receiving ends of any injustice might have fought back. :)
Though they may not publicly admit to it, Pelo and Pelojoaquin probably wouldn't mind if the government did tax everyone's financial power away, and redistributed it, the way they did with the Legos. Apparently, it's O.K. for one or two people to have power over everyone else, if they use it to make sure nobody else can have any. King George would probably agree.
There is a great deal of irony in the the way these teachers are handling power issues in their classrooms. They themselves have power; power, for instance, to deprive kids of Legos. Teachers are guardians of the future. They help to shape society. That is an extremely powerful position, and those of us who have ever found ourselves in it are often in awe of that, and occasionally even overwhelmed. But we do not (and in a way cannot) avoid it, and we use it whether we like it or not. We got that power through use of our brains, through hard work and dare I say, even a little bit of determination, and competitiveness.
We have power because we were able to make the system, with all of its flaws, work in our favor. So many of us want to use our position to "empower" the students who come into our classrooms, so they can do the same.
But we can't do that if we tell them all power is evil.
_____________________________
Edit: A post on similar phenomena.
As they watched their elementary-age students playing with Legos, Ann Pelo and Kendra Pelojoaquin saw some disturbing trends.
...some kids hoarded the "best" pieces, denied their classmates any access at all to the pretend town they were building, and displayed other undesirable behavior surrounding ownership and the social power it conveys.
So the teachers banned Legos, and worked with the kids to surface the issues raised by the ways they had been using the popular building blocks.
Unfortunately, despite its disapproval of private property rights, Rethinking Schools wants you to pay to see the entire article.
No thanks.
It's not that Rethinking Schools never contributes anything useful to the teaching profession. As my mom often says, "even a stopped clock is right twice a day".
But telling kids that having power is in and of itself evil is unrealistic and irresponsible. Kids should be taught to use power responsibly. Competitiveness and selfishness are part of human nature. They've been around as long as history exists (and even Rethinking Schools can't change that). The thing that allows capitalism to be stable is that human selfishness. Now I'm not advocating that we should all start trampling on each other for the sake of looking out for number one. What I do believe is that we should be teaching young people to use their freedom to create justice. And if one is going to do that, one needs to have power. The powerless cannot do anything to make the world more just. The powerful can.
But people with power are also people with obligations. These teachers could have used the opportunity to teach lessons about how power and responsibility go together. They could have created a realistic simulation in which duty comes with ownership. Maintenance of property, paying bills, property taxes, and so on. Or, they cold have given the kids abusing power a chance to be at the receiving end of an injustice in such a simulation. In short, they could have taught these kids real virtue by teaching them the benefits of sharing voluntarily rather than by force. But instead they showed how little faith they really have in their kids' ability to learn by taking the cop-out and banning the Legos.
As an example of an alternative, DIH points out another school where students went through a simulation of the way the British Empire taxed the American Colonies. The result? An angry letter to King George, and the early stages of revolution. A seizure of power by the oppressed masses. Had the Rethinking Schools gals given their kids some time, those on the receiving ends of any injustice might have fought back. :)
Though they may not publicly admit to it, Pelo and Pelojoaquin probably wouldn't mind if the government did tax everyone's financial power away, and redistributed it, the way they did with the Legos. Apparently, it's O.K. for one or two people to have power over everyone else, if they use it to make sure nobody else can have any. King George would probably agree.
There is a great deal of irony in the the way these teachers are handling power issues in their classrooms. They themselves have power; power, for instance, to deprive kids of Legos. Teachers are guardians of the future. They help to shape society. That is an extremely powerful position, and those of us who have ever found ourselves in it are often in awe of that, and occasionally even overwhelmed. But we do not (and in a way cannot) avoid it, and we use it whether we like it or not. We got that power through use of our brains, through hard work and dare I say, even a little bit of determination, and competitiveness.
We have power because we were able to make the system, with all of its flaws, work in our favor. So many of us want to use our position to "empower" the students who come into our classrooms, so they can do the same.
But we can't do that if we tell them all power is evil.
_____________________________
Edit: A post on similar phenomena.
California Legislators at it again.
If you plan to have a child after January, 2008, you may want to start planning a little California vacation for right around your due date.
If a certain bill passes in their state legislature, every baby born in the Golden State will be given a $500 savings account, which will accrue 5% yearly interest and grow. (Yes, folks, every baby, regardless of the parents' income, or immigration status.)
