...in a rush to paint Governor Palin as a bad mother.
They can't even get their stories straight. On the one hand, she gave a speech after her water broke, against the advice of her doctor. On the other hand, she was never actually pregnant, her daughter was.
The second theory is the most absurd, and is based on pictures of her daughter. Apparently, the only reason for a young girl to have anything but perfectly flat washboard abs must be pregnancy.
I hate to think what this can do to Palin's daughter. In spite of maintaining a healthy weight, I have had a similarly shaped stomach my entire teenaged and adult life. I remember being pretty self-conscious of this as a teenager. Fortunately, nobody cared about my stomach enough to inspect it closely, much less analyze it publicly. As an n adult I have discovered that I have more important things to worry about, in spite of the cultural pressure on women to get that perfect body. I hate to think what emotional effect national scrutiny of her abdomen might have on a teenage girl.
I think Amy's assessment as well as Amanda Carpenter of Townhall.com pretty much say everything that needs to be said.
-------------------------------------------------------
Update: The AP reports that Trig could not possibly be Sarah Palin's grandchild, as her daughter is already pregnant with a baby of her own.
This blog commends Bristol Palin for not compounding a mistake by turning it into a tragedy, and the Palin family for supporting their daughter through her pregnancy.
The social, cultural, spiritual, political, academic, and literary rantings of a slightly strange Catholic English teacher.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Is this sexism?
From the FFL article on Governor Sarah Palin in my last post:
According to The Anchorage Daily News published August 6, 2006, "Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child." The article went onto say that "she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life." "I believe in the strength and the power of women, and the potential of every human life,' she said."
Palin and her family lived this out when she chose to give birth to her youngest son, who has Down's Syndrome.
CNN's John Roberts, aparently, seems to think otherwise when he discusses Palin's newborn son with Diana Bash:
The baby is just slightly more than four months old now. Children with Down's syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of Vice President, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?
Bash makes a good point when she asks:
If it were a man being picked who also had a baby, but -- you know, four months ago with Down's Syndrome, would you ask the same question?
Tip of the Ruler to: Newsbusters.
According to The Anchorage Daily News published August 6, 2006, "Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child." The article went onto say that "she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life." "I believe in the strength and the power of women, and the potential of every human life,' she said."
Palin and her family lived this out when she chose to give birth to her youngest son, who has Down's Syndrome.
CNN's John Roberts, aparently, seems to think otherwise when he discusses Palin's newborn son with Diana Bash:
The baby is just slightly more than four months old now. Children with Down's syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of Vice President, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?
Bash makes a good point when she asks:
If it were a man being picked who also had a baby, but -- you know, four months ago with Down's Syndrome, would you ask the same question?
Tip of the Ruler to: Newsbusters.
More on Governor Palin and Feminists for Life
A press release from Feminists for Life of America:
August 29, 2008
FFL Member Nominated for Vice President of the United States
Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, has been selected by Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain as his running mate.
According to The Anchorage Daily News published August 6, 2006, "Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child." The article went onto say that "she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life." "I believe in the strength and the power of women, and the potential of every human life,' she said."
Feminists for Life's policy is that all memberships are confidential. However, since Governor Palin has been public about her membership, we can confirm that Palin became a member in 2006.
Earlier this week Feminists for Life reacted to the inclusion of woman-centered solutions in the Democratic Party platform, and the inclusion of FFL's trademarked message, "Women deserve better® than abortion,©" in the Republican Party platform.
FFL President Serrin Foster said "It is unprecedented to see the platforms of both major U.S. political parties incorporate key pieces of FFL's unique message."
"Of course there is a certain excitement about the recent movement toward FFL's woman-centered solutions and message by the parties, and now the selection of a pro-life feminist as the Vice Presidential nominee. But as a nonpartisan organization, we cannot endorse any candidates," Foster said.
"FFL members represent a broad political as well as religious spectrum, and we remain both nonpartisan and nonsectarian. There are many issues outside Feminists for Life's mission. Feminists for Life is dedicated to systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion—primarily lack of practical resources and support—through holistic, woman-centered solutions. We recognize that abortion is a reflection that our society has failed to meet the needs of women and that too often women have settled for less. Women deserve better than abortion," said Foster.
As each party takes steps to acknowledge and meet the needs of women, Feminists for Life is prepared to work with our elected leaders on behalf of girls and women who deserve far better than abortion. FFL has a long track record of working with both sides of the political aisle on major legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act, Child Support Enforcement Act, and much more. Many members of Congress have already stepped forward to cosponsor the FFL-inspired bill with bipartisan support, the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act.
"We invite all parties, all public servants, and all people to join us on the bridge of woman-centered solutions," Foster said.
..............................
..............................
"Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women. Women deserve better than abortion."
Say NO to the Status QuoTM
REFUSE TO CHOOSE® WOMEN DESERVE BETTER®
..............................
Feminists for Life is a 501(c)3 organization.
All donations and membership contributions are tax deductible to the extent allowed to law.
Refuse to Choose and Women Deserve Better are registered trademarks of Feminists for Life of America.
McCain Chooses Pro-Life Feminist for VP
She hunts. She fishes. This moose-burger eating, basketball playing former Miss Alaska contestant (and Miss Congeniality winner) is the first woman governor of Alaska. And, this mother of five (including a downs-syndrome child and a soldier about to be deployed to Iraq) is also a member of Feminists for Life.
The Times Online describes her campaign style as "formidable" and her grasp of the issues as "Keen". It also mentions the moose-hunting trips she went on as a child with her father.
Yes, that's right. Moose hunting!
Sounds like She'll give Joe Biden and Barack Obama a run for their money.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
New Heights
From Senator Kennedy's speech yesterday:
We are told that Barack Obama believes too much in an America of high principle and bold endeavor, but when John Kennedy called of going to the moon, he didn't say it's too far to get there. We shouldn't even try.
Our people answered his call and rose to the challenge, and today an American flag still marks the surface of the moon.
Yes, we are all Americans. This is what we do. We reach the moon.
Good idea, Senator. Let's send Barack Obama to the moon!
We are told that Barack Obama believes too much in an America of high principle and bold endeavor, but when John Kennedy called of going to the moon, he didn't say it's too far to get there. We shouldn't even try.
Our people answered his call and rose to the challenge, and today an American flag still marks the surface of the moon.
