Two items featuring the Windy City this week -
The first is the Supreme Court's ruling against the banning of guns in Chicago. Makes sense to me; when guns are outlawed, only the outlaws retain their guns while the law-abiding citizens are left to protect themselves with less effective weapons.
Click below for the story:
Court strikes down Chicago gun ban
The second story is about our beloved President's beloved old "pastor" (I always have to put that in quotes because this man does not embody that title), Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Speaking at Chicago Theological Seminary during a seminar this past week, Wright had these nuggets of wisdom to share with his audience:
"White folk done took this country. You're in their home and they're going to let you know it."
"You are not now, nor have you ever been, nor will you ever be a brother to white folk," he said. "And if you do not realize that, you are in serious trouble."
He also explained that the civil rights movement "was always about becoming white" (whatever that means).
Absence makes the heart grow fonder, the saying goes. I'd say that Wright hasn't been out of the public eye long enough for me to miss him yet. And he probably never will!
June 29, 2010
June 24, 2010
Curing Blindness with Adult Stem Cells!
This is really something to celebrate. Imagine, people being able to see after 60 + years of living in a darkened, shapeless world! And the best part? The Italian scientists are curing them with adult stem cells. Add this to the ever-growing list of maladies that have been cured or put into remission by the use of these non-controversial cells. Praise God!
******************
Stem cells reverse blindness caused by burns
By ALICIA CHANG, AP Science Writer Alicia Chang, Ap Science Writer
Wed Jun 23, 7:29 pm ET
LOS ANGELES – Dozens of people who were blinded or otherwise suffered severe eye damage when they were splashed with caustic chemicals had their sight restored with transplants of their own stem cells — a stunning success for the burgeoning cell-therapy field, Italian researchers reported Wednesday.
The treatment worked completely in 82 of 107 eyes and partially in 14 others, with benefits lasting up to a decade so far. One man whose eyes were severely damaged more than 60 years ago now has near-normal vision.
"This is a roaring success," said ophthalmologist Dr. Ivan Schwab of the University of California, Davis, who had no role in the study — the longest and largest of its kind.
Stem cell transplants offer hope to the thousands of people worldwide every year who suffer chemical burns on their corneas from heavy-duty cleansers or other substances at work or at home.
The approach would not help people with damage to the optic nerve or macular degeneration, which involves the retina. Nor would it work in people who are completely blind in both eyes, because doctors need at least some healthy tissue that they can transplant.
In the study, published online by the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers took a small number of stem cells from a patient's healthy eye, multiplied them in the lab and placed them into the burned eye, where they were able to grow new corneal tissue to replace what had been damaged. Since the stem cells are from their own bodies, the patients do not need to take anti-rejection drugs.
Adult stem cells have been used for decades to cure blood cancers such as leukemia and diseases like sickle cell anemia. But fixing a problem like damaged eyes is a relatively new use. Researchers have been studying cell therapy for a host of other diseases, including diabetes and heart failure, with limited success.
Adult stem cells, which are found around the body, are different from embryonic stem cells, which come from human embryos and have stirred ethical concerns because removing the cells requires destroying the embryos.
Currently, people with eye burns can get an artificial cornea, a procedure that carries such complications as infection and glaucoma, or they can receive a transplant using stem cells from a cadaver, but that requires taking drugs to prevent rejection.
The Italian study involved 106 patients treated between 1998 and 2007. Most had extensive damage in one eye, and some had such limited vision that they could only sense light, count fingers or perceive hand motions. Many had been blind for years and had had unsuccessful operations to restore their vision.
The cells were taken from the limbus, the rim around the cornea, the clear window that covers the colored part of the eye. In a normal eye, stem cells in the limbus are like factories, churning out new cells to replace dead corneal cells. When an injury kills off the stem cells, scar tissue forms over the cornea, clouding vision and causing blindness.
In the Italian study, the doctors removed scar tissue over the cornea and glued the laboratory-grown stem cells over the injured eye. In cases where both eyes were damaged by burns, cells were taken from an unaffected part of the limbus.
Researchers followed the patients for an average of three years and some as long as a decade. More than three-quarters regained sight after the transplant. An additional 13 percent were considered a partial success. Though their vision improved, they still had some cloudiness in the cornea.
Patients with superficial damage were able to see within one to two months. Those with more extensive injuries took several months longer.
"They were incredibly happy. Some said it was a miracle," said one of the study leaders, Graziella Pellegrini of the University of Modena's Center for Regenerative Medicine in Italy. "It was not a miracle. It was simply a technique."
The study was partly funded by the Italian government.
Researchers in the United States have been testing a different way to use self-supplied stem cells, but that work is preliminary.
One of the successful transplants in the Italian study involved a man who had severe damage in both eyes as a result of a chemical burn in 1948. Doctors grafted stem cells from a small section of his left eye to both eyes. His vision is now close to normal.
In 2008, there were 2,850 work-related chemical burns to the eyes in the United States, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Schwab of UC Davis said stem cell transplants would not help those blinded by burns in both eyes because doctors need stem cells to do the procedure.
"I don't want to give the false hope that this will answer their prayers," he said.
Dr. Sophie Deng, a cornea expert at the UCLA's Jules Stein Eye Institute, said the biggest advantage was that the Italian doctors were able to expand the number of stem cells in the lab. This technique is less invasive than taking a large tissue sample from the eye and lowers the chance of an eye injury.
"The key is whether you can find a good stem cell population and expand it," she said.
___
Online:
New England Journal: http://www.nejm.org
******************
Stem cells reverse blindness caused by burns
By ALICIA CHANG, AP Science Writer Alicia Chang, Ap Science Writer
Wed Jun 23, 7:29 pm ET
LOS ANGELES – Dozens of people who were blinded or otherwise suffered severe eye damage when they were splashed with caustic chemicals had their sight restored with transplants of their own stem cells — a stunning success for the burgeoning cell-therapy field, Italian researchers reported Wednesday.
The treatment worked completely in 82 of 107 eyes and partially in 14 others, with benefits lasting up to a decade so far. One man whose eyes were severely damaged more than 60 years ago now has near-normal vision.
"This is a roaring success," said ophthalmologist Dr. Ivan Schwab of the University of California, Davis, who had no role in the study — the longest and largest of its kind.
Stem cell transplants offer hope to the thousands of people worldwide every year who suffer chemical burns on their corneas from heavy-duty cleansers or other substances at work or at home.
The approach would not help people with damage to the optic nerve or macular degeneration, which involves the retina. Nor would it work in people who are completely blind in both eyes, because doctors need at least some healthy tissue that they can transplant.
In the study, published online by the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers took a small number of stem cells from a patient's healthy eye, multiplied them in the lab and placed them into the burned eye, where they were able to grow new corneal tissue to replace what had been damaged. Since the stem cells are from their own bodies, the patients do not need to take anti-rejection drugs.
Adult stem cells have been used for decades to cure blood cancers such as leukemia and diseases like sickle cell anemia. But fixing a problem like damaged eyes is a relatively new use. Researchers have been studying cell therapy for a host of other diseases, including diabetes and heart failure, with limited success.
Adult stem cells, which are found around the body, are different from embryonic stem cells, which come from human embryos and have stirred ethical concerns because removing the cells requires destroying the embryos.
Currently, people with eye burns can get an artificial cornea, a procedure that carries such complications as infection and glaucoma, or they can receive a transplant using stem cells from a cadaver, but that requires taking drugs to prevent rejection.
The Italian study involved 106 patients treated between 1998 and 2007. Most had extensive damage in one eye, and some had such limited vision that they could only sense light, count fingers or perceive hand motions. Many had been blind for years and had had unsuccessful operations to restore their vision.
The cells were taken from the limbus, the rim around the cornea, the clear window that covers the colored part of the eye. In a normal eye, stem cells in the limbus are like factories, churning out new cells to replace dead corneal cells. When an injury kills off the stem cells, scar tissue forms over the cornea, clouding vision and causing blindness.
In the Italian study, the doctors removed scar tissue over the cornea and glued the laboratory-grown stem cells over the injured eye. In cases where both eyes were damaged by burns, cells were taken from an unaffected part of the limbus.
Researchers followed the patients for an average of three years and some as long as a decade. More than three-quarters regained sight after the transplant. An additional 13 percent were considered a partial success. Though their vision improved, they still had some cloudiness in the cornea.
Patients with superficial damage were able to see within one to two months. Those with more extensive injuries took several months longer.
"They were incredibly happy. Some said it was a miracle," said one of the study leaders, Graziella Pellegrini of the University of Modena's Center for Regenerative Medicine in Italy. "It was not a miracle. It was simply a technique."
The study was partly funded by the Italian government.
Researchers in the United States have been testing a different way to use self-supplied stem cells, but that work is preliminary.
One of the successful transplants in the Italian study involved a man who had severe damage in both eyes as a result of a chemical burn in 1948. Doctors grafted stem cells from a small section of his left eye to both eyes. His vision is now close to normal.
In 2008, there were 2,850 work-related chemical burns to the eyes in the United States, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Schwab of UC Davis said stem cell transplants would not help those blinded by burns in both eyes because doctors need stem cells to do the procedure.
"I don't want to give the false hope that this will answer their prayers," he said.
Dr. Sophie Deng, a cornea expert at the UCLA's Jules Stein Eye Institute, said the biggest advantage was that the Italian doctors were able to expand the number of stem cells in the lab. This technique is less invasive than taking a large tissue sample from the eye and lowers the chance of an eye injury.
"The key is whether you can find a good stem cell population and expand it," she said.
___
Online:
New England Journal: http://www.nejm.org
"Creepy" and "Predatory" Marketing?
Parent readers of this blog,
Is it up to lawmakers to determine what foods are available to your children at privately-owned restaurants? In my opinion, the fact that these foods are available in the world is perfectly acceptable. Parents decide what their kids eat, and eating junky food some of the time is not a sin. It's the overindulgence to those kinds of foods, with a disregard to healthy eating practices, that concerns me. However, as maddening and saddening as it is to see fat seven-year-olds (and it is very, very sad for all the implications), it's none of my business to enforce healthy eating onto those kids and their parents.
You want to affect families' eating habits in a personal, highly-successful way? Employ yourself as a caregiver to kids and/or young adults. You are immediately given the duties of role modeling good eating behaviors and highlighting the importance of exercise. In fact, you're expected to encourage these things and are paid to do just that.
You'd be shocked at how incomplete peoples' information about how different foods get processed in our bodies, and what kind of results they bring when metabolized is. Many people simply do not even know what vitamins are, where to find them, why they're important, what too much fat, sugar and salt do to your body (including your brain, thus your behavior, mood and sensitivities) and why exercise and water are the greatest combatants.
Censoring what foods are simply available - fast food, vending machines, at ball games, etc. - is yet another misguided "solution" to the liberal notion of "caring for others." They don't care; caring takes time and involvement. They just want to control.
Unhappy Meals: McDonald's to be sued for 'enticing children with toys'
By Sean Poulter, Consumer Affairs Editor
Last updated at 9:37 PM on 23rd June 2010
www.dailymail.co.uk
As far as many children are concerned, they are the most appealing things on the menu.
But not everyone is so keen on the merchandising toys used by McDonald's to entice youngsters to buy its Happy Meals.
