Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Boys Should be Boys

Raising boys: Your family, our culture
Meeker, M. (2008). Boys Should Be Boys, Washington DC, Regnery Publishing Inc.

By Rebecca Walberg, a Winnipeg-based writer and policy analyst

Meg Meeker, an American pediatrician, wife, and mother, has written a second book about parenting that will be very unpopular with those devoted to the premise that there are no natural differences between boys and girls. But for those who believe that mothers and fathers play different, complementary and essential roles in the raising of children, Boys Should Be Boys is an insightful and thought-provoking look at what sons need from their parents, and how families and our culture shortchange many young men.

Dr. Meeker’s first parenting book, Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters, published in 2006, discussed the importance of the father-daughter bond to young women. This time, she turns her attention to boys, from preschool until young adulthood. Parents who have raised both will already know some of the differences between sons and daughters. Meeker shows there is a medical basis for a lot of these differences, stemming from differences in physiology, brain activity and hormones. These differences can’t be wished away – nor should they be.

For example, children and teens of both sexes are heavy users of electronic media these days, but they use technology differently. Where girls are more likely to enjoy internet chat rooms and music, boys generally prefer interactive videogames and visual content online. Boys are more drawn to violent movies and games than girls, but they are also more vulnerable to them. Many boys naturally become more aggressive after age two; at the same time they are less verbal than little girls, so teaching them not to resort to blows or tantrums when frustrated or angry is one of the major tasks of parenting. Dr. Meeker points out that when boys, who are already prone to acting out, are exposed to videogames and media that present violence as acceptable, even commendable, the results can be disastrous. [1]

More time in front of a screen means less time playing outside, traditionally a staple of childhood. Sports, whether in a formal, competitive league or a pick-up game with neighbourhood kids, are invaluable for boys. Besides improving fitness and health, they teach boys how to channel their physical and emotional strength, which can otherwise seem unmanageable, or even frightening, into something productive they can control. Organized sports teach boys how to be part of team, and recognize their strengths and weaknesses compared to teammates their own age. Casual games on the playground give boys the chance to interact with older and younger children, to learn from the more advanced players, and to teach and mentor the younger ones. Both forms of activity are essential, and serve a far more important role than just providing exercise.

Perhaps the most valuable part is Dr. Meeker’s discussion of healthy teenage behaviour. The physical and psychological changes of adolescence are exhausting for parents and teens alike, and conflict over boundaries and independence, periods of moodiness, and a strong preference for the company of friends instead of family are all normal. Often, though, stereotypes of hostile and defiant adolescents combine with parental reluctance to act as a disciplinarian, with the result that parents shrug off serious behaviour problems as a natural part of growing up. Uncontrollable anger, and prolonged and severe irritability, are two symptoms that can indicate major depression, or Oppositional Defiant Disorder.[2] Dr. Meeker’s point is not to label teenage boys, but rather to emphasize parents need not accept worrisome behaviour as normal.

Boys Should Be Boys makes other common sense points—children don’t simply need two parents, they need their own father and mother, because they learn different things from each. A father is a boy’s first and most important teacher about what it means to be a man; and, pointing to the growing numbers of adult men who struggle to find happiness within marriage, Dr. Meeker reminds us that boys learn to love and be loved by a woman from their mothers. Men who have a poor relationship, or none at all, with either parent will find it much harder to become fulfilled husbands and fathers themselves, she says. Neither is religion an optional extra, when it comes to raising young men. Faith gives children a tremendous advantage when it comes to avoiding delinquency—things like dropping out of school, arrests, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, or joining gangs, but beyond that, boys respond well to the clear boundaries and moral guidance they find at church. [3]

Dr. Meeker’s perspective has helped her to write a book brimming with love for boys and young men, and empathy for the mothers and fathers who raise them. Boys Should Be Boys is a helpful resource for parents and teachers. It’s also an interesting read for anyone concerned with how our culture—ours schools, our government, our churches—treats those with an X and a Y chromosome—and why it matters.

ENDNOTES
[1] Dr. Meeker cites Patricia Greenfield, “Developmental Considerations for determining appropriate Internet use guidelines for children and adolescents,” Applied Developmental Psychology, vol. 25 (2004).

[2] For more on this, see Dean X. Parmelee, ed. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Mosby’s Neurology Psychiatry Access, St. Louis (1996).