The only catch is that the child will owe the state $500 when s/he turns 18, and the money must be used for education, a down payment on a home, or starting a retirement fund. There is no provision in the bill for what will happen should the child die before the age of 18. I have yet to hear what happens if the child moves out of state, or how they are going to prevent people from spending the money on other things. To top it off, this will cost the taxpayers quite a bundle, since there are a lot of new babies born in California every year.
But, even if you are thinking about using the money honestly, don't get too excited. You'll still have to teach your kids self discipline and good financial sense.
A year of undergraduate study at a University of California campus right now costs over $23,000 a year. That's up from about $14,000 per year in 1999, an increase of $9,000 in only seven years. At that rate, by the time a kid born in 2008 turns 18 and the savings account grows to nearly $17,500 in 2026, college costs are bound to be even higher. You'll be lucky if that $17,500 eve covers half of their first year. Who will pay for the rest?
Ok, what about a down payment on a house?
Maybe if your child moves out of state, that will be viable.Currently, according to this article, the median home price for a detached single family home in California is over half a million dollars, and still rising, which means that currently, if one pays the median price, that $17,500 amounts to a 3% down payment. In many of the coastal regions of California, where most people want to go, that median home price is closer to a full million. That $17,500 isn't going to keep the mortgage payments down. Picture how much more unhelpful that will be in 2026, when the prices will be even higher. Your kid will still have to work and save for a long time before s/he is able to purchase a home in that state.
So, the most significant area in which this money could be of any sizeable help at all, is retirement savings. But, if your kid has to wait that long, you might as well provide the $500 yourself. Or, you could help your child save her money from that high school job behind the counter at Starbucks, and invest it in a good retirement account that gets better than 5% interest. That way nobody owes the government anything on her 18th birthday,
Source: Asociated Press article posted at Fox News.
Text of California Senate Bill 752.
_______________________________
Edit: This move is bound to infuriate people on both sides of the political aisle. The Left won't want rich kids to get any more money, and the right won't want the children of illegal immigrants to get any funding either. Add to that the fact that the CA budget isn't doing so great already, and nobody wants their taxes to go up. The Republican State Senator who began as a co-author of this bill has already withdrawn his support.
If a certain bill passes in their state legislature, every baby born in the Golden State will be given a $500 savings account, which will accrue 5% yearly interest and grow. (Yes, folks, every baby, regardless of the parents' income, or immigration status.)
The only catch is that the child will owe the state $500 when s/he turns 18, and the money must be used for education, a down payment on a home, or starting a retirement fund. There is no provision in the bill for what will happen should the child die before the age of 18. I have yet to hear what happens if the child moves out of state, or how they are going to prevent people from spending the money on other things. To top it off, this will cost the taxpayers quite a bundle, since there are a lot of new babies born in California every year.
But, even if you are thinking about using the money honestly, don't get too excited. You'll still have to teach your kids self discipline and good financial sense.
A year of undergraduate study at a University of California campus right now costs over $23,000 a year. That's up from about $14,000 per year in 1999, an increase of $9,000 in only seven years. At that rate, by the time a kid born in 2008 turns 18 and the savings account grows to nearly $17,500 in 2026, college costs are bound to be even higher. You'll be lucky if that $17,500 eve covers half of their first year. Who will pay for the rest?
Ok, what about a down payment on a house?
Maybe if your child moves out of state, that will be viable.Currently, according to this article, the median home price for a detached single family home in California is over half a million dollars, and still rising, which means that currently, if one pays the median price, that $17,500 amounts to a 3% down payment. In many of the coastal regions of California, where most people want to go, that median home price is closer to a full million. That $17,500 isn't going to keep the mortgage payments down. Picture how much more unhelpful that will be in 2026, when the prices will be even higher. Your kid will still have to work and save for a long time before s/he is able to purchase a home in that state.
So, the most significant area in which this money could be of any sizeable help at all, is retirement savings. But, if your kid has to wait that long, you might as well provide the $500 yourself. Or, you could help your child save her money from that high school job behind the counter at Starbucks, and invest it in a good retirement account that gets better than 5% interest. That way nobody owes the government anything on her 18th birthday,
Source: Asociated Press article posted at Fox News.
Text of California Senate Bill 752.