A powerful American consumer group is threatening a lawsuit and has given the chain 30 days to drop the 'creepy and predatory' ploy it says undermines the efforts of parents to encourage a healthy diet.
The merchandise, which is also given to customers in Britain, includes toys related to the latest Shrek movie. Earlier this year it also had tie-ups with Alvin and the Chipmunks and Scooby Doo.
The Centre for Science in the Public Interest says using the items to promote its Happy Meals is 'unfair, deceptive and illegal' under American state laws.
McDonald's insists it uses toys and popular characters to promote healthy options such as fruit, carrot sticks and organic milk.
However, the CSPI says the reality is 93 per cent of children who have a Happy Meal walk out with a portion of fries alongside products such as burgers and chicken nuggets.
"McDonald's is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children," said the CSPI litigation director Stephen Gardner.
"McDonald's use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits young children's developmental immaturity - all this to induce children to prefer foods that may harm their health.
It's a creepy and predatory practice that warrants an injunction."
The CSPI said that of the 24 possible Happy Meal combinations that McDonald's describes on its U.S. website, all exceed 430 calories, which is one third of the 1,300 recommended daily intake for children aged four to eight*.
The figures will be similar in the UK.
A Happy Meal of a cheeseburger, French fries and Sprite has half a day's calories and saturated fat. It also has around two days of sugar at 35g.
McDonald's in the UK accused the CSPI of misrepresenting its food. A spokesman said: "McDonald's is committed to a responsible approach to our menu, and our Happy Meal offerings. We have added more choice and variety than ever before, a fact that has been widely reported and recognised. We couldn't disagree more with the misrepresentation of our food and marketing practices made by the CSPI."
Kathryn Montgomery, professor of communication at American University in Washington, said: "We know from scientific research that young children - and even older ones - do not have the ability to understand how marketing has been designed to influence them. In the era of digital marketing, these vulnerabilities are magnified even further. McDonald's use of these techniques raises troubling questions, for health professionals, parents, and policy makers."
*So what? A third of the day's calories is one meal's worth.
Is it up to lawmakers to determine what foods are available to your children at privately-owned restaurants? In my opinion, the fact that these foods are available in the world is perfectly acceptable. Parents decide what their kids eat, and eating junky food some of the time is not a sin. It's the overindulgence to those kinds of foods, with a disregard to healthy eating practices, that concerns me. However, as maddening and saddening as it is to see fat seven-year-olds (and it is very, very sad for all the implications), it's none of my business to enforce healthy eating onto those kids and their parents.
You want to affect families' eating habits in a personal, highly-successful way? Employ yourself as a caregiver to kids and/or young adults. You are immediately given the duties of role modeling good eating behaviors and highlighting the importance of exercise. In fact, you're expected to encourage these things and are paid to do just that.
You'd be shocked at how incomplete peoples' information about how different foods get processed in our bodies, and what kind of results they bring when metabolized is. Many people simply do not even know what vitamins are, where to find them, why they're important, what too much fat, sugar and salt do to your body (including your brain, thus your behavior, mood and sensitivities) and why exercise and water are the greatest combatants.
Censoring what foods are simply available - fast food, vending machines, at ball games, etc. - is yet another misguided "solution" to the liberal notion of "caring for others." They don't care; caring takes time and involvement. They just want to control.
******************
Unhappy Meals: McDonald's to be sued for 'enticing children with toys'
By Sean Poulter, Consumer Affairs Editor
Last updated at 9:37 PM on 23rd June 2010
www.dailymail.co.uk
As far as many children are concerned, they are the most appealing things on the menu.
But not everyone is so keen on the merchandising toys used by McDonald's to entice youngsters to buy its Happy Meals.
A powerful American consumer group is threatening a lawsuit and has given the chain 30 days to drop the 'creepy and predatory' ploy it says undermines the efforts of parents to encourage a healthy diet.
The merchandise, which is also given to customers in Britain, includes toys related to the latest Shrek movie. Earlier this year it also had tie-ups with Alvin and the Chipmunks and Scooby Doo.
The Centre for Science in the Public Interest says using the items to promote its Happy Meals is 'unfair, deceptive and illegal' under American state laws.
McDonald's insists it uses toys and popular characters to promote healthy options such as fruit, carrot sticks and organic milk.
However, the CSPI says the reality is 93 per cent of children who have a Happy Meal walk out with a portion of fries alongside products such as burgers and chicken nuggets.
"McDonald's is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children," said the CSPI litigation director Stephen Gardner.
"McDonald's use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits young children's developmental immaturity - all this to induce children to prefer foods that may harm their health.
It's a creepy and predatory practice that warrants an injunction."
The CSPI said that of the 24 possible Happy Meal combinations that McDonald's describes on its U.S. website, all exceed 430 calories, which is one third of the 1,300 recommended daily intake for children aged four to eight*.
The figures will be similar in the UK.
A Happy Meal of a cheeseburger, French fries and Sprite has half a day's calories and saturated fat. It also has around two days of sugar at 35g.
McDonald's in the UK accused the CSPI of misrepresenting its food. A spokesman said: "McDonald's is committed to a responsible approach to our menu, and our Happy Meal offerings. We have added more choice and variety than ever before, a fact that has been widely reported and recognised. We couldn't disagree more with the misrepresentation of our food and marketing practices made by the CSPI."
Kathryn Montgomery, professor of communication at American University in Washington, said: "We know from scientific research that young children - and even older ones - do not have the ability to understand how marketing has been designed to influence them. In the era of digital marketing, these vulnerabilities are magnified even further. McDonald's use of these techniques raises troubling questions, for health professionals, parents, and policy makers."
*So what? A third of the day's calories is one meal's worth.
June 23, 2010
FMLA for Gay "Partners?"
Expansion of Gay Benefits Threatens Private Sector
by Kim Trobee, editor - citizenlink.org
The Labor Department is set to announce on Wednesday that the government will extend benefits to gay couples under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). FMLA allows private and public employees to take extended absences for serious medical conditions, including pregnancy, or to care for family members.
The move is significant, because to date, the administration has only looked at benefits for federal employees.
Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, said the latest plan may cause trouble for private employers.
"This action with the Family and Medical Leave Act is a huge leap beyond anything he's done before because he is imposing an obligation upon private employers," he said. "He's not the chief executive of every private employer in the country, and yet, he is telling them that they have to offer benefits to homosexual couples."
The latest announcement is part of a series of incremental steps that started a year and a half ago. The Obama administration has expanded benefits for the partners of gay federal workers to include long-term health insurance, access to day care, Federal Housing Authority loans and federal child-care subsidies.
Matt Barber, associate dean for career and professional development at Liberty University School of Law, said the president is acting on behalf of gay activists.
"He's really running roughshod," Barber said, "over the express language of the FMLA and is definitely violating the clear language of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)."
DOMA defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman.
"It is not within the power or authority of the president to effect a de facto repeal simply by these little regulations, one regulation at a time," Sprigg said. "The president is going beyond his constitutional and legal authority. If he wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, he needs to persuade Congress to repeal it."
The presidential proclamation for Father's Day exemplified the administration's changing rhetoric on the issue. It asserted that "nurturing families come in many forms," including "two fathers."
Jenny Tyree, marriage analyst for CitizenLink, said the president has been talking out of both sides of his mouth.
"He's been a supporter of married mothers and fathers in name only," she told The Washington Post. "He speaks very passionately and touchingly about how he grew up without a father. And yet there is this huge disconnect in how he's undermining that same opportunity for other children."
June 3, 2010
Quote of the Day
“It is a sad day in America when the rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution are trampled upon under the color of law and authority,” said LAUSD (Los Angeles United School District) Board Member Martinez. “Everyone, regardless of their status in the United States, has the right to equal protection under our laws. These Arizona laws are nothing but a knee-jerk backlash resulting from the lack of a comprehensive and well thought out immigration reform policy.”
In this statement you have the key elements of misguided liberal political thought:
1. Complete ignorance of who is protected under the U.S. Constitution and state laws. According to the LA school district, illegal aliens and legal citizens alike are entitled to all the rights, benefits and protections provided by the U.S. laws.
2. Insistance that those who support enforcing laws against people who are not legal in this country are "sad," a.k.a. bigots, racist, xenophobic, themselves ignorant.
3. The posturing that the creation - and subsequent modification to exclude racial profiling - of the Arizona immigration law is not, in fact, a reasonable part of immigration reform, but simply a "knee-jerk" reaction. This is to say it was not "well thought-out," even though it was modified after the profiling option became obvious.
In this statement you have the key elements of misguided liberal political thought:
1. Complete ignorance of who is protected under the U.S. Constitution and state laws. According to the LA school district, illegal aliens and legal citizens alike are entitled to all the rights, benefits and protections provided by the U.S. laws.
2. Insistance that those who support enforcing laws against people who are not legal in this country are "sad," a.k.a. bigots, racist, xenophobic, themselves ignorant.
3. The posturing that the creation - and subsequent modification to exclude racial profiling - of the Arizona immigration law is not, in fact, a reasonable part of immigration reform, but simply a "knee-jerk" reaction. This is to say it was not "well thought-out," even though it was modified after the profiling option became obvious.
Opposite Day in Ottawa
Opposite day, wherein the opposite of the expected result is the preferred result. In this case it means that when you win a game of soccer, you actually lose. Thus, if you were the loser (by point earned), you automatically win. Oh, Canada!
The article is pretty straightforward, if you consider liberal parents getting a rule like this established in the name of "fairness" straightforward. I think of it as more subversive than upfront, but whatever. They're obviously pushing an agenda - that the world isn't "fair," and that it should be, on every level, including within sports.
Call me crazy but doesn't leveling the teams, forcing handicaps on their best players and allowing the losing team to be declared the winner for an arbitrary scoring system make the effort of playing sports - nay, the entire objective of sports - superfluous? If the point isn't to win, and to learn from both winning and losing, then what is the point?
Check out where the Gloucester club director emphatically states that paying a registration fee doesn't entitle parents to criticizing the club. But it apparently does entitle parents to push their agenda onto everyone for the sake of their losing-team kids' self-esteem.
Here's a tip to all future Olympians: if the games are in Canada, don't bother attending. You're guarenteed to lose.
*******************************************************
Win a soccer game by more than five points and you lose, Ottawa league says
By Terrine Friday June 1, 2010 – 6:05 am
In yet another nod to the protection of fledgling self-esteem, an Ottawa children’s soccer league has introduced a rule that says any team that wins a game by more than five points will lose by default.
The Gloucester Dragons Recreational Soccer league’s newly implemented edict is intended to dissuade a runaway game in favour of sportsmanship. The rule replaces its five-point mercy regulation, whereby any points scored beyond a five-point differential would not be registered.
Kevin Cappon said he first heard about the rule on May 20 — right after he had scored his team’s last allowable goal. His team then tossed the ball around for fear of losing the game.
He said if anything, the league’s new rule will coddle sore losers.
“They should be saying anything is possible. If we can get five goals really fast, well, so can the other team,” said Kevin, 17, who has played in the league for five years. “People grow in adversity, they don’t really get worse…. I think you’ll see more leadership skills being used if a losing team tries to recuperate than if they never got into that situation at all.”
Kevin’s father, Bruce Cappon, called the rule ludicrous.
“I couldn’t find anywhere in the world, even in a communist country, where that rule is enforced,” he said.