[3] She cites Jill W. Sinha, Ram A. Canaan, and Richard J. Gelles, “Adolescent Risk Behaviors and Religion: Findings from a National Study.” Journal of Adolescence, vol. 30 (2007).

Permission is granted to reprint or broadcast this information with appropriate attribution to the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada

What a clutter-hating house-wife yearns for

I have been dreaming, nay, YEARNING for oh, 2 years now at least, to turn this sadly utilised area of my kitchen into something much nicer, under which I could hide the recycling (maybe even the garbage); at which I could maybe sit and do some work, or if not, at least stand and do some work; and on which and over which I could store pencils, papers, journals, magazines, mail, bills to pay, cell phones, etc. In general, I would turn it into an organized catch-all, so that my countertop would be free to serve for what it was designed... as a place to, ahem, prepare and serve meals.



A woman gets really tired of always having to push stuff aside to prepare meals, or clear off the counter, move stuff temporarily, or just prepare it in the midst of the clutter. It's hard to keep a counter clean when it serves as a catch-all for countless papers, coupons, newspapers, toys and tools.

I got really excited when I saw this. It's the idea of having an office area in the kitchen. The shelves are a bit bland and utilitarian, and not what I would choose, but in general, what you see to the right is what I want to do.


Except that I would have nicer, black-brown shelves, maybe something like what is in Maryssa's room (except hers are pale-pine coloured). Mine would have to match the piece of furniture that serves both as a bar and a stand for the aquarium. And I wouldn't mind something with drawers underneath, something with a door behind which you'd have a drawer or a shelf that you can draw out, on (or in) which the recycling would go, hidden from view. And maybe the garbage too.

And I'd have small cubicle shelves of the same black-brown wood (or imitation wood) in which to store things like bills to pay, letters to answer, cell phones to charge, glue, stationary, pencils, crayons etc... etc.

It would be lovely... If only I had money... If only Marc would let me...


The above picture is Maryssa's room. I think the shelf (divided into three) above the bed would go really well in the black-brown in my kitchen.

Strawberry picking in early July


More full baskets
Originally uploaded by Coucoumelle

Dominic (with his head cut off), Gabriel and Maryssa, with full baskets.

George the Mini-Ent with kids


George the Mini-Ent with kids
Originally uploaded by Coucoumelle

After the storm that went through here at the end of June, some of the branches that hadn't fallen yet, started to crack and were going to fall. These ones were close to Hydro lines, so Hydro Québec came and cut them down. But we had to clean up the mess afterwards.

Of course, even in the midst of hard work, there is always some time for fun.

We had the visit of some mini-ents, straight from Middle-earth. Here you have George (Nicolas named him) chatting with the kids.

Be right wing and multiply

Many self-absorbed liberals would rather pamper themselves than have children. As a result, conservatives are doing a better job at propagating their (ideological) species

Peter Schweizer, National Post Published: Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Today's liberalism is completely wrapped up with the notion of self. The legacy of the 1960s "if it feels good do it" ethos is alive and well. Modern liberals often embrace these teachings and incorporate them in the way they live their lives and maintain their relationships.

For dramatic proof, go to the streets of a liberal enclave like San Francisco, Seattle or Vermont. There will be plenty of expensive boutiques, antique dealers, health spas, sushi bars and upscale coffee shops. But you won't see very many children. The reason is not that right-wingers have dumped buckets of birth control pills into the San Francisco municipal water supply. The simple fact is that many on the liberal left today just don't want to have children. A 2004 U. S. survey showed that a typical sample of 100 unrelated adults who called themselves liberal will have 147 children. That contrasts with the typical conservative, who is likely to have 208 children per 100 unrelated adults. That's 41% more.

Why is this important? Because raising children is a difficult and selfless act that is also an important civic duty. The survival of our society -- not to mention our Social Security system! -- rests on individuals bringing up a new generation.

The liberal Northeastern states -- Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, and New York -- have the lowest fertility rates in the country. They also have the lowest percentage of population under the age of five. In progressive San Francisco, there are more dogs than children. Joel Kotkin points out that Seattle (my hometown) has roughly the same population as it did in the 1960s, but barely half as many children. Indeed, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. Dogs, of course, offer companionship without the burdens and responsibilities of children.