Yes, we are all Americans. This is what we do. We reach the moon.
Good idea, Senator. Let's send Barack Obama to the moon!
Monday, August 25, 2008
She may speak for the House, but not for the Church.
This week, I have been telling my students over and over again that they have two ears and one mouth for a reason.
I hope while she is in Denver, Nancy Pelosi will listen to the Achbishop of said region whose statement I reproduce here in its entirety (I hope the Archbishop won't mind!):
Catholic public leaders inconvenienced by the abortion debate tend to take a hard line in talking about the "separation of Church and state." But their idea of separation often seems to work one way. In fact, some officials also seem comfortable in the role of theologian. And that warrants some interest, not as a "political" issue, but as a matter of accuracy and justice.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettably, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them. Interviewed on Meet the Press August 24, Speaker Pelosi was asked when human life begins. She said the following:
"I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition . . . St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose."
Since Speaker Pelosi has, in her words, studied the issue "for a long time," she must know very well one of the premier works on the subject, Jesuit John Connery's Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective (Loyola, 1977). Here's how Connery concludes his study:
"The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals a firm antiabortion attitude . . . The condemnation of abortion did not depend on and was not limited in any way by theories regarding the time of fetal animation. Even during the many centuries when Church penal and penitential practice was based on the theory of delayed animation, the condemnation of abortion was never affected by it. Whatever one would want to hold about the time of animation, or when the fetus became a human being in the strict sense of the term, abortion from the time of conception was considered wrong, and the time of animation was never looked on as a moral dividing line between permissible and impermissible abortion."
Or to put it in the blunter words of the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer:
"Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder."
Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition overwhelminglyheld that abortion was grievously evil. In the absence of modern medical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or "ensouled." But nonediminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong.
Of course, we now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today's religious alibis for abortion and a so-called "right to choose" are nothing more than that - alibis that break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief.
Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they're famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.
The duty of the Church and other religious communities is moral witness. The duty of the state and its officials is to serve the common good, which is always rooted in moral truth. A proper understanding of the "separation of Church and state" does not imply a separation of faith from political life. But of course, it's always important to know what our faith actually teaches.
+Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver
+James D. Conley
Auxiliary Bishop of Denver
###
I hope while she is in Denver, Nancy Pelosi will listen to the Achbishop of said region whose statement I reproduce here in its entirety (I hope the Archbishop won't mind!):
ON THE SEPARATION OF SENSE AND STATE:
A CLARIFICATION FOR THE PEOPLE OFTHE CHURCH
IN NORTHERN COLORADO
To Catholics of the Archdiocese of Denver:
Catholic public leaders inconvenienced by the abortion debate tend to take a hard line in talking about the "separation of Church and state." But their idea of separation often seems to work one way. In fact, some officials also seem comfortable in the role of theologian. And that warrants some interest, not as a "political" issue, but as a matter of accuracy and justice.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettably, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them. Interviewed on Meet the Press August 24, Speaker Pelosi was asked when human life begins. She said the following:
"I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition . . . St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose."Since Speaker Pelosi has, in her words, studied the issue "for a long time," she must know very well one of the premier works on the subject, Jesuit John Connery's Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective (Loyola, 1977). Here's how Connery concludes his study:
"The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals a firm antiabortion attitude . . . The condemnation of abortion did not depend on and was not limited in any way by theories regarding the time of fetal animation. Even during the many centuries when Church penal and penitential practice was based on the theory of delayed animation, the condemnation of abortion was never affected by it. Whatever one would want to hold about the time of animation, or when the fetus became a human being in the strict sense of the term, abortion from the time of conception was considered wrong, and the time of animation was never looked on as a moral dividing line between permissible and impermissible abortion."
Or to put it in the blunter words of the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer:
"Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder."
Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition overwhelminglyheld that abortion was grievously evil. In the absence of modern medical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or "ensouled." But nonediminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong.
Of course, we now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today's religious alibis for abortion and a so-called "right to choose" are nothing more than that - alibis that break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief.
Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they're famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.
The duty of the Church and other religious communities is moral witness. The duty of the state and its officials is to serve the common good, which is always rooted in moral truth. A proper understanding of the "separation of Church and state" does not imply a separation of faith from political life. But of course, it's always important to know what our faith actually teaches.
+Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver
+James D. Conley
Auxiliary Bishop of Denver
###
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Google's Quote of the Day:
No man is exempt from saying silly things; the mischief is to say them deliberately.
- Michel de Montaigne
- Michel de Montaigne
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Victory for common sense:
From The Mercury News yesterday:
California appeals court affirms home schooling by non-credentialed parents
By Sharon Noguchi
Mercury News
Article Launched: 08/08/2008 09:51:09 AM PDT
In a decision widely praised, a California appeals court this morning affirmed the right of parents who don't have a teaching credential to educate their children at home.
A three-judge panel overturned a lower-court order in February that had created an uproar among home-schooling parents when it required that they be credentialed. An estimated 166,000 California children are home schooled.
The Second District appellate court in Los Angeles ruled that individual parents, like private schools, are exempt from the requirement that those who teach children be credentialed by the state.
"It is a very good decision and definitely a victory for home-schooling families in the state," said Damien Schiff of the Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento, which had filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of a Sacramento couple who teach their 7-year-old at home.
"We're happy with the ruling," said James Owens, Los Angeles assistant county counsel, who represented the county's child welfare agency. In the case before the court, that agency had sought public schooling for two children being educated at home.
Related posts:
California Homeschoolers: Time to move!
California appeals court affirms home schooling by non-credentialed parents
By Sharon Noguchi
Mercury News
Article Launched: 08/08/2008 09:51:09 AM PDT
In a decision widely praised, a California appeals court this morning affirmed the right of parents who don't have a teaching credential to educate their children at home.
A three-judge panel overturned a lower-court order in February that had created an uproar among home-schooling parents when it required that they be credentialed. An estimated 166,000 California children are home schooled.
The Second District appellate court in Los Angeles ruled that individual parents, like private schools, are exempt from the requirement that those who teach children be credentialed by the state.
"It is a very good decision and definitely a victory for home-schooling families in the state," said Damien Schiff of the Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento, which had filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of a Sacramento couple who teach their 7-year-old at home.
"We're happy with the ruling," said James Owens, Los Angeles assistant county counsel, who represented the county's child welfare agency. In the case before the court, that agency had sought public schooling for two children being educated at home.