Mr. Cappon said the organization is trying to “reinvent the wheel” by fostering a non-competitive environment. The league has 3,000 children enrolled ranging in age from four to 18 years old.
“Everybody wants a close game, nobody wants blowouts, but we don’t want to go by those farcical rules that they come up with,” he said. “Heaven forbid when these kids get into the real world. They won’t be prepared to deal with the competition out there.”
Paul Cholmsky, whose four- and six-year-old boys play in the league, said the intended goal of a default-lose rule might backfire in teaching life skills.
“If there’s one team that’s consistenly dominant and one team that’s not, well, that’s life,” he said.
Mr. Cholmsky said he would be in favour of temporarily handicapping a team, for example reducing the number of players on the field, over ensuring a team loss for a high score differential.
According to the league’s new rules, coaches of stronger teams are encouraged to deter runaway games by rotating players out of their usual positions, ensuring players pass the ball around, asking players to kick with the weaker foot, taking players off the field and encouraging players to score from farther away.
Club director Sean Cale said he is disappointed a few parents are making the new soccer rule overshadow the community involvement and organizing the Gloucester club does.
“The registration fee, regardless of the sport, does not give a parent the right to insult or belittle the organization,” he said. “It gives you a uniform, it gives you a team.”
Mr. Cale said the league’s 12-person board of directors is not trying to take the fun out of the game, they are simply trying to make it fair. The new rule, suggested by “involved parents,” is a temporary measure that will be replaced by a pre-season skill assessment to make fair teams.
“The board is completely volunteer-run and we do the best that we can to provide a good, clean, fun soccer experience for everyone,” he said.
Although parents are fuming, he said the commotion is coming from “about 1% of the parents.”
First printed in the National Post
May 20, 2010
You Got Some Nerve
Thrice entries today... though I could probably find more if I wanted to...
Uno:
Pakistani students' reaction to the "Draw Mohammad Day" facebook page:
"Kill anyone who insults Mohammad." How long will people tow the line of "Oh, Muslims aren't violent toward non-Muslims. Islam is a religion of peace!" Really?
Dos:
Mexico's president Calderon scolds the Arizona immigration (rather, 'anti illegal immigrant') policy, and tells us we need to develop "comprehensive immigration reform."
Dude, these are YOUR citizens living illegally in OUR country. Yet, you don't want them back in Mexico. What's wrong with this picture?
Tres:
Richard Blumenthal has been subtly claiming for a decade that he served in the Vietnam War, presumably to garner support from post-war vets. Now he says he never said "in" the war; he said he served "during" the war.
Yet he has also been cited by several close friends and colleagues as implying he was one of those vets spit on upon return to the U.S., and that he "wore the uniform" at that time.
Dispicable. If you served, you gave your time and potentially risked your life for the cause of your country at the time. That's honorable because it's a sacrifice. If you didn't serve, claiming you did makes you a real shmuck.
Uno:
Pakistani students' reaction to the "Draw Mohammad Day" facebook page:
"Kill anyone who insults Mohammad." How long will people tow the line of "Oh, Muslims aren't violent toward non-Muslims. Islam is a religion of peace!" Really?Dos:
Mexico's president Calderon scolds the Arizona immigration (rather, 'anti illegal immigrant') policy, and tells us we need to develop "comprehensive immigration reform."
Dude, these are YOUR citizens living illegally in OUR country. Yet, you don't want them back in Mexico. What's wrong with this picture?
Tres:
Richard Blumenthal has been subtly claiming for a decade that he served in the Vietnam War, presumably to garner support from post-war vets. Now he says he never said "in" the war; he said he served "during" the war.
Yet he has also been cited by several close friends and colleagues as implying he was one of those vets spit on upon return to the U.S., and that he "wore the uniform" at that time.
Dispicable. If you served, you gave your time and potentially risked your life for the cause of your country at the time. That's honorable because it's a sacrifice. If you didn't serve, claiming you did makes you a real shmuck.
May 19, 2010
The Beauty Within
On the topic of the newly-crowned Miss USA, I'll let her aunt do the talking:
"She is an honour to us, a honour to all of southern Lebanon... We are so often described as terrorists and killers, but we Shiites love life and beauty — and mainly the beauty of the soul, which is what is so special about Rima," said the veiled 62-year-old.
Yes, they honor the beauty of the soul by... congratulating their attractive, super-skinny, scantily-clad nieces on their winnings of a contest judged solely on outward appearance. Oh, the contest winner is evaluated on other things, like her answers to the "political" questions asked, too? Hmm.. maybe. Two things: One, how does an answer to a political question get rated? If it's subjective, then it has no bearing. Or at least, each judge could "rate" differently and cancel each other out.
Secondly, I'm willing to put money on the hot-button questions being asked to create buzz and advertising rev for the pageant, not to produce the kind of responses that might be given by, say, anyone who has lived past 18, experienced a little bit of life outside a world where everyone treats you great because you're hot... meaning, anyone who has actually tested their moral compass.
If you think I'm being inconsistent, check out my prior posts about Carrie Prejean. I don't care if she says she's a Christian and loves traditional marriage; if she had an ounce of modesty she wouldn't be competing.
So there, you see I'm completely at ease with condemning both Christian and Muslim - although neither one is much of an example of either faith - on this issue. Ain't I pc? =)
May 12, 2010
L'eggo That Eggo!
...and the fries and the non-organic everything.
Three things here: One, I don't have anything against organic food or people eating it. In fact, I recently switched to organic meat and dairy products, which seem to be helping my general health a little. I certainly feel better knowing I'm not eating tons of synthetic hormones.
Secondly, no, I don't think fast foods are good for you, and I wish people would prefer eating healthy foods instead of McDonald's and highly-processed, shelf-stable items. I wish people would exercise, stop smoking, encourage healthy eating habits with their kids, take vitamins and give a rip about their health in a preventative way, too.
However, it's neither my place nor the government's to make mandates about what people should eat. There is no "should" with preferences; you prefer one way or the other. My way may be known to lead to less disease and longer life, but that doesn't mean I'm going to make you do things like I do. Believe it or not, I strongly vie for your personal choice even if I don't agree with it.
Lastly, I love Michelle Malkin's line about Mrs. Obama stepping down from the position in an "ostentatious display of self-sacrifice." That's their game: make the money in the wings while publicly posing to have principles. Backstage, it's all about the green. And I don't mean veggies.
________________________________________________________
"Michelle Obama: Food Profiteer Turned Food Cop"
By Michelle Malkin
May 12, 2010
Let me summarize first lady Michelle Obama's anti-obesity agenda: Shed as I say, not as I gain. While she crusades for organic foods and puts government pressure on corporations to stop marketing fast food and junk food to children, Mrs. Obama herself profited from the very same processed food industry she now demonizes.
In June 2005, a few months after her husband was elected to the U.S. Senate, Mrs. Obama hustled a seat on the corporate Board of Directors of TreeHouse Foods, Inc. Despite zero experience, the food-processing company put her on its audit and nominating and corporate governance committees. For her on-the-job training and the privilege of putting her name and face on their literature, the company forked over $45,000 in 2005 and $51,200 in 2006 to Mrs. Obama -- as well as 7,500 TreeHouse stock options worth more than $72,000 for each year.
The chairman of the TreeHouse Foods board, Sam K. Reed, was a top executive at Kellogg's and Keebler Foods, home of that great menace to children, the Keebler Elf. Before that, he headed up Mother's Cake and Cookie Company. The conglomerate sells cheese sauces, Cremora non-dairy creamer, instant soup, puddings and powdered soft drink mixes. Hardly the stuff of Mrs. Obama's new vision of nutritional paradise. TreeHouse is also a leading supplier of pickles used in the burgers of evil fast food chain McDonald's -- exactly the kind of corporate restaurants Mrs. Obama is now targeting in her war on urban "food deserts."
The corporation-bashing Mrs. Obama would have continued raking in her TreeHouse cash if it hadn't been for her husband's pesky pledge to pander to Big Labor and swear off Wal-Mart. The retail giant, you see, happened to be TreeHouse's biggest customer. And Wal-Mart is to Big Labor as sunshine is to Dracula.
In May 2007, Obama told AFL-CIO workers in Trenton, N.J., that Wal-Mart was dead to him. "I won't shop there," he pledged, with an eye toward embarrassing then-chief rival Hillary Clinton, who had served on Wal-Mart's board from 1986-1992. The AFL-CIO has waged relentless attacks on Wal-Mart, dubbing it the "Poster Store for Greed." That, by extension, would make Mrs. Obama -- all-too-happy recipient of a Wal-Mart dependent compensation package worth more than $100,000 in 2008, according to Securities and Exchange Commission records -- a Poster Child for Ancillary Avarice.
Candidate Obama shrugged off his wife's conflict of interest. "Michelle and I have to live in the world and pay taxes and pay for our kids and save for retirement," Obama explained to Crain's Chicago Business magazine before his White House bid. Political expediency, alas, required that the candidate's wife step down when the issue reared its head after Obama's Wal-Mart bashing during the presidential campaign cycle. True to form, Mrs. Obama turned the decision into an ostentatious display of self-sacrifice:
"As my campaign commitments continue to ramp up, it is becoming more difficult for me to provide the type of focus I would like on my professional responsibilities," said Chicago's Joan of Arc in a resignation statement eight days after her husband declared his boycott of the stores stocked with food items processed and distributed by her TreeHouse colleagues. "My priorities, particularly at this important time, are ensuring that our young daughters feel a sense of comfort and normalcy in this process, and that I can support my husband in his presidential campaign to bring much needed change to this country."
She saw no conflict then. And she sees no conflict now in wielding her East Wing clout to restrict the advertising free speech of the food industry that lined her pocketbook with big, fat paychecks. The Obama White House is on an insatiable control binge. No private space has been left behind -- not your grocery aisles, not your children's TV shows, not even your refrigerator.
Give the first lady this: She has an uncanny knack for wrapping her self-interests in the mantle of self-sacrifice and public service. It's the Obama way.
Three things here: One, I don't have anything against organic food or people eating it. In fact, I recently switched to organic meat and dairy products, which seem to be helping my general health a little. I certainly feel better knowing I'm not eating tons of synthetic hormones.
Secondly, no, I don't think fast foods are good for you, and I wish people would prefer eating healthy foods instead of McDonald's and highly-processed, shelf-stable items. I wish people would exercise, stop smoking, encourage healthy eating habits with their kids, take vitamins and give a rip about their health in a preventative way, too.
However, it's neither my place nor the government's to make mandates about what people should eat. There is no "should" with preferences; you prefer one way or the other. My way may be known to lead to less disease and longer life, but that doesn't mean I'm going to make you do things like I do. Believe it or not, I strongly vie for your personal choice even if I don't agree with it.
Lastly, I love Michelle Malkin's line about Mrs. Obama stepping down from the position in an "ostentatious display of self-sacrifice." That's their game: make the money in the wings while publicly posing to have principles. Backstage, it's all about the green. And I don't mean veggies.
________________________________________________________
"Michelle Obama: Food Profiteer Turned Food Cop"
By Michelle Malkin
May 12, 2010
Let me summarize first lady Michelle Obama's anti-obesity agenda: Shed as I say, not as I gain. While she crusades for organic foods and puts government pressure on corporations to stop marketing fast food and junk food to children, Mrs. Obama herself profited from the very same processed food industry she now demonizes.