_______________________________
Edit: This move is bound to infuriate people on both sides of the political aisle. The Left won't want rich kids to get any more money, and the right won't want the children of illegal immigrants to get any funding either. Add to that the fact that the CA budget isn't doing so great already, and nobody wants their taxes to go up. The Republican State Senator who began as a co-author of this bill has already withdrawn his support.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Smells, sights, and Sodas
We went to a real old-timey soda fountain today, complete with 40's and 50's music in the background, soda jerks, and menu items that were completely foreign to me. I bet my grandmother would remember, though. What the heck sort of a drink is a Phosphate? I opted for a blueberry Ice Cream Soda.
Not having satiated our need for nostalgia, we strolled through several antique shops, a used bookstore, and one very odd little place, which my husband describes on his blog.
Not having satiated our need for nostalgia, we strolled through several antique shops, a used bookstore, and one very odd little place, which my husband describes on his blog.
When some are fed up with drug advertisements...
...they make up their own.
Introducing Havidol (avafynetyme HCL)
The only prescription drug for Dysphoric Social Attention Consumption Deficit Anxiety Disorder (DSACDAD). Finally, a pill (or suppository) for "when more is not enough".
Don't forget to talk to your health care professional.
He or she could probably use the laugh.
Hat tip: David at Overturn RP65
Introducing Havidol (avafynetyme HCL)
The only prescription drug for Dysphoric Social Attention Consumption Deficit Anxiety Disorder (DSACDAD). Finally, a pill (or suppository) for "when more is not enough".
Don't forget to talk to your health care professional.
He or she could probably use the laugh.
Hat tip: David at Overturn RP65
Friday, March 2, 2007
Homes for Unwed mothers.
(If you are looking for links, please scroll down for a list.)
Homes like the Paul Stefan home, covered in this Catholic Herald article provide a vital service to young women and girls who wish to carry a pregnancy to term, but have nowhere to do so. Many are faced with the ugly sensation of having no choice but to get an abortion. Fortunately, they do not have to do that.
Women who are kicked out by their parents, boyfriends, husbands, or others who ought to be helping them can find the support they need to carry their pregnancies to term in these shelters for pregnant mothers. Also known as "maternity homes" or "pregnancy shelters", such places offer a haven for women who are facing a crisis pregnancy alone. Some serve adults, while others provide shelter exclusively for teens. Very often, the best place to go for information about such homes is your local crisis pregnancy center.
Outside of the maternity homes, there are many people dedicated to helping women facing unplanned "crisis" pregnancies. Some belong to volunteer organizations. Others are religous organizations, such as the Sisters of Life, an order of Catholic nuns who dedicate their entire lives to helping pregnant women and their unborn children. Their website offers a phone number for women who need them to call.
Such support is central to creating a society in which women and their children can fully participate. If a woman's unplanned pregnancy is a "crisis", clearly it is because her needs as a mother are not being met in some way. Maternity homes and pregnancy counseling centers exist because many of us believe that it would be a terrible injustice to allow that lack of support to continue. Pregnancy centers and maternity homes provide the support women need to give birth to their babies and often point them to the resources they need to support their children themselves or place them for adoption, depending upon which they choose.
Examples of homes for unwed mothers:
(Listed in order by State)
- Maggie's Place (Phoenix, Arizona)
- Aunt Cherie's Home (Bakersfield, CA)
- Casa Vincentia (Oakland, CA)
- Villa Majella of Santa Barbara, California.
- Bayard House (Wilmington, Delaware)
- Divine Mercy House (Jacksonville, Florida)
- St. Ann's Infant and Maternity Home (Hyattsville, Maryland)
- Hephzibah Ministries (Macon, Georgia)
- Mary Elizabeth Maternity Home (Hays, Kansas)
- Life Saver Ministries (N. Chelmsford, Massachusetts)
- City of Refuge (Gardnerville, Nevada)
- Casa de Vida (Reno, Nevada)
- New Generation (Greenland, New Hampshire)
- Annunciation Maternity Home (Georgetown, Texas)
- Christian Homes of Abilene (Texas)
- Life House (Houston, Texas)
- Rachel's Joy (Brooklyn, New York)
- Rosalie Hall (Bronx, New York)
- Grandma's House (Bend, Oregon)
- Elizabeth House (Portland, Oregon)
- Little Flower Home (Tiverton, Rhode Island)
- Paul Stefan Home of Our Lady of Guadalupe, VA
- New Beginnings Home (Puyallup, WA)
- Life Services of Spokane (Washington)
- Labor of Love Ministries (Morgantown, West Virginia)
There are many shelters not included in the list above. To find help in your area, try one or all of the following directories:
A State-by-State list of maternity homes.