According to a related article in the San Francisco Chronicle, this new ruling essentially declares that homeschooling is legal if parents declare their homes to be private schools. Teachers in private schools are not required to hold state-issue teaching credentials.
It's about time.
Related posts:
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
The Idiot Test.
I am 24% Idiot.
I am not annoying at all. In fact most people come to me for advice. Of course they annoy the hell out of me. But what can I do? I am smarter than most people.Tip of the Ruler to Nancy.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
A close call for the terminally ill in California
The California Legislature has been at it again. Since last May, politicians in my home state have been considering AB 2747, a bill that nearly opened the door for legalizing assisted suicide. Even without this, it still has a little crack through which euthanasia may still slip.
Fortunately, according to the California Catholic Conference, at least the allowances for "Pallative Sedation" have been removed from the bill.
Here is an example of one of those changes. The original paragraph read as follows:
(e) "Palliative sedation" means the administration of sedative medication to the point of unconsciousness in a terminally ill patient. It is an intervention of last resort to reduce severe, refractory pain or other distressing clinical symptoms that do not respond to aggressive, symptom specific palliation. Palliative sedation is not intended to cause death or shorten life.
This still leaves the possibility that a feeding tube or other treatment would be withdrawn once the patient is sedated, leaving the patient vulnerable to the same kind of starvation/dehydration death Terri Schiavo endured.
The language was changed to keep euthanasia more clearly out of the picture.
(e) "Palliative care" means medical treatment, interdisciplinary care, or consultation provided to a patient or family members, or both, that has as its primary purpose the prevention of, or relief from, suffering and the enhancement of the quality of life, rather than treatment aimed at investigation and intervention for the purpose of cure or prolongation of life as described in subdivision (b) of Section 1339.31.
Here is an example of one of those changes. The original paragraph read as follows:
(e) "Palliative sedation" means the administration of sedative medication to the point of unconsciousness in a terminally ill patient. It is an intervention of last resort to reduce severe, refractory pain or other distressing clinical symptoms that do not respond to aggressive, symptom specific palliation. Palliative sedation is not intended to cause death or shorten life.
This still leaves the possibility that a feeding tube or other treatment would be withdrawn once the patient is sedated, leaving the patient vulnerable to the same kind of starvation/dehydration death Terri Schiavo endured.
The language was changed to keep euthanasia more clearly out of the picture.
(e) "Palliative care" means medical treatment, interdisciplinary care, or consultation provided to a patient or family members, or both, that has as its primary purpose the prevention of, or relief from, suffering and the enhancement of the quality of life, rather than treatment aimed at investigation and intervention for the purpose of cure or prolongation of life as described in subdivision (b) of Section 1339.31.
Also removed is the paragraph defining refusal of food and water (as opposed to nutrition provided through a feeding tube) as an "option" for a patient who wishes to "alleviate his or her suffering".
According to the California Catholic Conference, The bill, as currently amended, is more limited to requiring doctors to provide information on currently legal options in end-of life care.
According to the California Catholic Conference, The bill, as currently amended, is more limited to requiring doctors to provide information on currently legal options in end-of life care.
One aspect of this that concerns me still is the fact that it still leaves room for the patient to hasten his or her death by refusing artificial nutrition.
Public outcry from organizations such as the California Catholic Conference and Californians Against Asisted suicide led to the acceptance of the amendments.
Public outcry from organizations such as the California Catholic Conference and Californians Against Asisted suicide led to the acceptance of the amendments.
The original bill, including the pernicious sections that have been excised and amended, was co-authored by Patty Berg and Lloyd Levine, both Democrats.
Looks like pro-life California residents--especially those in the health care professions--still need to keep a close eye on their legislators.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Abortion linked to Pre-Term birth, infant mortality.
This time the data comes from the National Center for Health Statistics, and the Journal of Reproductive medicine, neither of which are opposed to abortion.
From the American Life League:
Evidence of Ripple Effect Between Abortion and Infant Death
Washington, DC (04 August 2008) – New statistics from the National Center for Health Statistics are adding more evidence to the body of research surrounding the link between abortion and infant death.
"Here is another of the unseen consequences of abortion," said Leslie Tignor, director of American Life League's Associate Program. "We're seeing that abortion not only ends the life of a child; it also endangers the life of that child's future siblings."
Tignor is project manager of "Baby Steps," a DVD that features detailed 4D ultrasound pictures of preborn babies from eight to 34 weeks throughout their 16 stages of development.
The NCHS' "Infant Mortality Statistics from the 2005 Period Linked Birth/Infant Death Data Set," (Vol. 57, No. 2) of the National Vital Statistics Report released July 30, shows that preterm births were responsible for over 36.5 percent of infant deaths in 2005.
The NCHS' findings affirm past studies that show women who have had abortions are more likely to give birth to preterm babies.
The 2007 Journal of Reproductive Medicine reported that nearly 32 percent of "very preterm" U.S. births – before 32 weeks gestation – are due to the mother's prior abortions.
"American Life League will continue to work to make women aware of abortion's ripple effect," Tignor said. "Not only does abortion hurt women, preborn babies and their families, but it could also risk the life of future children. Abortion leads to death, not only for the preborn child killed by abortion, but also for the many children susceptible to preterm birth and infant death.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
LifeSiteNews: Abortion Linked Condition Contributes to Growing Number of Infant Deaths(30 July 2008)
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08073009.html
National Center for Health Statistics: Infant Mortality Rates from the 2005 Period (30 July 2008)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_02.pdf
LifeSiteNews: Previous Abortion Linked with Preterm Birth and Cerebral Palsy (date)
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/oct/07102602.html
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Hubris and Humor
From Greg Gutfield of FoxNews:
The backlash against Barack is starting, engineered mainly by envious critics accusing him of arrogance, as he flies around the world spreading hope across this troubled orb.
Some suggest the candidate acts as though he has already won the election, pointing to fawning world leaders and meetings with our own high-level officials. Some think Obama should practice a little humility.
I find this "Baracklash" disgusting. Any educated and decent person can see that Obama is the greatest human being we have ever seen since the beginning of time.
Actually, I'll go beyond that: He's the greatest human being ever, including the era existing before the creation of time. For it has become abundantly clear that the idea of Obama has always existed above and beyond some dumb measuring system.