In June 2005, a few months after her husband was elected to the U.S. Senate, Mrs. Obama hustled a seat on the corporate Board of Directors of TreeHouse Foods, Inc. Despite zero experience, the food-processing company put her on its audit and nominating and corporate governance committees. For her on-the-job training and the privilege of putting her name and face on their literature, the company forked over $45,000 in 2005 and $51,200 in 2006 to Mrs. Obama -- as well as 7,500 TreeHouse stock options worth more than $72,000 for each year.
The chairman of the TreeHouse Foods board, Sam K. Reed, was a top executive at Kellogg's and Keebler Foods, home of that great menace to children, the Keebler Elf. Before that, he headed up Mother's Cake and Cookie Company. The conglomerate sells cheese sauces, Cremora non-dairy creamer, instant soup, puddings and powdered soft drink mixes. Hardly the stuff of Mrs. Obama's new vision of nutritional paradise. TreeHouse is also a leading supplier of pickles used in the burgers of evil fast food chain McDonald's -- exactly the kind of corporate restaurants Mrs. Obama is now targeting in her war on urban "food deserts."
The corporation-bashing Mrs. Obama would have continued raking in her TreeHouse cash if it hadn't been for her husband's pesky pledge to pander to Big Labor and swear off Wal-Mart. The retail giant, you see, happened to be TreeHouse's biggest customer. And Wal-Mart is to Big Labor as sunshine is to Dracula.
In May 2007, Obama told AFL-CIO workers in Trenton, N.J., that Wal-Mart was dead to him. "I won't shop there," he pledged, with an eye toward embarrassing then-chief rival Hillary Clinton, who had served on Wal-Mart's board from 1986-1992. The AFL-CIO has waged relentless attacks on Wal-Mart, dubbing it the "Poster Store for Greed." That, by extension, would make Mrs. Obama -- all-too-happy recipient of a Wal-Mart dependent compensation package worth more than $100,000 in 2008, according to Securities and Exchange Commission records -- a Poster Child for Ancillary Avarice.
Candidate Obama shrugged off his wife's conflict of interest. "Michelle and I have to live in the world and pay taxes and pay for our kids and save for retirement," Obama explained to Crain's Chicago Business magazine before his White House bid. Political expediency, alas, required that the candidate's wife step down when the issue reared its head after Obama's Wal-Mart bashing during the presidential campaign cycle. True to form, Mrs. Obama turned the decision into an ostentatious display of self-sacrifice:
"As my campaign commitments continue to ramp up, it is becoming more difficult for me to provide the type of focus I would like on my professional responsibilities," said Chicago's Joan of Arc in a resignation statement eight days after her husband declared his boycott of the stores stocked with food items processed and distributed by her TreeHouse colleagues. "My priorities, particularly at this important time, are ensuring that our young daughters feel a sense of comfort and normalcy in this process, and that I can support my husband in his presidential campaign to bring much needed change to this country."
She saw no conflict then. And she sees no conflict now in wielding her East Wing clout to restrict the advertising free speech of the food industry that lined her pocketbook with big, fat paychecks. The Obama White House is on an insatiable control binge. No private space has been left behind -- not your grocery aisles, not your children's TV shows, not even your refrigerator.
Give the first lady this: She has an uncanny knack for wrapping her self-interests in the mantle of self-sacrifice and public service. It's the Obama way.
May 11, 2010
Say No to Another Subjective Supreme Court Justice
Please join me and Liberty Counsel in rejecting their current agenda which includes President Obama's appointment of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.
In addition to being an abortion supporter and religious organization naysayer, she is trained in transnational law, which utilizes foreign law to influence domestic. Kagan has said that the Constitution must be "reformed" to better comport to international standards of law.
Ms. Kagan also disapproves of religious organizations' involvement ("they should be 'off limits' ") in issues that concern "projects close to the central concerns of religion." In the context of that statement, she was speaking about counseling provided to teenagers faced with unplanned/unwanted pregnancies.
The Liberty Counsel petition also strongly rejects the current administration's interest in pushing the ENDA (employee non-discrimination act) law into effect this fall, as well as the Cap and Trade legislation, financial "reform" bills, immigration reform (i.e. making illegal immigrants legal) and the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
If you are also against both these types of legislation and their specific instantiations, that which we've already seen get pushed through with little to no concern over public opinion, please consider signing the petition.
In addition to being an abortion supporter and religious organization naysayer, she is trained in transnational law, which utilizes foreign law to influence domestic. Kagan has said that the Constitution must be "reformed" to better comport to international standards of law.
Ms. Kagan also disapproves of religious organizations' involvement ("they should be 'off limits' ") in issues that concern "projects close to the central concerns of religion." In the context of that statement, she was speaking about counseling provided to teenagers faced with unplanned/unwanted pregnancies.
The Liberty Counsel petition also strongly rejects the current administration's interest in pushing the ENDA (employee non-discrimination act) law into effect this fall, as well as the Cap and Trade legislation, financial "reform" bills, immigration reform (i.e. making illegal immigrants legal) and the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
If you are also against both these types of legislation and their specific instantiations, that which we've already seen get pushed through with little to no concern over public opinion, please consider signing the petition.
April 28, 2010
Noah's Ark discovered... again?
Not sure how much stock to put in this story. As a believer of the literal truth of the Bible, I do believe that Noah's Ark is real and existed just as the Genesis story relates. However, I'm on the fence about the necessity of actual evidence of the Ark in order to believe. If it turns out to be true - that the structure talked about below is the actual Ark - that would be phenomenal. Just add that to the long list of historical discoveries about Jesus and Biblical truths.
The reason I'm posting it here is because of the coverage by the Daily Mail, to offer a comparison from British to American press. First, the U.K. paper is covering the story, and without an obvious secular bias from the reporter(s); they let the scientists interviewed (who are clearly differentiated from the 'evangelical' discovering scientists) speak for themselves - which they do without much to back up their own claims.
Lastly, name a U.S. paper or news website in/on which you saw a pretty accurate reading of a Biblical story? In the Daily story they give an account of the Noah's Ark story from Genesis (see inserted pic below or go to the Daily page to see better) as a supplement to the story. They even state that God's motivation to send the flood was man's sin! I will give $20 to anyone who finds a U.S. story that mentions sin without scare quotes (as in, "Christians say it's because of 'sin;' " indicating that sin only exists in the minds of us judgmental Christians).
At a press conference yesterday to announce the discovery, another team member, Panda Lee, said: "I saw a structure built with plank-like timber. Each plank was about eight inches wide. I could see tenons, proof of ancient construction predating the use of metal nails. We walked about 100 metres to another site. I could see broken wood fragments embedded in a glacier, and some 20 metres long."
The structure had several compartments, some with wooden beams, the team said.
The wooden walls of one compartment were smooth and curved while the video shown by the explorers revealed doors, staircases and nails. The team said the wood appeared to be cypress although, according to the Bible, the ark was built from gopher.
The group ruled out identifying the find as a human settlement, saying none had been found so high up in that area. They are keeping the exact location secret.
Four years ago and following a decade of research, U.S. national security analyst Porcher Taylor claimed a satellite image revealed a baffling 'anomaly' on the mountain's north-west corner that he believed to be the remains of the Ark.
But Mike Pitt, a British archaeologist, said the evangelical explorers had yet to produce compelling evidence. He added: "If there had been a flood capable of lifting a huge ship 4km up the side of a mountain 4,800 years ago, I think there would be substantial geological evidence for this flood around the world. And there isn't."
The reason I'm posting it here is because of the coverage by the Daily Mail, to offer a comparison from British to American press. First, the U.K. paper is covering the story, and without an obvious secular bias from the reporter(s); they let the scientists interviewed (who are clearly differentiated from the 'evangelical' discovering scientists) speak for themselves - which they do without much to back up their own claims.
Lastly, name a U.S. paper or news website in/on which you saw a pretty accurate reading of a Biblical story? In the Daily story they give an account of the Noah's Ark story from Genesis (see inserted pic below or go to the Daily page to see better) as a supplement to the story. They even state that God's motivation to send the flood was man's sin! I will give $20 to anyone who finds a U.S. story that mentions sin without scare quotes (as in, "Christians say it's because of 'sin;' " indicating that sin only exists in the minds of us judgmental Christians).
__________________________
'We've found Noah's Ark!'... claim evangelical explorers on mission to snow-capped Ararat (but British scientists say 'show us your evidence')
By Mail Foreign Service
Last updated at 12:20 PM on 28th April 2010
As believers in the literal truth of the Bible, they knew it was there.
Even so, the explorers who say they found seven large wooden compartments beneath snow and volcanic debris near the peak of Mount Ararat can be forgiven their excitement.
'It's not 100 per cent that it is Noah's Ark, but we think it is 99.9 per cent that this is it,' said Yeung Wing-cheung, a filmmaker working with the 15-strong team of fundamentalist Christians exploring the Turkish mountain.
They said wood taken from the site, which is more than 13,000ft above sea level, dates to 2,800BC. If it is the ark, the discovery would be the greatest in the history of archaeology and bear out one of the most famous stories in the Bible.
The team of Turks and Chinese researchers from Noah's Ark Ministries International in Hong Kong say they made the discovery on Ararat - the biblical resting place of the ark - in October.
At a press conference yesterday to announce the discovery, another team member, Panda Lee, said: "I saw a structure built with plank-like timber. Each plank was about eight inches wide. I could see tenons, proof of ancient construction predating the use of metal nails. We walked about 100 metres to another site. I could see broken wood fragments embedded in a glacier, and some 20 metres long."The structure had several compartments, some with wooden beams, the team said.
The wooden walls of one compartment were smooth and curved while the video shown by the explorers revealed doors, staircases and nails. The team said the wood appeared to be cypress although, according to the Bible, the ark was built from gopher.
The group ruled out identifying the find as a human settlement, saying none had been found so high up in that area. They are keeping the exact location secret.
Four years ago and following a decade of research, U.S. national security analyst Porcher Taylor claimed a satellite image revealed a baffling 'anomaly' on the mountain's north-west corner that he believed to be the remains of the Ark.
But Mike Pitt, a British archaeologist, said the evangelical explorers had yet to produce compelling evidence. He added: "If there had been a flood capable of lifting a huge ship 4km up the side of a mountain 4,800 years ago, I think there would be substantial geological evidence for this flood around the world. And there isn't."
Nicholas Purcell, a lecturer in ancient history at Oxford University, said the claims were the 'usual nonsense'. He added: "If floodwaters covered Eurasia 12,000ft deep in 2,800BC, how did the complex societies of Egypt and Mesopotamia, already many centuries old, keep right on regardless?"
According to Genesis, the first book in the Old Testament, Noah was told to build the ark by God, who wanted to flood the world to punish sinners. The story was widely seen as fact until the 19th century, when scientists began to question the evidence for a worldwide flood.
To see the article in its original form, please visit this link on the Daily Mail website.
April 25, 2010
You Can't Stay Forever, But You Can Remember
Think of what they saw and heard on the mountain, during the transfiguration. How grateful should we be that Our Lord reveals Himself to us! He doesn't let us "stay on the mountaintop" - it won't always be, nay, rarely will an experience of God be what keeps us faithful - but He gives us Himself in His word every day.
Think of Him today, on His day. Think of where He has been - to the mountains, to the depths, to the cross - and that He always comes back to us.