Another directory of pregnancy centers and shelters for all 50 US states.
Hidden Choices Directory (Click on the map to find help)
More Pregnancy Centers in all 50 States.
More US Pregnancy help:
(Not an exhaustive list. For specific locations not listed here, see directory links above, or consult your local phone book under "abortion alternatives" or a similar heading)
- Birth Choice Clinic, Orange County, CA.--5 locations. Provides medical services.
- Birth Choice of San Marcos, CA
- Alpha Pregnancy Resource Center, Vacaville, CA, Fairfield, CA
- Spectra Pregnancy Center of Northglenn, Colorado
- Choices Medical Clinic, Wichita Kansas--Provides Medical Services.
- Life Care Center for Women (Kansas)
- Life Choices New Jersey
- Choose Birth (Massachusetts)
- Central Valley Life Care Center (Minnesota)
- Asheville Pregnancy Support Services (North Carolina)
- St. Elizabeth's New Life Center (Ohio)
- Birthright of Cleveland Ohio
- Foundation for Life of Houston, Texas
- Abba Pregnancy Care Center of Winchester, Virginia
- Assist Pregnancy Center, Annandale VA
- Total Life Care Centers of Wisconsin and Minnesota
Pregnancy Care Centers in Canada
LifeCharity.org.uk
Unsure? Looking for information?
www.YourOptions.com
Safe Havens for Newborns:
If you are about to give birth or have recently given birth to a child that you are unable to care for, know that all 50 US States have Safe Haven laws. These laws allow women who face this situation to place their child in the care of health care or other emergency workers, no questions asked, without prosecution. These laws exist to protect both the mothers and the infants.
- If you need a Safe Haven for your baby, click here for information on available locations in each state.
- or contact the National Safe Haven Alliance toll free hotline at 1 888 510 BABY. You may also email them at contact@nationalsafehavenalliance.org
For help after an abortion, here is a list of resources.
For legal help for women harmed by abortion, click here for a list of resources.
Also, see the list of links for pregnancy and post-abortion help in the "Pregnant? Need Help?" tab at the top of this page.
Hat tip: Catholic Mom, Annie
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Obama is right about one thing.
Looking over my site statistics recently, I discovered I got another hit from someone who searched Google. This time the query was, "color of baby with Mexican and Caucasian parents". In the process, he or she found a post in which I facetiously offer the color beige (somewhere between brown and white).
The fact that a person would even care about this enough to bother Googling it made me think of Barack Obama.
Ok, let me explain that.
Barack Obama's political views prevent him from being my first or any other choice for president*, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day, as they say. He has made one point during his campaign that makes sense to me.
If you are of mixed racial background, other people will identify you with whatever part of your heritage you look like. Part of it is probably just the way our brains work. It's easier for us to think about things in the simplest terms possible. Having categories helps, but it can lead to some unwarranted assumptions about people.
In the course of my own experience, only one person has ever figured out that I am "mixed" just by looking at me. The rest usually assume I am Mexican (which is half correct). Some think I look Italian, others think I look Persian. Still others just look a bit confused, and ask politely what my background is, when they have trouble placing my features.
When I am seen in public with my German-Irish mom, people who don't bother to look at us too closely are surprised to find out we are related.
Much to my amusement, a junior high schoolmate of mine once found it difficult to compute the idea that people of different ethnicities could actually have a child that could be both of something at the same time.
Fortunately, my parents had the good sense to raise me with a sense of myself as an individual.They married one another in the first place because they loved each other as whole people, not to prove something about multicultural relations. So their respective backgrounds were simply there, as a fact of my childhood, like my dad's after-dinner peanut butter sandwiches. No fanfare, no trumpeting. Just a cozy-comfy part of our family.
It makes sense, really. Parents are supposed to take the best of what they are and what they know, and pass it along to their children. Mine have done their jobs. Now, the most important thing for me to think about is not simply what they gave me, but what I am going to do with it.
Now, Senator Obama has taken himself into politics, which means he has to know how voters' minds work. And he knows that if he tells people he's white, he'll get the same reaction that a red-headed-fair-skinned person I know gets when she identifies with her Native American side. The same reaction I, with my brown hair and somewhat olive skin get if I tell people I'm Irish!