Besides, time can only gauge mortal substance and we know that Obama can only be measured by our dreams. I mean, what is time anyway, but merely grains of sand in an hour glass? Obama, he's the whole beach. Yes, a whole beach of hourglasses endlessly sifting like an orchestra of hope using the very earth as its magical instrument.
Read the rest here.
The backlash against Barack is starting, engineered mainly by envious critics accusing him of arrogance, as he flies around the world spreading hope across this troubled orb.
Some suggest the candidate acts as though he has already won the election, pointing to fawning world leaders and meetings with our own high-level officials. Some think Obama should practice a little humility.
I find this "Baracklash" disgusting. Any educated and decent person can see that Obama is the greatest human being we have ever seen since the beginning of time.
Actually, I'll go beyond that: He's the greatest human being ever, including the era existing before the creation of time. For it has become abundantly clear that the idea of Obama has always existed above and beyond some dumb measuring system.
Besides, time can only gauge mortal substance and we know that Obama can only be measured by our dreams. I mean, what is time anyway, but merely grains of sand in an hour glass? Obama, he's the whole beach. Yes, a whole beach of hourglasses endlessly sifting like an orchestra of hope using the very earth as its magical instrument.
Read the rest here.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Campaign Sarcasm
I got a little chuckle out of this:
Judging by the contents of the (occasionally profane) comments on youtube, however, it seems many people are not enjoying the humor here.
It's still an ad hominem attack, but at least it's funny. The samples of Obama's language here smack of gratuitous self-confidence. His speechwriters really should be more careful. Uttering such words is really an invitation.
The ad would carry more weight, though if there were more policy-based adverts out there to go with it.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Protecting Children from Planned Parenthood, Vallejo
I am amazed that this actually worked, given Vallejo's proximity to the infamous Bay Area of California.
VICTORY! PLANNED PARENTHOOD TOLD TO STAY AWAY AFTER HUNDREDS OF CALLS FROM ALL SUPPORTERS
Vallejo, CA (31 July 2008) – Planned Parenthood was forced to stay away from a children's health and wellness event after American Life League supporters and local pro-life activists barraged event coordinators with phone calls and e-mails.
"We're committed to fighting Planned Parenthood wherever they are," said Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League. "We want to send a clear signal – there will be zero tolerance when it comes to Planned Parenthood's campaign to sexualize children."
The nation's largest abortion chain was scheduled to have a booth at the 'Vallejo Celebrates Youth' event geared toward grammar school children on Aug. 2. Children will learn about oral hygiene, literacy, and childhood obesity. They will no longer be learning about birth control, STDs and abortion.
Planned Parenthood has made a concerted effort to reach children recently through pornographic publications and web sites. The abortion giant targets children at events like the one sponsored by the Greater Vallejo Recreational District, with sex-related materials and birth control.
When American Life League heard of the events, the group contacted local activists and notified supporters. Within hours, hundreds of calls were placed to the GVRD who then decided to disinvite Planned Parenthood.
"The California pro-lifers, especially Ana Jaime are to be commended for their courageous work," Sedlak said. "The Greater Vallejo Recreational District has done the right thing by keeping Planned Parenthood as far away from children as possible."
American Life League was cofounded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death. For more information or media inquiries, please contact Katie Walker at 540.659.4942.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
American Life League: Face Painting, Magic Shows and Birth Control: Planned Parenthood Infiltrates Children's Event (28 July 2008)
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=11511
Vallejo Times-Herald: Event Promotes Children's Health (23 July 2008)
http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_9970196
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Salivation History
Gerard Baker over at the Times must be as fed to the teeth as I am with the mass drooling going on over Barack Obama and his vacuous attempts at messianic speechmaking.
He came up with a lovely satirical gem:
He ventured forth to bring light to the world
The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers
Gerard Baker
And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.
The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.
When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”
Please do read the rest. It is a riot.
Via Pertinacious Papist
He came up with a lovely satirical gem:
He ventured forth to bring light to the world
The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers
Gerard Baker
And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.
The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.
When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”
Please do read the rest. It is a riot.
Via Pertinacious Papist
Friday, July 25, 2008
40--and looking better than ever!
40 years ago today, Pope Paul VI published Humanae Vitae (On Human Life), affirming the Church's teachings on marriage, including issues relating to contraception and abortion:
Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.
Needless to say, this publication was not without controversy.
Many people suggest that the church's teachings are designed purely to control people, or to suppress women, or to oppose sexual freedom, or to simply manipulate couples into providing more Catholic backsides to fill the pews every Sunday.
However, when one reads what the Church believes marriage should be, and sees the beauty in that description, those accusations begin to sound rather hollow:
[Married] love is above all fully human, a compound of sense and spirit. It is not, then, merely a question of natural instinct or emotional drive. It is also, and above all, an act of the free will, whose trust is such that it is meant not only to survive the joys and sorrows of daily life, but also to grow, so that husband and wife become in a way one heart and one soul, and together attain their human fulfillment.
It is a love which is total—that very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything, allowing no unreasonable exceptions and not thinking solely of their own convenience. Whoever really loves his partner loves not only for what he receives, but loves that partner for the partner's own sake, content to be able to enrich the other with the gift of himself.
Married love is also faithful and exclusive of all other, and this until death. This is how husband and wife understood it on the day on which, fully aware of what they were doing, they freely vowed themselves to one another in marriage. Though this fidelity of husband and wife sometimes presents difficulties, no one has the right to assert that it is impossible; it is, on the contrary, always honorable and meritorious. The example of countless married couples proves not only that fidelity is in accord with the nature of marriage, but also that it is the source of profound and enduring happiness.
Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents' welfare."
The relationship between husband and wife is like nothing else in this world. It is perhaps the most profound commitment I have ever made. It is mutual self-giving. Mutual respect. Mutual faithfulness. No holding back. Body, mind, heart, and even fertility, until death.
The church's teachings are not about repressing something that is dirty. They are about protecting something that is exquisitely precious: married love and the families that come from it.
Read the Entire Encyclical at the Vatican website.
Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.
Needless to say, this publication was not without controversy.
Many people suggest that the church's teachings are designed purely to control people, or to suppress women, or to oppose sexual freedom, or to simply manipulate couples into providing more Catholic backsides to fill the pews every Sunday.