Sufjan Stevens reminds me of Him, because that's what he's aiming to do. Stevens's "The Transfiguration" is evocative of that event, down to the sounds the clouds might make when opening up for God's voice to come through. At least, that's what I hear in the song.
Think of Him today, on His day. Think of where He has been - to the mountains, to the depths, to the cross - and that He always comes back to us.
Sufjan Stevens reminds me of Him, because that's what he's aiming to do. Stevens's "The Transfiguration" is evocative of that event, down to the sounds the clouds might make when opening up for God's voice to come through. At least, that's what I hear in the song.
April 12, 2010
Putting on a Good Face, As Usual
Trying not to be disappointed with the fact that it's been almost a week and no one (at least, none of my followers) has commented on my previous post.
I really was asking because I want to know how I'm supposed to respond, and not in a way unfitting someone in my position. Wasn't trying to provoke. Wasn't calling names or calling anyone out, saying, "look at what a jerk this person is." Nope, just wanted to know how to co-exist in a place where I know I don't fit in.
The only comments I got are from some unknown blogger without any posts of her own (and nothing but insults for me) and Julie (who isn't on blogger at all). [Thanks Julie!!]
So I wonder why this is.
Easy answers: Too boring of a question? Everyone is busy? They're still thinking of an answer?
Self-loathing answers: Everyone else has lives of their own and bigger fish to fry? It's too serious of a question and no one wants to talk about it (i.e. I should be writing about 'fun' things instead)? Um, no one reads this blog anyway so what do I expect?
Well, Estelle, what do you think? You're the only one who has spoken an opinion. Am I tedious, self-important and irrelevant, in addition to being delusional? And why in the world are YOU reading my blog anyway? Can't be for any (intended) spiritual content [you see I'm getting really self-effacing now].
Maybe I should take this as a sign and pack it up. Of the things I could write about - things on my mind all the time - I can't. Of the things I can put on here, no response.
?????
I really was asking because I want to know how I'm supposed to respond, and not in a way unfitting someone in my position. Wasn't trying to provoke. Wasn't calling names or calling anyone out, saying, "look at what a jerk this person is." Nope, just wanted to know how to co-exist in a place where I know I don't fit in.
The only comments I got are from some unknown blogger without any posts of her own (and nothing but insults for me) and Julie (who isn't on blogger at all). [Thanks Julie!!]
So I wonder why this is.
Easy answers: Too boring of a question? Everyone is busy? They're still thinking of an answer?
Self-loathing answers: Everyone else has lives of their own and bigger fish to fry? It's too serious of a question and no one wants to talk about it (i.e. I should be writing about 'fun' things instead)? Um, no one reads this blog anyway so what do I expect?
Well, Estelle, what do you think? You're the only one who has spoken an opinion. Am I tedious, self-important and irrelevant, in addition to being delusional? And why in the world are YOU reading my blog anyway? Can't be for any (intended) spiritual content [you see I'm getting really self-effacing now].
Maybe I should take this as a sign and pack it up. Of the things I could write about - things on my mind all the time - I can't. Of the things I can put on here, no response.
?????
April 5, 2010
Which Way to Go
I know it's asking a lot. I know that. But I still want to ask... Could I pleeeease work with people who don't mock God at every opportunity?
Coworkers... you don't choose them. I know that. In fact, since I came in after them I suppose you could say I chose them.
I didn't, really. Honestly I didn't feel like I could turn down a job. We needed the money, I needed the productivity and mental break. And I did meet a couple of people - my boss, a sales manager or two, the girl I replaced - and they seemed ok. I mean, they're people you can work with no problem. They're professional enough, hardworking enough, nice enough. Most of them are conservatives... but that does not mean they are Christians. A good lesson to learn - these two traits do not necessarily go hand in hand.
But the fact remains most of them think God is a joke. And it's hard to a) listen to people mocking Someone I have so much faith in, and b) not act differently toward them when I know how they feel toward Him.
I was not always what you might call a committed Christian, but I can honestly say there was never a time in my life when I didn't believe in God, nor a time when I mocked Him. I feared Him, recoiled from Him, I questioned and was angry with Him, but I never thought it right to verbally (or even mentally) spit in His face. Maybe it was the fear that kept me from that? Then again, a healthy dose of fear of God is a very valuable thing! That very notion is what lent name to this blog.
I know that many people who read this blog are not in the outside-the-home workforce, so you don't exactly have coworkers. But I'm guessing you have neighbors, non-believing friends, family, etc. who fall into this spoken animosity toward God. What I'm wondering is, how do you cope with this? Is there anything to do?
In a workplace, determining "what to do" is a tricky thing. Part of me says (nay, screams), "Tell them off!" Furthermore, "Get them in trouble for being non-pc!" (Ha.) Another part says, "Don't say anything; their vitriol is their own. Let them suffer for this later." (I know that's an awful thing to think, but in the spirit of honestly I'm fully disclosing.) Another part of me is so, so sad that they are disconnected from Him that they perceive a right to discredit Him (attempt to, anyway), and feels like this is a real opportunity for witnessing.
Hmm... witnessing at work? I'm sure you've heard that people do this, but I dare you to give me a first-person account! It's very difficult to accomplish. The timing, circumstances, mood have to be just right. And even if you accomplish saying something resembling the Gospel to them, you run the risk of being punished (or even fired) if they report you to a higher-up. And trust me, when jobs are so scarce the threat of being fired for your faith is genuine and hard to simply wave away. I accept that we can and will suffer for our beliefs. Tell me though, is it responsible to put one's household finances in jeopardy to eke out a cliff notes Gospel to a hostile coworker?
The Bible says we are not to give the truth to one who is drunk; the inferred meaning is that there is a mindstate in which people are more likely to receive the Word. When someone is mocking Christ on the Cross (on Good Friday!), are they in a mindset that will do anything but scoff at the Message - and at me?
So, for the moment disregard the complicated issue of witnessing at work. What is one to do in order to thrive in an environment that is openly hostile to God, His power, His will, Christ's significance and obedience, God's righteousness and justice (hallelujah!)? To report or not to report... Should I take advantage of the PC-laden atmosphere to shield myself from this quite offensive talk? Or is it hypocritical of me to use that to my advantage when I decry it the rest of the time?
Any suggestions?
Coworkers... you don't choose them. I know that. In fact, since I came in after them I suppose you could say I chose them.
I didn't, really. Honestly I didn't feel like I could turn down a job. We needed the money, I needed the productivity and mental break. And I did meet a couple of people - my boss, a sales manager or two, the girl I replaced - and they seemed ok. I mean, they're people you can work with no problem. They're professional enough, hardworking enough, nice enough. Most of them are conservatives... but that does not mean they are Christians. A good lesson to learn - these two traits do not necessarily go hand in hand.
But the fact remains most of them think God is a joke. And it's hard to a) listen to people mocking Someone I have so much faith in, and b) not act differently toward them when I know how they feel toward Him.
I was not always what you might call a committed Christian, but I can honestly say there was never a time in my life when I didn't believe in God, nor a time when I mocked Him. I feared Him, recoiled from Him, I questioned and was angry with Him, but I never thought it right to verbally (or even mentally) spit in His face. Maybe it was the fear that kept me from that? Then again, a healthy dose of fear of God is a very valuable thing! That very notion is what lent name to this blog.
I know that many people who read this blog are not in the outside-the-home workforce, so you don't exactly have coworkers. But I'm guessing you have neighbors, non-believing friends, family, etc. who fall into this spoken animosity toward God. What I'm wondering is, how do you cope with this? Is there anything to do?
In a workplace, determining "what to do" is a tricky thing. Part of me says (nay, screams), "Tell them off!" Furthermore, "Get them in trouble for being non-pc!" (Ha.) Another part says, "Don't say anything; their vitriol is their own. Let them suffer for this later." (I know that's an awful thing to think, but in the spirit of honestly I'm fully disclosing.) Another part of me is so, so sad that they are disconnected from Him that they perceive a right to discredit Him (attempt to, anyway), and feels like this is a real opportunity for witnessing.
Hmm... witnessing at work? I'm sure you've heard that people do this, but I dare you to give me a first-person account! It's very difficult to accomplish. The timing, circumstances, mood have to be just right. And even if you accomplish saying something resembling the Gospel to them, you run the risk of being punished (or even fired) if they report you to a higher-up. And trust me, when jobs are so scarce the threat of being fired for your faith is genuine and hard to simply wave away. I accept that we can and will suffer for our beliefs. Tell me though, is it responsible to put one's household finances in jeopardy to eke out a cliff notes Gospel to a hostile coworker?
The Bible says we are not to give the truth to one who is drunk; the inferred meaning is that there is a mindstate in which people are more likely to receive the Word. When someone is mocking Christ on the Cross (on Good Friday!), are they in a mindset that will do anything but scoff at the Message - and at me?
So, for the moment disregard the complicated issue of witnessing at work. What is one to do in order to thrive in an environment that is openly hostile to God, His power, His will, Christ's significance and obedience, God's righteousness and justice (hallelujah!)? To report or not to report... Should I take advantage of the PC-laden atmosphere to shield myself from this quite offensive talk? Or is it hypocritical of me to use that to my advantage when I decry it the rest of the time?
Any suggestions?
March 24, 2010
CNN answers all your burning healthcare questions
As in, the most important. Their answers are truly amazing. Astounding. I will highlight some of what I consider the best (although they are the worst) of the batch with bold below. Also, make sure you don't miss the part about who will be taxed if they don't sign up for some kind of insurance... and who won't be.
Truly enlightening. It's a good thing we have the CNN spin machine to run all our sincere worries through so that they can come out all sparkly clean. No, it's not "rationing" healthcare. But, there is this term called "comparative effectiveness..."
Snakes in sweet suits. I'm talking to you, Anderson Cooper.
***********
Question: I have been watching all of the debating. I still cannot figure out, what does this mean to me? I'm an unemployed 56-year-old. Lost my health care. Cannot afford COBRA. Now, what is there for me? I have a daughter in college. My insurance company refused to pay for therapy on my knees, calling it pre-existing. My unemployment just ran out. Now what?
Answer: When the insurance exchange opens, as required by the health care bill, people who are self-employed or whose employers don't offer coverage can purchase a plan. If you lost a job, you could get insurance through this new marketplace. (But it didn't mention "unemployed," only "self-employed, " and there's a difference.). Also, once this exchange opens, private insurers will no longer be able to turn away people with medical problems or charge them more. Individuals would be required to purchase coverage or face a fine of up to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater, starting in 2016. The plan includes a hardship exemption for poorer Americans. Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, those for whom the lowest-cost option exceeds 8 percent of an individual's income and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009, the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples).
Question: What happens to the cost of insurance to the company that is providing the insurance to the employee? Is there a set amount or percentage of the total premium that the employer is required to pay? Will it change the mix that already exists between employer and employee responsibility?
Answer: By no later than 2014, states will have to set up Small Business Health Options Programs, or SHOP exchanges, in which small businesses will be able to pool together to buy insurance. Small businesses are defined as those with no more than 100 employees, though states have the option of limiting pools to companies with 50 or fewer employees through 2016; companies that grow beyond the size limit will also be grandfathered in. But until the SHOP exchanges are set up, there will be a tax break for small businesses that goes into effect right away: Tax credits of 35 percent to 50 percent of premiums will be available to small businesses that offer coverage. (This only mentions small businesses - with less than 100 employees. What about corporations, or any company with more than 100 employees? The answer doesn't even address them.)