A really confused look. "She's making a funny, right? Should I laugh? But what if she isn't? I'd be so rude!! Auuuggh!"
Senator Obama has simplified the matter by identifying primarily with what is visible.
Ultimately, this serves a dual purpose. On the one hand, he is playing the race card to help his campaign. "Hey, people, I could be the first black president!". It also attempts to answer to the ridiculous question of whether he is "black enough".
There are those who assume that people who look like him will identify with him, and others who assume that he doesn't look enough like them to be able to relate to them. Some criticize him for allowing public opinion to influence ethnic identity too much, others criticize him for not letting him do it enough. It doesn't matter if he identifies himself as black or biracial. Someone won't like it.
So here's a revolutionary idea for you: why don't we worry about more important stuff?
I don't hear nearly as much talk about what kind of president he will be.*
The thing is, Obama and the rest of us with biracial heritage are walking proof that at least a few people in this world have figured out that they don't have to look alike to be able to understand, work with, or even love one another.
But racial tension gets better ratings, so nobody in the media seems to be talking about that, either.
___________________________________________
*Question: Do you really want the same government that invented FEMA and the IRS, can't deliver your mail, doesn't even take proper care of hospitalized soldiers to run a national health care system?
I didn't think so.
The fact that a person would even care about this enough to bother Googling it made me think of Barack Obama.
Ok, let me explain that.
Barack Obama's political views prevent him from being my first or any other choice for president*, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day, as they say. He has made one point during his campaign that makes sense to me.
If you are of mixed racial background, other people will identify you with whatever part of your heritage you look like. Part of it is probably just the way our brains work. It's easier for us to think about things in the simplest terms possible. Having categories helps, but it can lead to some unwarranted assumptions about people.
In the course of my own experience, only one person has ever figured out that I am "mixed" just by looking at me. The rest usually assume I am Mexican (which is half correct). Some think I look Italian, others think I look Persian. Still others just look a bit confused, and ask politely what my background is, when they have trouble placing my features.
When I am seen in public with my German-Irish mom, people who don't bother to look at us too closely are surprised to find out we are related.
Much to my amusement, a junior high schoolmate of mine once found it difficult to compute the idea that people of different ethnicities could actually have a child that could be both of something at the same time.
Fortunately, my parents had the good sense to raise me with a sense of myself as an individual.They married one another in the first place because they loved each other as whole people, not to prove something about multicultural relations. So their respective backgrounds were simply there, as a fact of my childhood, like my dad's after-dinner peanut butter sandwiches. No fanfare, no trumpeting. Just a cozy-comfy part of our family.
It makes sense, really. Parents are supposed to take the best of what they are and what they know, and pass it along to their children. Mine have done their jobs. Now, the most important thing for me to think about is not simply what they gave me, but what I am going to do with it.
Now, Senator Obama has taken himself into politics, which means he has to know how voters' minds work. And he knows that if he tells people he's white, he'll get the same reaction that a red-headed-fair-skinned person I know gets when she identifies with her Native American side. The same reaction I, with my brown hair and somewhat olive skin get if I tell people I'm Irish!
A really confused look. "She's making a funny, right? Should I laugh? But what if she isn't? I'd be so rude!! Auuuggh!"
Senator Obama has simplified the matter by identifying primarily with what is visible.
Ultimately, this serves a dual purpose. On the one hand, he is playing the race card to help his campaign. "Hey, people, I could be the first black president!". It also attempts to answer to the ridiculous question of whether he is "black enough".
There are those who assume that people who look like him will identify with him, and others who assume that he doesn't look enough like them to be able to relate to them. Some criticize him for allowing public opinion to influence ethnic identity too much, others criticize him for not letting him do it enough. It doesn't matter if he identifies himself as black or biracial. Someone won't like it.
So here's a revolutionary idea for you: why don't we worry about more important stuff?
I don't hear nearly as much talk about what kind of president he will be.*
The thing is, Obama and the rest of us with biracial heritage are walking proof that at least a few people in this world have figured out that they don't have to look alike to be able to understand, work with, or even love one another.
But racial tension gets better ratings, so nobody in the media seems to be talking about that, either.
___________________________________________
*Question: Do you really want the same government that invented FEMA and the IRS, can't deliver your mail, doesn't even take proper care of hospitalized soldiers to run a national health care system?
I didn't think so.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)