However, when one reads what the Church believes marriage should be, and sees the beauty in that description, those accusations begin to sound rather hollow:
[Married] love is above all fully human, a compound of sense and spirit. It is not, then, merely a question of natural instinct or emotional drive. It is also, and above all, an act of the free will, whose trust is such that it is meant not only to survive the joys and sorrows of daily life, but also to grow, so that husband and wife become in a way one heart and one soul, and together attain their human fulfillment.
It is a love which is total—that very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything, allowing no unreasonable exceptions and not thinking solely of their own convenience. Whoever really loves his partner loves not only for what he receives, but loves that partner for the partner's own sake, content to be able to enrich the other with the gift of himself.
Married love is also faithful and exclusive of all other, and this until death. This is how husband and wife understood it on the day on which, fully aware of what they were doing, they freely vowed themselves to one another in marriage. Though this fidelity of husband and wife sometimes presents difficulties, no one has the right to assert that it is impossible; it is, on the contrary, always honorable and meritorious. The example of countless married couples proves not only that fidelity is in accord with the nature of marriage, but also that it is the source of profound and enduring happiness.
Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents' welfare."
The relationship between husband and wife is like nothing else in this world. It is perhaps the most profound commitment I have ever made. It is mutual self-giving. Mutual respect. Mutual faithfulness. No holding back. Body, mind, heart, and even fertility, until death.
The church's teachings are not about repressing something that is dirty. They are about protecting something that is exquisitely precious: married love and the families that come from it.
Read the Entire Encyclical at the Vatican website.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
St. Gertrude of Nivelles, Patron Saint of Cats
Click here for the original Photo Source.Here is a portion of her profile at the Patron Saints Index:
Younger daughter of Blessed Pepin I of Landen and Blessed Ida of Nivelles; sister of Saint Begga. Devoted to religious life from an early age, she turned down a noble marriage to pursue the religious life. On the death of Pepin in 639, and on the advice of Saint Amand of Maastricht, Ida built a double monastery at Nivelles where both she and her daughter retired. Gertrude became abbess about age 20.
Known for her hospitality to pilgrims and aid to Irish missionary monks, she gave land to Saint Foillan, on which he built the monastery of Fosses. Helped Saint Ultan in his evangelization. In 656, Gertrude resigned her office in favor of her niece, Saint Wilfetrudis, and spent the rest of her days studying Scripture and doing penance. Mystic. Visionary. Died at the significant age of 33, the age of Our Lord at His death.
She is also the Patroness of gardeners, among many other things. Traditional portrayals of her show mice running up her staff.
Her feast day is March 17.
A more detailed biography at the Catholic Encyclopedia
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Let's think about this for a second....
Here's a recent headline from the Guardian:
Here is what they are talking about:
What I do take personally is the fact that the goverment is willing to pay to terminate my life if I am an unborn child, by giving American tax dollars to organizations like Planned Parenthood.
Some of our congressmen/women are working to fix this:
Click here for more comments from legislators on this issue.
US environmental agency lowers value of a human life.
I am not making this up.Here is what they are talking about:
When drawing up regulations, government agencies put a value on human life and then weigh the costs versus the lifesaving benefits of a proposed rule.
The less a life is worth to the government, the less the need for a regulation – such as the tighter restrictions on pollution that the EPA refused to impose today, effectively postponing any action on climate change until after Bush leaves office.
Consider, for example, a hypothetical regulation that costs $18bn to enforce but will prevent 2,500 deaths. At $7.8m per person (the old figure), the lifesaving benefits outweigh the costs. But at $6.9m per person, the rule costs more than the lives it saves, so it may not be adopted.
Some environmentalists accuse the Bush administration of changing the value to avoid tougher rules, a charge the EPA denies.
I'm sorry, but I don't value my life in terms of how much the government is willing to spend to save it, so I don't take this move by the EPA too personally.What I do take personally is the fact that the goverment is willing to pay to terminate my life if I am an unborn child, by giving American tax dollars to organizations like Planned Parenthood.
Some of our congressmen/women are working to fix this:
Click here for more comments from legislators on this issue.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Sometimes, size does matter.
This blog is sad to report that Planned Parenthood is planning to create a massive facility in Downtown Houston at 4600 Gulf Freeway (I-45 & Elgin). The Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas website states that they are are "undertaking an expansion project", but avoids saying where or what size. Their little history of their organization proudly boasts their connection to Margaret Sanger, but fails to mention the more sinister side of her agenda.
Related links listed below:
TexasFamiles.org
Houston Coalition for Life
American Life League STOPP Report
Related links listed below:
TexasFamiles.org
Houston Coalition for Life
American Life League STOPP Report
Thursday, July 10, 2008
From the Off-The-Deep-End Files:
Had my mother seen this during my childhood, she would have laughed. I probably would have laughed. Actually, come to think of it, my mom would probably still get a good laugh out of this one. Time for an e-mail.
You see, I have always been a picky eater. It wasn't until my college years that I really began to become more adventurous with food, whether from my own varied racial/ethnic background or anybody else's. Maybe my childhood aversion to onions, turkey stuffing and green peppers was, in fact a sign of racial self-loathing due to my mixed caucasian and hispanic heritage.
Or maybe I was just a picky kid with a penchant for bland food.
You decide.
From BBC NEWS, 7 July 2008:
Full Article Here
I wonder how these people would interpret a child's dislike of foods from her own culture?
Amy also has some worthwhile things to say on the matter.
You see, I have always been a picky eater. It wasn't until my college years that I really began to become more adventurous with food, whether from my own varied racial/ethnic background or anybody else's. Maybe my childhood aversion to onions, turkey stuffing and green peppers was, in fact a sign of racial self-loathing due to my mixed caucasian and hispanic heritage.
Or maybe I was just a picky kid with a penchant for bland food.
You decide.
From BBC NEWS, 7 July 2008:
Nursery alert for racist toddlers
| |
Nursery staff must be alert for racist remarks among toddlers, a government-sponsored agency report has said.
The National Children's Bureau guide, Young Children and Racial Justice, is meant to help identify potentially racist attitudes in youngsters.
It is an umbrella group for bodies working with children and young people in England and Northern Ireland.
The 336-page guide said staff should investigate the reasons behind apparent racial prejudice.
Name-calling
It said: "A child may react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying, 'Yuck!"'.
That may indicate a lack of familiarity with that particular food, or "more seriously a reaction to a food associated with people from a particular ethnic or cultural community".