Question: I am living with HIV and cannot get health care coverage. If this reform passes, how long before I am able to get coverage?
Answer: By 2014, that there would be no discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. You could not be denied based on an infection or some sort of pre-existing illness. That's four years away, though. (Thanks for your compassion, CNN!)
Question: What will happen when there are not enough doctors to oblige all the patients?
Answer: Last year, the American Academy of Family Physicians predicted a shortfall of 40,000 primary care doctors, and that was before the signing of the health care bill. That will put another 32 million people into the system -- with a promise of free preventive care -- and insurance to pay for regular doctor visits. Some physicians have expressed concern about this. Patients could see increased wait times, as in Massachusetts, where since "RomneyCare" went into effect, residents wait an 10 extra days to see the doctor. But others say the bill will help create more community health centers, so primary care can happen at these centers instead of expensive emergency rooms. (Yeah, right.)
Question: Isn't defensive medicine a big factor leading to overtreatment both at the beginning and at the end of life?
Answer: A recent Gallup Poll found that nine in 10 doctors admit having practiced defensive medicine at some time during their career. Some estimates put the cost at hundreds of billions of dollars in a year. If you look at all the lawsuits, there are about a million people who claim some sort of harm in any given year. But only about 11,000 lawsuits are actually paid out. Medical malpractice represents really only about 2 percent of the health care budget. (There's a pretty big disconnect between the first two and last two sentences. The latter portion of the "answer" doesn't address the actual question, which was about overtreatment increases. It only talks about malpractice lawsuits.)
Question: Is there anything in the bill about rationing health care?
Answer: No one is using the term "rationing" as part of the bill. But there is a term called comparative effectiveness. And that's this idea that we figure out what works in medicine and make sure to pay for those things. This also means that there are a lot of things being done right now where there's not scientific proof that it works and maybe those things won't get paid any more. Some people call that rationing. Other people say, look, rationing exists under the current system. It's just that the insurance companies are essentially rationing by denying payment or dropping people off their coverage.
Question: Over 30 million couples suffer from infertility in the United States. Most insurers will not cover this problem. Will the new bill finally address this as a significant health problem?
Answer: There is nothing in the bill regarding this issue. One benefit is that insurance companies cannot deny coverage to couples who suffer from infertility because it was deemed a pre-existing condition. However, in terms of covering infertility treatments or in-vitro fertilization, none of that is made mandatory under the bill for insurance companies. (Plenty of money for abortions and birth control via "Planned Parenthood," but nothing for infertility cases between married people. Yup, that makes sense.)
Truly enlightening. It's a good thing we have the CNN spin machine to run all our sincere worries through so that they can come out all sparkly clean. No, it's not "rationing" healthcare. But, there is this term called "comparative effectiveness..."
Snakes in sweet suits. I'm talking to you, Anderson Cooper.
***********
Question: I have been watching all of the debating. I still cannot figure out, what does this mean to me? I'm an unemployed 56-year-old. Lost my health care. Cannot afford COBRA. Now, what is there for me? I have a daughter in college. My insurance company refused to pay for therapy on my knees, calling it pre-existing. My unemployment just ran out. Now what?
Answer: When the insurance exchange opens, as required by the health care bill, people who are self-employed or whose employers don't offer coverage can purchase a plan. If you lost a job, you could get insurance through this new marketplace. (But it didn't mention "unemployed," only "self-employed, " and there's a difference.). Also, once this exchange opens, private insurers will no longer be able to turn away people with medical problems or charge them more. Individuals would be required to purchase coverage or face a fine of up to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater, starting in 2016. The plan includes a hardship exemption for poorer Americans. Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, those for whom the lowest-cost option exceeds 8 percent of an individual's income and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009, the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples).
Question: What happens to the cost of insurance to the company that is providing the insurance to the employee? Is there a set amount or percentage of the total premium that the employer is required to pay? Will it change the mix that already exists between employer and employee responsibility?
Answer: By no later than 2014, states will have to set up Small Business Health Options Programs, or SHOP exchanges, in which small businesses will be able to pool together to buy insurance. Small businesses are defined as those with no more than 100 employees, though states have the option of limiting pools to companies with 50 or fewer employees through 2016; companies that grow beyond the size limit will also be grandfathered in. But until the SHOP exchanges are set up, there will be a tax break for small businesses that goes into effect right away: Tax credits of 35 percent to 50 percent of premiums will be available to small businesses that offer coverage. (This only mentions small businesses - with less than 100 employees. What about corporations, or any company with more than 100 employees? The answer doesn't even address them.)
Question: I am living with HIV and cannot get health care coverage. If this reform passes, how long before I am able to get coverage?
Answer: By 2014, that there would be no discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. You could not be denied based on an infection or some sort of pre-existing illness. That's four years away, though. (Thanks for your compassion, CNN!)
Question: What will happen when there are not enough doctors to oblige all the patients?
Answer: Last year, the American Academy of Family Physicians predicted a shortfall of 40,000 primary care doctors, and that was before the signing of the health care bill. That will put another 32 million people into the system -- with a promise of free preventive care -- and insurance to pay for regular doctor visits. Some physicians have expressed concern about this. Patients could see increased wait times, as in Massachusetts, where since "RomneyCare" went into effect, residents wait an 10 extra days to see the doctor. But others say the bill will help create more community health centers, so primary care can happen at these centers instead of expensive emergency rooms. (Yeah, right.)
Question: Isn't defensive medicine a big factor leading to overtreatment both at the beginning and at the end of life?
Answer: A recent Gallup Poll found that nine in 10 doctors admit having practiced defensive medicine at some time during their career. Some estimates put the cost at hundreds of billions of dollars in a year. If you look at all the lawsuits, there are about a million people who claim some sort of harm in any given year. But only about 11,000 lawsuits are actually paid out. Medical malpractice represents really only about 2 percent of the health care budget. (There's a pretty big disconnect between the first two and last two sentences. The latter portion of the "answer" doesn't address the actual question, which was about overtreatment increases. It only talks about malpractice lawsuits.)
Question: Is there anything in the bill about rationing health care?
Answer: No one is using the term "rationing" as part of the bill. But there is a term called comparative effectiveness. And that's this idea that we figure out what works in medicine and make sure to pay for those things. This also means that there are a lot of things being done right now where there's not scientific proof that it works and maybe those things won't get paid any more. Some people call that rationing. Other people say, look, rationing exists under the current system. It's just that the insurance companies are essentially rationing by denying payment or dropping people off their coverage.
Question: Over 30 million couples suffer from infertility in the United States. Most insurers will not cover this problem. Will the new bill finally address this as a significant health problem?
Answer: There is nothing in the bill regarding this issue. One benefit is that insurance companies cannot deny coverage to couples who suffer from infertility because it was deemed a pre-existing condition. However, in terms of covering infertility treatments or in-vitro fertilization, none of that is made mandatory under the bill for insurance companies. (Plenty of money for abortions and birth control via "Planned Parenthood," but nothing for infertility cases between married people. Yup, that makes sense.)
Praying for our Country
This came as an e-mail from my former pastor. I think it's a good answer to my thoughts from yesterday.
I don't normally send out e-mails to the congregation that are political in nature. However, this one I think we should read because of it informs us in part on how we need to pray and how we ought to be good citizens.
There is in our land a constitutional crisis and we have just witnessed the most glaring evidence of it in the passing of the healthcare bill. Agree or disagree with the President, the Democrats or the Republicans, nothing that happened this weekend past the founding fathers had envisioned as the fruit of our constitution. See the closing paragraph below.
We need to pray for our government and for our elected officials. If you are interested in current events and the article below resinates with you I recommend you find yourself a copy of the Federalist Papers (I keep a copy of these on my iPod). These were originally op-ed pieces written by James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton between October 1787 and August 1788 advocating the ratification of our present constitution. They remain the best commentary we have on the interpretation of our constitution. For additional reading I recommend the Anti-Federalist Papers, written by men such as Patrick Henry who for saw much of the present problems in Washington.
My point in this e-mail is not to promote a view on healthcare but to encourage us to be concerned for the legal and moral basis for our government.
Pastor Doug
********************************
Constitutional Awakening
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
If there is anything good to say about Democrat control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, it's that their extraordinarily brazen, heavy-handed acts have aroused a level of constitutional interest among the American people that has been dormant for far too long. Part of this heightened interest is seen in the strength of the tea party movement around the nation. Another is the angry reception that many congressmen received at their district town hall meetings. Yet another is seen by the exchanges on the nation's most popular radio talk shows such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and others. Then there's the rising popularity of conservative/libertarian television shows such as Glenn Beck, John Stossel and Fox News.
While the odds on favorite is that the Republicans will do well in the fall elections, Americans who want constitutional government should not see Republican control as a solution to what our founders would have called "a long train of abuses and usurpations." Solutions to our nation's problems require correct diagnostics and answers to questions like: Why did 2008 presidential and congressional candidates spend over $5 billion campaigning for office? Why did special interests pay Washington lobbyists over $3 billion that same year? What are reasons why corporations, unions and other interest groups fork over these billions of dollars to lobbyists and into the campaign coffers of politicians?
One might say that these groups are simply extraordinarily civic-minded Americans who have a deep and abiding interest in elected officials living up to their oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Another response is these politicians, and the people who spend billions of dollars on them, just love participating in the political process. If you believe either of these explanations, you're probably a candidate for some medicine, a straitjacket and a padded cell.
A far better explanation for the billions going to the campaign coffers of Washington politicians and lobbyist lies in the awesome government power and control over business, property, employment and other areas of our lives. Having such power, Washington politicians are in the position to grant favors and commit acts that if committed by a private person would land him in jail.
Here's one among thousands of examples: Incandescent light bulbs are far more convenient and less expensive than compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) that General Electric now produces. So how can General Electric sell its costly CFLs? They know that Congress has the power to outlaw incandescent light bulbs. General Electric was the prominent lobbyist for outlawing incandescent light bulbs and in 2008 had a $20 million lobbying budget. Also, it should come as no surprise that General Electric is a contributor to global warmers who help convince Congress that incandescent bulbs were destroying the planet.
The greater Congress' ability to grant favors and take one American's earnings to give to another American, the greater the value of influencing congressional decision-making. There's no better influence than money. The generic favor sought is to get Congress, under one ruse or another, to grant a privilege or right to one group of Americans that will be denied another group of Americans.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi covering up for a corrupt Ways and Means Committee Chairman, Charles Rangel, said that while his behavior "was a violation of the rules of the House. It was not something that jeopardized our country in any way." Pelosi is right in minimizing Rangel's corruption. It pales in comparison, in terms of harm to our nation, to the legalized corruption that's a part of Washington's daily dealing.
Hopefully, our nation's constitutional reawaking will begin to deliver us from the precipice. There is no constitutional authority for two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does. Our constitution's father, James Madison, explained, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined ... (to be) exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."
Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
**********************
I don't normally send out e-mails to the congregation that are political in nature. However, this one I think we should read because of it informs us in part on how we need to pray and how we ought to be good citizens.