It also warned: "Racist incidents among children in early-years settings tend to be around name-calling, casual thoughtless comments and peer group relationships."
Full Article Here
I wonder how these people would interpret a child's dislike of foods from her own culture?
Amy also has some worthwhile things to say on the matter.
Eu-Cat-astrophe!
Couldn't resist a little pun there.
This week, we welcomed a little ginger tabby kitten into our home. He has been an endless source of entertainment.
Pictures may be forthcoming.
This week, we welcomed a little ginger tabby kitten into our home. He has been an endless source of entertainment.
Pictures may be forthcoming.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Language Crimes and Murder by Boredom.
I loved watching the Prime Minister's questions when Tony Blair was in office, sheerly for the fun of watching the lively verbal thrashings British statesmen give each other. It was so interesting to see them have actual conversations that required wit, as well as familiarity with what (appeared to one not intimately familiar with British politics) to be halfway decent evidence for their arguments.
Flash over to the United States. Turn on C-span. Watch live coverage of the US House of Representatives. You'll be asleep in ten minutes after you hear the same speeches and buzzwords hypnotically repeated over and over and over and over and over...
And then there is the issue of public speaking skills.
From presidents who smoked but didn't inhale and was uncertain as to what the definition of "is" is, to the current president who, in spite of his better qualities, cannot seem to get the hang of "nuclear", we seem to have a plague of poor speaking. As if to put a the proverbial cherry on top, a certain Mr. Kucinich suggested that he had once seen a UFO.
Our two front running presidential candidates do not appear to have any intention of improving this problem.
One cannot seem to hide when he is reading from a teleprompter, thereby making an otherwise well-structured speech sound robotic. And then he accidentally said he would ban beer.
The other, however brilliant he may sound with a written speech, cannot seem to put two sentences of sense together without a script. Senator Obama did, on the occasion of his Memorial Day address say that he saw our country's "fallen heroes" in the audience. Who knew our messianic candidate was also connected to the "other side"? Then there was this instance in which he lamented the inability of children with asthma to access their "breathalyzers" (oops, make that "inhalators") .To make matters worse, his speechwriter often produces work that, while grammatical, sounds more like something my students would write than something crafted by a highly educated person with vast political experience.
Oh, yes, and if I continue to hear the words "hope" and "change" recycled more often than post-consumer paper products, I cannot be held responsible for what I may do to my television.
Yes, yes policy is more important than posturing. Substance is more important than speechmaking.
Instead of a candidate who says something badly and another who says nothing very well, I would prefer someone with both substance and wit. Perhaps a person with the common sense of G.K. Chesterton, the gentle charisma of Pope John Paul II and the wit of Tony Blair.
Or the wit of Jane Austen even. :)
Flash over to the United States. Turn on C-span. Watch live coverage of the US House of Representatives. You'll be asleep in ten minutes after you hear the same speeches and buzzwords hypnotically repeated over and over and over and over and over...
And then there is the issue of public speaking skills.
From presidents who smoked but didn't inhale and was uncertain as to what the definition of "is" is, to the current president who, in spite of his better qualities, cannot seem to get the hang of "nuclear", we seem to have a plague of poor speaking. As if to put a the proverbial cherry on top, a certain Mr. Kucinich suggested that he had once seen a UFO.
Our two front running presidential candidates do not appear to have any intention of improving this problem.
One cannot seem to hide when he is reading from a teleprompter, thereby making an otherwise well-structured speech sound robotic. And then he accidentally said he would ban beer.
The other, however brilliant he may sound with a written speech, cannot seem to put two sentences of sense together without a script. Senator Obama did, on the occasion of his Memorial Day address say that he saw our country's "fallen heroes" in the audience. Who knew our messianic candidate was also connected to the "other side"? Then there was this instance in which he lamented the inability of children with asthma to access their "breathalyzers" (oops, make that "inhalators") .To make matters worse, his speechwriter often produces work that, while grammatical, sounds more like something my students would write than something crafted by a highly educated person with vast political experience.
Oh, yes, and if I continue to hear the words "hope" and "change" recycled more often than post-consumer paper products, I cannot be held responsible for what I may do to my television.
Yes, yes policy is more important than posturing. Substance is more important than speechmaking.
Instead of a candidate who says something badly and another who says nothing very well, I would prefer someone with both substance and wit. Perhaps a person with the common sense of G.K. Chesterton, the gentle charisma of Pope John Paul II and the wit of Tony Blair.
Or the wit of Jane Austen even. :)
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Oink! Planned Parenthood gets more Pork
The following May 22 story from CitizenLink is probably old news for many of you:
Think about that when you go to vote in November. First he exposed the grandmother who raised him to public ridicule just to save his political backside from the Reverend Wright issue. Now he has led other senators in using the troops to sneak in some additional support for the abortion industry.
Change we can believe in?
Thanks to a Democrat maneuver, Planned Parenthood will receive a discount from drug manufacturers in a bill designed to fund our troops.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate voted on an amendment to the War Supplemental Appropriations Bill. Democrats, led by Sen. Barack Obama, had inserted language to help Planned Parenthood into the domestic-spending portion of this troop-funding bill. The Senate passed the amendment 75-22.
The provision allows for groups like Planned Parenthood and university health centers to receive discounted prices from drug manufacturers for drugs like the morning-after pill, which may cause an early abortion.
"Planned Parenthood should not be receiving any federal assistance, and certainly not in a bill that’s designed to help our troops," said Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action.
Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, received $330 million in taxpayer money last year.Think about that when you go to vote in November. First he exposed the grandmother who raised him to public ridicule just to save his political backside from the Reverend Wright issue. Now he has led other senators in using the troops to sneak in some additional support for the abortion industry.
Change we can believe in?
Friday, May 9, 2008
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Blogging silence:
Wow. Has it really been almost a month since I posted here? Yikes.
Apologies for the long silence, dear readers. It's nothing personal. The trouble with blogging about life in general is that occasionally life gets so busy that one has little time for blogging.
However, once my schedule calms down, I hope to resume my online loquaciousness.
I just hope it won't be another month before that happens.
Apologies for the long silence, dear readers. It's nothing personal. The trouble with blogging about life in general is that occasionally life gets so busy that one has little time for blogging.
However, once my schedule calms down, I hope to resume my online loquaciousness.