There is in our land a constitutional crisis and we have just witnessed the most glaring evidence of it in the passing of the healthcare bill. Agree or disagree with the President, the Democrats or the Republicans, nothing that happened this weekend past the founding fathers had envisioned as the fruit of our constitution. See the closing paragraph below.
We need to pray for our government and for our elected officials. If you are interested in current events and the article below resinates with you I recommend you find yourself a copy of the Federalist Papers (I keep a copy of these on my iPod). These were originally op-ed pieces written by James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton between October 1787 and August 1788 advocating the ratification of our present constitution. They remain the best commentary we have on the interpretation of our constitution. For additional reading I recommend the Anti-Federalist Papers, written by men such as Patrick Henry who for saw much of the present problems in Washington.
My point in this e-mail is not to promote a view on healthcare but to encourage us to be concerned for the legal and moral basis for our government.
Pastor Doug
********************************
Constitutional Awakening
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
If there is anything good to say about Democrat control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, it's that their extraordinarily brazen, heavy-handed acts have aroused a level of constitutional interest among the American people that has been dormant for far too long. Part of this heightened interest is seen in the strength of the tea party movement around the nation. Another is the angry reception that many congressmen received at their district town hall meetings. Yet another is seen by the exchanges on the nation's most popular radio talk shows such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and others. Then there's the rising popularity of conservative/libertarian television shows such as Glenn Beck, John Stossel and Fox News.
While the odds on favorite is that the Republicans will do well in the fall elections, Americans who want constitutional government should not see Republican control as a solution to what our founders would have called "a long train of abuses and usurpations." Solutions to our nation's problems require correct diagnostics and answers to questions like: Why did 2008 presidential and congressional candidates spend over $5 billion campaigning for office? Why did special interests pay Washington lobbyists over $3 billion that same year? What are reasons why corporations, unions and other interest groups fork over these billions of dollars to lobbyists and into the campaign coffers of politicians?
One might say that these groups are simply extraordinarily civic-minded Americans who have a deep and abiding interest in elected officials living up to their oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Another response is these politicians, and the people who spend billions of dollars on them, just love participating in the political process. If you believe either of these explanations, you're probably a candidate for some medicine, a straitjacket and a padded cell.
A far better explanation for the billions going to the campaign coffers of Washington politicians and lobbyist lies in the awesome government power and control over business, property, employment and other areas of our lives. Having such power, Washington politicians are in the position to grant favors and commit acts that if committed by a private person would land him in jail.
Here's one among thousands of examples: Incandescent light bulbs are far more convenient and less expensive than compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) that General Electric now produces. So how can General Electric sell its costly CFLs? They know that Congress has the power to outlaw incandescent light bulbs. General Electric was the prominent lobbyist for outlawing incandescent light bulbs and in 2008 had a $20 million lobbying budget. Also, it should come as no surprise that General Electric is a contributor to global warmers who help convince Congress that incandescent bulbs were destroying the planet.
The greater Congress' ability to grant favors and take one American's earnings to give to another American, the greater the value of influencing congressional decision-making. There's no better influence than money. The generic favor sought is to get Congress, under one ruse or another, to grant a privilege or right to one group of Americans that will be denied another group of Americans.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi covering up for a corrupt Ways and Means Committee Chairman, Charles Rangel, said that while his behavior "was a violation of the rules of the House. It was not something that jeopardized our country in any way." Pelosi is right in minimizing Rangel's corruption. It pales in comparison, in terms of harm to our nation, to the legalized corruption that's a part of Washington's daily dealing.
Hopefully, our nation's constitutional reawaking will begin to deliver us from the precipice. There is no constitutional authority for two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does. Our constitution's father, James Madison, explained, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined ... (to be) exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."
Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
March 22, 2010
This is it
I really feel like it's all hopeless. Politics, what's the point of caring? Putting effort into contacting reps and standing up for principles doesn't yield results. At least, not those that are good. Why bother?
How to fight to stay positive when everything feels like it's imploding? I'm feeling very ecclesiastes. I know I'm always supposed to feel psalmic and praising, but I don't. I just don't.
Sorry if I ruined anyone's day by posting this.
How to fight to stay positive when everything feels like it's imploding? I'm feeling very ecclesiastes. I know I'm always supposed to feel psalmic and praising, but I don't. I just don't.
Sorry if I ruined anyone's day by posting this.
March 10, 2010
Post from the Vault
*I wrote this post back in September (note the references to then-current news stories), but never published it. How come? Eh, I write a lot and when it seems redundant I just save it. But the writing seems ok and I don't have another post so here it is.
At first glance it seems dated, but just imagine that Obama is talking about health care instead of vague rallying and it will make sense.
I wondered why no one commented on my "indoctrination wagon" post a while back. Was it because everyone agreed, and there was nothing else to say? Or did people think I was some left field conspiracy theorist, trying to rally people around suspicion of President Obama's well-meaning education speech?
After watching any of the following videos, you might be leaning toward the former. Better yet, you'll be sitting upright in either exasperated anger or fear, hoping there is something you can do about it.
The changeover from capitalist American government to socialist dictatorship didn't necessarily start with Obama, he's just the first one to run with it. Subtle changes in the way children are now educated to think about the world, and themselves, started decades ago.
When science was shown to be a valuable tool for discovering things about the outside world, it was then turned inward, on man himself, in a complete misuse of empiricism. Now man depends on himself for answers and truth, being autonomous where he once recognized the Creator as being in full control, and with solitary knowledge of what is true.
Meanwhile, philosophical theory turned toward as well.
God did not vacate the schools when prayer time was taken away. God was ushered out through the side door when scientists proclaimed, "We've got a hypothesis we can test" and set out to dissect man's mind. What other explanation is there for social sciences - psychology, sociology, anthropology - to be so dominant in the universities today while language and history (traditional, not revisionist) have dwindling enrollment? That which is objectively, demonstrably true is not chic. Instead, so-called "social justice" programs are some of the most popular. Why study what was to know what is? Why not simply rewrite the story to suit your own agenda, or the agenda of those people who make you the most uncomfortable? After all, because students are no longer told what Americans have done right, what could they possibly think but that they are to blame and reparations - for everything - are in order?
Group of adults meeting in support of health care reform bill. Are they saying "hear us, Oh God" or "hear us, Obama?"
Song to praise Obama. "All are equal in his sight."
Another song to praise Obama. "Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Si we can!"
The orignial "fired up, ready to go video." He seems pretty happy to be announcing his upcoming presidency. Keep in mind this video is from 2007.
Another angle of the most recent 2009 'fired up' video. "We will change the world with our voices." I would say this is more campaigning, but he's actually acting like a celebrity instead. Just enjoying his status for now.
They want him just as much as he wants them. Disgusting. Not a shred of critical thought in the place.
At first glance it seems dated, but just imagine that Obama is talking about health care instead of vague rallying and it will make sense.
_________________________________________
I wondered why no one commented on my "indoctrination wagon" post a while back. Was it because everyone agreed, and there was nothing else to say? Or did people think I was some left field conspiracy theorist, trying to rally people around suspicion of President Obama's well-meaning education speech?
After watching any of the following videos, you might be leaning toward the former. Better yet, you'll be sitting upright in either exasperated anger or fear, hoping there is something you can do about it.
The changeover from capitalist American government to socialist dictatorship didn't necessarily start with Obama, he's just the first one to run with it. Subtle changes in the way children are now educated to think about the world, and themselves, started decades ago.
When science was shown to be a valuable tool for discovering things about the outside world, it was then turned inward, on man himself, in a complete misuse of empiricism. Now man depends on himself for answers and truth, being autonomous where he once recognized the Creator as being in full control, and with solitary knowledge of what is true.
Meanwhile, philosophical theory turned toward as well.
God did not vacate the schools when prayer time was taken away. God was ushered out through the side door when scientists proclaimed, "We've got a hypothesis we can test" and set out to dissect man's mind. What other explanation is there for social sciences - psychology, sociology, anthropology - to be so dominant in the universities today while language and history (traditional, not revisionist) have dwindling enrollment? That which is objectively, demonstrably true is not chic. Instead, so-called "social justice" programs are some of the most popular. Why study what was to know what is? Why not simply rewrite the story to suit your own agenda, or the agenda of those people who make you the most uncomfortable? After all, because students are no longer told what Americans have done right, what could they possibly think but that they are to blame and reparations - for everything - are in order?
Group of adults meeting in support of health care reform bill. Are they saying "hear us, Oh God" or "hear us, Obama?"
Song to praise Obama. "All are equal in his sight."
Another song to praise Obama. "Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Si we can!"
The orignial "fired up, ready to go video." He seems pretty happy to be announcing his upcoming presidency. Keep in mind this video is from 2007.
Another angle of the most recent 2009 'fired up' video. "We will change the world with our voices." I would say this is more campaigning, but he's actually acting like a celebrity instead. Just enjoying his status for now.
They want him just as much as he wants them. Disgusting. Not a shred of critical thought in the place.
March 9, 2010
Women and Children First
A lot of you will probably not be able to stomach much of this story. I, for one, will not watch the video the woman made for YouTube, though I may read a transcript of the CNN interview. Something tells me actually seeing this woman visually while hearing her talk about her "experience" might make me so angry I will punch a hole in the wall.
Before I say anything about the story that potentially makes me that angry, let me give a preamble.
"Womanhood" is a hotly-contested subject. What makes a woman a woman? How should she behave, in public and in private? What should she think of caring for others, especially children? Does she have an instinct or inborn desire to act femininely, or must it be cultivated? Is that trait even necessary? Should she sacrifice for others, or put her own interests first, regardless of the consequences to family, friends, etc.?
If you've read this blog intermittently, you'll know I fall pretty squarely in the Biblical womanhood camp, meaning I believe a woman has a God-given desire (and it is a positive, character-building gift) to care for others, to nurture, to be gentle, to be kind. My pro-life stance has naturally followed from this idea.
But I didn't always feel this way. Ashamed as I am to admit this, there was a time when I was very self-serving, and ambitious in a limited way, only doing what would help my causes regardless of who got stepped on in the process. And I felt completely at ease with doing so because I felt it was my duty and right as a woman to "reclaim power" that I had been "denied." My point is that women feel differently about "what it takes" to be a woman, some falling into the former camp (Biblical womanhood) and some in the latter (what I will call the "empowerment" group).
Accordingly, the opinions on children and how women ought to care for them vary widely, depending on the group one falls into. I know women on both sides, and everywhere in between. Women who strongly oppose abortion but have had one themselves. Women who had children at a young age, not knowing if they wanted to be a mom or not. Women who are strongly pro-choice but who desperately want children of their own. Women who have great careers but grieve over not being able to have children. Women who had miscarriages and risked another pregnancy anyway. And, women who have absolutely no interest in kids at all, their own or anyone else's.
There are grand statements and misinformation readily available from supporters of abortion. One in particular is that abortion is acceptable because there are many cases of rape, incest and threat to the woman's life in which abortion is the only way to save them. In reality, cases of pregnancy by rape or incest, or cases in which the woman's life is threatened by the pregnancy account for less than 1% of all abortions performed in the U.S. That is to say, the abortion industry does not primarily perform for high-risk pregnancies; it is used most often as an "on-demand" option.