I just hope it won't be another month before that happens.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Sisters and Squash
Houston Chronicle garden columnist and blogger Brenda Beust Smith posts on a community garden run by Dominican Sisters.
Click here to read.
Click here to read.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
No Literacy Gap in Homeschooled Boys and Girls
Let's face it. Boys and girls do not always have the same taste in literature.
Take Pride and Prejudice for example. Girls love it.
Boys often lament that it is boring and frightfully lacking in explosions. Even one or two good sword fights or a duel would be nice. Where's the blood?
The differences between boys and girls have been an issue in classrooms for some time now. For awhile, the issue was getting girls to catch up with boys. Lately, it has been the other way around.
This does not seem to be a problem for homeschoolers, however. Something for California courts and lawmakers (and the rest of us) to consider:
Why Johnny Can't Read: Schools Favor Girls
By Robert Roy Britt, LiveScience Managing Editor
The article makes two interesting points:
English educators, incidentally, are now being trained to make their classrooms more flexible in terms of literature content, allowing student interests to play a role. Some teacher educators (i.e. people who teach other teachers how to teach) are also emphasizing methods other than "reader response" (the method Kleinfeld describes above), and encouraging deep thinking and serious literary criticism.
While it is tempting (especially if one is dealing with a classroom full of barely literate high schoolers) to stick to reader response because it is "easier", I find that kids often respond better when they feel like their teachers are actually teaching them something different and interesting. Even students whose reading skills are below grade level can benefit from instruction on various approaches to literary criticism. The benefit is that when they master these new skills, they have the psychological reward of "feeling smart" and this tends to create greater interest in the curriculum. Kids want to be challenged.
The beauty of homeschooling is that children get customized instruction from their parents, who in most cases are devoted to their education and work very hard to give them the best instruction possible. While there are also advantages to the regular classroom, even small classes do not allow for the level of individual attention that students can receive in a homeschool setting, which means boys who are falling behind can be re-engaged.
So should we stop teaching Pride and Prejudice? I'm not ready to go that far yet. Classics must be read. However, perhaps it is worth changing our approach to it, to allow boys to see merit in books that possess few of the qualities one might find in an action movie.
Tip of the schoolmarm ruler to: Amy at Real Catholic
Take Pride and Prejudice for example. Girls love it.
Boys often lament that it is boring and frightfully lacking in explosions. Even one or two good sword fights or a duel would be nice. Where's the blood?
The differences between boys and girls have been an issue in classrooms for some time now. For awhile, the issue was getting girls to catch up with boys. Lately, it has been the other way around.
This does not seem to be a problem for homeschoolers, however. Something for California courts and lawmakers (and the rest of us) to consider:
Why Johnny Can't Read: Schools Favor Girls
By Robert Roy Britt, LiveScience Managing Editor
The article makes two interesting points:
...
The research, by psychology professor Judith Kleinfeld at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, finds that nearly one-quarter of high school seniors across the United States who are sons of white, college-educated parents have woeful reading skills, ranking "below basic" on a national standardized test.
"These boys cannot read a newspaper and get the main point," Kleinfeld told LiveScience. "These boys cannot read directions for how to use equipment and follow them."
And the problem is getting worse.
...
In separate research that Kleinfeld is also preparing for publication, she has possibly gotten to the root of the problem.
"Here's a fascinating fact," she said. "There is no literacy gap in home-schooled boys and girls."
"Why? In school, teachers emphasize reading literature and talking about character and feelings," she said. "This way of teaching reading does not turn boys on. Boys prefer reading nonfiction, such as history and adventure books. When they are taught at home, parents are more likely to let them follow their interests."
The research, by psychology professor Judith Kleinfeld at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, finds that nearly one-quarter of high school seniors across the United States who are sons of white, college-educated parents have woeful reading skills, ranking "below basic" on a national standardized test.
"These boys cannot read a newspaper and get the main point," Kleinfeld told LiveScience. "These boys cannot read directions for how to use equipment and follow them."
And the problem is getting worse.
...
In separate research that Kleinfeld is also preparing for publication, she has possibly gotten to the root of the problem.
"Here's a fascinating fact," she said. "There is no literacy gap in home-schooled boys and girls."
"Why? In school, teachers emphasize reading literature and talking about character and feelings," she said. "This way of teaching reading does not turn boys on. Boys prefer reading nonfiction, such as history and adventure books. When they are taught at home, parents are more likely to let them follow their interests."
English educators, incidentally, are now being trained to make their classrooms more flexible in terms of literature content, allowing student interests to play a role. Some teacher educators (i.e. people who teach other teachers how to teach) are also emphasizing methods other than "reader response" (the method Kleinfeld describes above), and encouraging deep thinking and serious literary criticism.
While it is tempting (especially if one is dealing with a classroom full of barely literate high schoolers) to stick to reader response because it is "easier", I find that kids often respond better when they feel like their teachers are actually teaching them something different and interesting. Even students whose reading skills are below grade level can benefit from instruction on various approaches to literary criticism. The benefit is that when they master these new skills, they have the psychological reward of "feeling smart" and this tends to create greater interest in the curriculum. Kids want to be challenged.
The beauty of homeschooling is that children get customized instruction from their parents, who in most cases are devoted to their education and work very hard to give them the best instruction possible. While there are also advantages to the regular classroom, even small classes do not allow for the level of individual attention that students can receive in a homeschool setting, which means boys who are falling behind can be re-engaged.
So should we stop teaching Pride and Prejudice? I'm not ready to go that far yet. Classics must be read. However, perhaps it is worth changing our approach to it, to allow boys to see merit in books that possess few of the qualities one might find in an action movie.
Tip of the schoolmarm ruler to: Amy at Real Catholic
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Natural results vs. Punisment.
Barack Obama has the following to say about Sex Education:
When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence education and teaching the children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."
Other than my disgust with the fact that his rhetoric equates childbearing and disease, I have another problem with his choice of words:
The notion that pregnancy is somehow an imposition upon a woman who consented to the act which produced it.
Time for your English Teacher to get out the American Heritage Dictionary:
pun·ish (pŭn'ĭsh) Pronunciation Key
v. pun·ished, pun·ish·ing, pun·ish·es
1. To subject to a penalty for an offense, sin, or fault.
2. To inflict a penalty for (an offense).
3. To handle roughly; hurt:
All of these definitions require a deliberate, willful imposition upon the offender by an outside force--a penalty which would not otherwise exist without such a willful imposition. For example, if one commits murder, one is (hopefully) sent to prison.
Then there are the natural consequences of our actions. Eating ice cream too fast leads to brain freeze. Touching fire means getting burned. Excess sun exposure can lead to skin cancer.
Let us turn to literature for a more relevant example.
In The Scarlet Letter, Hester Prynne commits adultery and finds herself pregnant. She is punished for her crime with endless hours standing upon a scaffold, and afterward a scarlet letter A (for adulteress) which she must wear on her clothing for the rest of her life.
Her daughter is not a punishment. Her daughter is a fact of life. One which helps her to endure her punishment I might add.
Nobody gets put on trial, and given an STD by the court for having promiscuous sex. Parents do not give their daughters babies the same way they might ground them or take away the car keys.
Obama's language is very telling. To say that he doesn't want his daughters "punished" with a baby if they make the mistake of having sex as teens is like saying he doesn't want his daughters to be "punished" with ignorance if they choose not to go to school. It is like saying he doesn't want them to be "punished" with hangovers if they party too hard in college.
In my professional experience, parents who try to keep their kids from being "punished" with the natural consequences of their actions often raise spoiled children. Not only are these children spoiled, they are almost entirely incapable of taking care of themselves in real life situations. Why? Because they have never had the benefit of learning from experiences. It starts with smaller things usually. Think about the kinds of behavior we see in an episode of Supernanny. Have a tantrum, and get your way. Break a toy? Mom and dad replace it. Don't do your homework? Blame (and even sue) the teacher for your failing grades. Can't manage your money? Don't worry, your parents can always send you some. Flunk out of college? Live with mom and dad, rent free at the age of 35. Get arrested for drunk driving? Mom and Dad bail you out.
You get the picture.
Now I am not saying that this is Obama's parenting style. I hope it isn't. While it is wonderful when parents can raise their children to avoid mistakes, even the best parents have children that go astray. Fortunately, it is how we respond to the natural consequences of our mistakes that allows us to become better people.
An immature teenager who becomes pregnant as a result of a stupid decision has an occasion she can rise to. Becoing a mother can even help a teenager to become more mature. Believe me, it is possible. I have seen it happen. Sheltering kids from the natural consequences of their actions instead of teaching them how to deal with those consequences deprives them of an opportunity to grow.
But, Senator Obama is probably the most pro-abortion person in the senate (even voting against medical care for infants accidentally born alive during an abortion). If that does not convince you, have a look at this speech, which he gave before the Planned Parenthood action fund in July of 2007.
Taken together with his record, the subtext of his comments is that if his daughter does make a mistake, and ends up pregnant as a result, he still will not want her "punished" with a baby. It would appear that his faith in his daughters' capacity to learn from mistakes, as well as his faith in any of our daughters, is ultimately limited.
I also wonder, would he want his daughter to get information like this? Or this?
When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence education and teaching the children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."
Other than my disgust with the fact that his rhetoric equates childbearing and disease, I have another problem with his choice of words:
The notion that pregnancy is somehow an imposition upon a woman who consented to the act which produced it.
Time for your English Teacher to get out the American Heritage Dictionary:
pun·ish (pŭn'ĭsh) Pronunciation Key
v. pun·ished, pun·ish·ing, pun·ish·es
1. To subject to a penalty for an offense, sin, or fault.
2. To inflict a penalty for (an offense).
3. To handle roughly; hurt:
All of these definitions require a deliberate, willful imposition upon the offender by an outside force--a penalty which would not otherwise exist without such a willful imposition. For example, if one commits murder, one is (hopefully) sent to prison.
Then there are the natural consequences of our actions. Eating ice cream too fast leads to brain freeze. Touching fire means getting burned. Excess sun exposure can lead to skin cancer.
Let us turn to literature for a more relevant example.
In The Scarlet Letter, Hester Prynne commits adultery and finds herself pregnant. She is punished for her crime with endless hours standing upon a scaffold, and afterward a scarlet letter A (for adulteress) which she must wear on her clothing for the rest of her life.
Her daughter is not a punishment. Her daughter is a fact of life. One which helps her to endure her punishment I might add.
Nobody gets put on trial, and given an STD by the court for having promiscuous sex. Parents do not give their daughters babies the same way they might ground them or take away the car keys.
Obama's language is very telling. To say that he doesn't want his daughters "punished" with a baby if they make the mistake of having sex as teens is like saying he doesn't want his daughters to be "punished" with ignorance if they choose not to go to school. It is like saying he doesn't want them to be "punished" with hangovers if they party too hard in college.
In my professional experience, parents who try to keep their kids from being "punished" with the natural consequences of their actions often raise spoiled children. Not only are these children spoiled, they are almost entirely incapable of taking care of themselves in real life situations. Why? Because they have never had the benefit of learning from experiences. It starts with smaller things usually. Think about the kinds of behavior we see in an episode of Supernanny. Have a tantrum, and get your way. Break a toy? Mom and dad replace it. Don't do your homework? Blame (and even sue) the teacher for your failing grades. Can't manage your money? Don't worry, your parents can always send you some. Flunk out of college? Live with mom and dad, rent free at the age of 35. Get arrested for drunk driving? Mom and Dad bail you out.
You get the picture.
Now I am not saying that this is Obama's parenting style. I hope it isn't. While it is wonderful when parents can raise their children to avoid mistakes, even the best parents have children that go astray. Fortunately, it is how we respond to the natural consequences of our mistakes that allows us to become better people.
An immature teenager who becomes pregnant as a result of a stupid decision has an occasion she can rise to. Becoing a mother can even help a teenager to become more mature. Believe me, it is possible. I have seen it happen. Sheltering kids from the natural consequences of their actions instead of teaching them how to deal with those consequences deprives them of an opportunity to grow.
But, Senator Obama is probably the most pro-abortion person in the senate (even voting against medical care for infants accidentally born alive during an abortion). If that does not convince you, have a look at this speech, which he gave before the Planned Parenthood action fund in July of 2007.
Taken together with his record, the subtext of his comments is that if his daughter does make a mistake, and ends up pregnant as a result, he still will not want her "punished" with a baby. It would appear that his faith in his daughters' capacity to learn from mistakes, as well as his faith in any of our daughters, is ultimately limited.
I also wonder, would he want his daughter to get information like this? Or this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)