Another statement frequently made by so-called "pro-choicers" (in quotes because they really only vie for one of the choices; what about family planning and adoption efforts? Nearly non-existant in most abortion clinics) is that "it's not a baby, it's only a fetus." But what exactly are the criteria? He can't communicate verbally? He's not big enough? He can't make memories? I highly doubt that they would allow the same argument for cases of stroke patients who become non-verbal, cannot form new memories and withdraw into their own worlds. How about dementia patients and brain injury-sufferers; are they also inhuman (or non-human)? If so, are they not also expendible? That is not a claim I think they would accept.
And even though I support it, the pro-life arguments seem to be very simplistic at times. People will say, "Consider the life of the baby first" without qualifying that the mother's life is also a concern. Not more of a concern, mind you, but something to consider nonetheless. And, of course, the assumption is here on the pro-life side that womanhood requires a committment to making sacrifices for someone else. The "pro-choicer" does not believe that a woman must act for anyone but herself, so the urging to "think of the baby" always falls on deaf ears. The "pro-choicer" also doesn't believe it's a baby (as we've already noted, it's totally unqualified, but..) so that's not an issue for them either.
Sadly, "pro-choicers" see choosing to have an abortion as a symbol of "empowerment," a loosely-defined term encompassing the idea that, because women at other times have not had access to abortions in a medical facility, women today must take advantage of this option. In a similar way, women of my mom's generation seem to grasp tightly onto the notion that women my age must take advantage of every opportunity to participate in society simply because we can. They want us to go to college and get married and have children and stay at home and go back to work and be politically active and active in church and somehow make time to be reflective of all these roles. I think many my age see choosing not to abort a baby as giving up their freedom. Which may be true in a time committment sense, but goes right back to the question of what it means to be a woman. Is a woman defined by doing the same things a man does, and nothing separately (like having children)?
Which brings me to the original story, which is basically thus: a woman, Angie Jackson, got pregnant, claims her life was in danger because of the pregnancy, decided to take the RU-486 abortion pill to abort the baby and subsequently sent both twitter updates while the pill took effect, and made a YouTube video describing the event. Later, CNN interviewed this woman, who claimed it was an "empowering" experience, and she was determined to "demystify" abortion. She also says that "when a woman wants to talk about it [abortion]" there is a "strong reaction," implying that women aren't supposed to talk about it whenever they want to.
Maybe. But perhaps people are repulsed less by the dialogue in general (after all, abortion is a pretty widely talked-about topic these days) and more by the circumstances: describing an abortion to the general public, publishing the event on public forums twitter and YouTube, claiming the baby growing is a "parasite, " and more. The most depressing, and anger-inducing, aspect is this woman's glibness about the event. I've known a few women who had miscarriages and it was a horrible experience for them, surely not something they would want compared to a self-induced abortion. After all, abortion is a choice whereas miscarriage is most certainly not.
One last thing: Jackson, known as "Angie the anti-theist" on YouTube (not mentioned in the CNN interview at all), claims that her life was in danger, yet nowhere does she mention the diagnosis except for saying she had back labor during her first pregnancy (which she delivered normally - the child is now 4 yrs old). If you're going to go public with such a personal thing, why not disclose the reason for doing it in the first place? Seems like a huge missing piece to the story. Jackson was supposedly also advised after the first child not to get pregnant again, because it posed a risk to her life. So... why did she take the chance? That is pretty irresponsible.
You can judge for yourself. I'm interested to read and encourage your comments, from either sides of the debate. Here are a few links:
the HotAir story, complete with video of the CNN interview and the YouTube video from the woman
a blog with comments about how "awesome" and "empowering" it was for this woman to post her abortion experience, which will surely "demystify" abortion and encourage others with her "courage"
another report, which says Jackson is a "cult-survivor"
commentary from a pro-choice woman - who had an abortion she describes as "painful emotionally and physically" - pertaining to the self-aggrandizing nature of twitter
and, the obligatory abortionist-sympathetic Huffington Post article which actually says this: "Worried about her health and her young son (who's four years old), she decided she would have no more children. But, despite using birth control, she and her boyfriend found themselves facing another potentially dangerous pregnancy." So, she knew she shouldn't have kids, didn't have a tubal ligation, and yet we are to believe they innocently "found themselves" facing another pregnancy? That is to say, the HuffPo has taken the couple's responsibility completely out of the picture.
If it is Jackson's choice to abort the baby, why isn't is noted that it was her choice to get pregnant in the first place? Or, was she unsure that pregnancy was still an option unless she was rendered impregnable by surgery?
Before I say anything about the story that potentially makes me that angry, let me give a preamble.
"Womanhood" is a hotly-contested subject. What makes a woman a woman? How should she behave, in public and in private? What should she think of caring for others, especially children? Does she have an instinct or inborn desire to act femininely, or must it be cultivated? Is that trait even necessary? Should she sacrifice for others, or put her own interests first, regardless of the consequences to family, friends, etc.?
If you've read this blog intermittently, you'll know I fall pretty squarely in the Biblical womanhood camp, meaning I believe a woman has a God-given desire (and it is a positive, character-building gift) to care for others, to nurture, to be gentle, to be kind. My pro-life stance has naturally followed from this idea.
But I didn't always feel this way. Ashamed as I am to admit this, there was a time when I was very self-serving, and ambitious in a limited way, only doing what would help my causes regardless of who got stepped on in the process. And I felt completely at ease with doing so because I felt it was my duty and right as a woman to "reclaim power" that I had been "denied." My point is that women feel differently about "what it takes" to be a woman, some falling into the former camp (Biblical womanhood) and some in the latter (what I will call the "empowerment" group).
Accordingly, the opinions on children and how women ought to care for them vary widely, depending on the group one falls into. I know women on both sides, and everywhere in between. Women who strongly oppose abortion but have had one themselves. Women who had children at a young age, not knowing if they wanted to be a mom or not. Women who are strongly pro-choice but who desperately want children of their own. Women who have great careers but grieve over not being able to have children. Women who had miscarriages and risked another pregnancy anyway. And, women who have absolutely no interest in kids at all, their own or anyone else's.
There are grand statements and misinformation readily available from supporters of abortion. One in particular is that abortion is acceptable because there are many cases of rape, incest and threat to the woman's life in which abortion is the only way to save them. In reality, cases of pregnancy by rape or incest, or cases in which the woman's life is threatened by the pregnancy account for less than 1% of all abortions performed in the U.S. That is to say, the abortion industry does not primarily perform for high-risk pregnancies; it is used most often as an "on-demand" option.
Another statement frequently made by so-called "pro-choicers" (in quotes because they really only vie for one of the choices; what about family planning and adoption efforts? Nearly non-existant in most abortion clinics) is that "it's not a baby, it's only a fetus." But what exactly are the criteria? He can't communicate verbally? He's not big enough? He can't make memories? I highly doubt that they would allow the same argument for cases of stroke patients who become non-verbal, cannot form new memories and withdraw into their own worlds. How about dementia patients and brain injury-sufferers; are they also inhuman (or non-human)? If so, are they not also expendible? That is not a claim I think they would accept.
And even though I support it, the pro-life arguments seem to be very simplistic at times. People will say, "Consider the life of the baby first" without qualifying that the mother's life is also a concern. Not more of a concern, mind you, but something to consider nonetheless. And, of course, the assumption is here on the pro-life side that womanhood requires a committment to making sacrifices for someone else. The "pro-choicer" does not believe that a woman must act for anyone but herself, so the urging to "think of the baby" always falls on deaf ears. The "pro-choicer" also doesn't believe it's a baby (as we've already noted, it's totally unqualified, but..) so that's not an issue for them either.
Sadly, "pro-choicers" see choosing to have an abortion as a symbol of "empowerment," a loosely-defined term encompassing the idea that, because women at other times have not had access to abortions in a medical facility, women today must take advantage of this option. In a similar way, women of my mom's generation seem to grasp tightly onto the notion that women my age must take advantage of every opportunity to participate in society simply because we can. They want us to go to college and get married and have children and stay at home and go back to work and be politically active and active in church and somehow make time to be reflective of all these roles. I think many my age see choosing not to abort a baby as giving up their freedom. Which may be true in a time committment sense, but goes right back to the question of what it means to be a woman. Is a woman defined by doing the same things a man does, and nothing separately (like having children)?
Which brings me to the original story, which is basically thus: a woman, Angie Jackson, got pregnant, claims her life was in danger because of the pregnancy, decided to take the RU-486 abortion pill to abort the baby and subsequently sent both twitter updates while the pill took effect, and made a YouTube video describing the event. Later, CNN interviewed this woman, who claimed it was an "empowering" experience, and she was determined to "demystify" abortion. She also says that "when a woman wants to talk about it [abortion]" there is a "strong reaction," implying that women aren't supposed to talk about it whenever they want to.
Maybe. But perhaps people are repulsed less by the dialogue in general (after all, abortion is a pretty widely talked-about topic these days) and more by the circumstances: describing an abortion to the general public, publishing the event on public forums twitter and YouTube, claiming the baby growing is a "parasite, " and more. The most depressing, and anger-inducing, aspect is this woman's glibness about the event. I've known a few women who had miscarriages and it was a horrible experience for them, surely not something they would want compared to a self-induced abortion. After all, abortion is a choice whereas miscarriage is most certainly not.
One last thing: Jackson, known as "Angie the anti-theist" on YouTube (not mentioned in the CNN interview at all), claims that her life was in danger, yet nowhere does she mention the diagnosis except for saying she had back labor during her first pregnancy (which she delivered normally - the child is now 4 yrs old). If you're going to go public with such a personal thing, why not disclose the reason for doing it in the first place? Seems like a huge missing piece to the story. Jackson was supposedly also advised after the first child not to get pregnant again, because it posed a risk to her life. So... why did she take the chance? That is pretty irresponsible.
You can judge for yourself. I'm interested to read and encourage your comments, from either sides of the debate. Here are a few links:
the HotAir story, complete with video of the CNN interview and the YouTube video from the woman
a blog with comments about how "awesome" and "empowering" it was for this woman to post her abortion experience, which will surely "demystify" abortion and encourage others with her "courage"
another report, which says Jackson is a "cult-survivor"
commentary from a pro-choice woman - who had an abortion she describes as "painful emotionally and physically" - pertaining to the self-aggrandizing nature of twitter
and, the obligatory abortionist-sympathetic Huffington Post article which actually says this: "Worried about her health and her young son (who's four years old), she decided she would have no more children. But, despite using birth control, she and her boyfriend found themselves facing another potentially dangerous pregnancy." So, she knew she shouldn't have kids, didn't have a tubal ligation, and yet we are to believe they innocently "found themselves" facing another pregnancy? That is to say, the HuffPo has taken the couple's responsibility completely out of the picture.
If it is Jackson's choice to abort the baby, why isn't is noted that it was her choice to get pregnant in the first place? Or, was she unsure that pregnancy was still an option unless she was rendered impregnable by surgery?
March 8, 2010
Hail to the Chief
I couldn't help but giggle when one of the panelists said, "Why shouldn't Jay-Z be sitting in the President's chair? After all, he's created more jobs than Obama."
But seriously, first Shakira is sitting down to tea and child poverty talk with B.O., now Jay-Z and Beyonce are getting a President-led tour? Aren't there more important things our President should be doing?
But seriously, first Shakira is sitting down to tea and child poverty talk with B.O., now Jay-Z and Beyonce are getting a President-led tour? Aren't there more important things our President should be doing?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
LinkWithin