Some might conclude that this is a result of the high cost of living in desirable cities such as Boston, New York and San Francisco. But in these childless meccas, we also see some of the highest per capita expenditures on luxury goods, spas and personal therapies. It's not a lack of money; it's a lack of interest. The General Social Survey found that 69% of those who called themselves "very conservative" said it was important to them to have children. Only 38% of corresponding liberals agreed. An online survey (admittedly not scientific) taken by the left-wing Web site dailykos.com asked readers if they had children and how many. The most popular answers: "No children," "Not going to have any," and "Don't want any."

Meanwhile, the highest fertility rate in the country is found in the most conservative state, Utah, followed by Arizona, Alaska and Texas, otherwise known as "red states," according to the latest National Center for Health Statistics survey. States with the lowest fertility rates are Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, all "blue states." Over half of the women of childbearing age -- 15 to 44 -- are childless in liberal bastions such as the District of Columbia, Vermont and Massachusetts.

Many on the left proudly proclaim themselves to be "child-free." (They angrily reject the term child-less because it implies that they are missing out on something.) Partly, this is a result of liberal pessimism about the future. Concerned about overpopulation, dwindling environmental resources, global warming, etc., some liberals don't want to have children because they see them as an environmental hazard. Billionaire Ted Turner reflected this attitude when he thoughtfully announced his regret at having five children. "If I was doing it over again, I wouldn't have had that many, but I can't shoot them now and they're here." No doubt, this sort of sentiment makes for charming conversation around the Turner dinner table.

Far more common is the modern liberal notion that children are a burden, something that will get in the way of one's self-fulfillment. As any parent knows, raising children is hard work. It requires emotional commitment, selfless acts, large quantities of time and scads of money. Many liberals just don't want the inconvenience. When asked by the World Values Survey whether parents should sacrifice their own well-being for those of their children, those on the left were nearly twice as likely to say "no" (28% to 15%) when compared to conservatives.

A look at some popular Web sites offers plenty of evidence that this is a major strand in modern liberal thinking: "The trouble is, many of us bright, liberal people know that procreation is a quaint, antiquated concept." And another: "I read somewhere a while back that it costs about $1-million to raise a child from birth to 21 years assuming they attend college. So buy a house in [San Francisco] or have a kid? I'm not actually looking for an answer but kids are expensive." And another: "I'll have the babies if you pay for them."

Another offers: "I have not been asked very often why I'm childless. If I am, I just say the truth. That I am too selfish, that I want to spend my time and money on things other than children, that I am doing my part to counteract all of the overbreeders. The thought of attending a child's athletic event, and sitting through the whole thing, is almost enough in itself." Peter Pan could not have put it better.

This birth gap presents a quandary for politically active liberals. Not wanting to be inconvenienced with raising their own children, they still want to see their ideas perpetuated. Professor Darren Sherkat of Southern Illinois University worries that because conservatives "who have lots of children" are not being matched by those on the political left who "may well not have kids," these demographic trends will push the country in a more conservative direction. (Data indicates that 80% of children end up adopting the political attitudes of their parents.) To counterbalance this trend, he argues for increasing immigration and expanding the black population. He also hopes that childless liberals will "be able to reproduce themselves in strangers," by taking on jobs as teachers, writers and other people of influence. The idea is to let conservatives raise their children, while liberals influence them through the schools and universities.

Another lefty concurs: "I'd say that the author of a popular book has far more aggregate influence than do one set of parents. So if the book is very popular and captures the imaginations of kids, presto, you've done a lot to insure that the ideas that are important to you live long after you pass on … If it's the ideas that matter then I suppose that there are ways that folks like you can propagate the ideas without having your own kids be your lab rats."

- Copyright © 2008 by Peter Schweizer. From the book Makers and Takers by Peter Schweizer, published by Doubleday, a division of Random House, Inc. Reprinted with permission.

You know, this is the only real hope that I have of anything getting better in this world. Eventually, the lefties will just die out. Well, at least the anti-family ones anyway. I kind of tend to lean over onto the left side a lot myself, in areas that do not touch sex and family.

Sometimes, it would be really tempting to gather all the conservative, or at least traditional families out there into one spot where we can just pro-create and wait for the rest of them to die out.

I figure it won't take long. A few more generations, and those who didn't want children will be dead, with noone to replace them. Gays CAN'T procreate so they won't have children either except if they adopt, are bi-sexual or find some artificial solution, but since most of them don't seem to want children either, I'm not too worried about that. And those that are left will have been pushed so far into the deep hole they're tunnelling into that they'll likely start to realize the errors of their ways, especially when traditional families seem so much more happy and fulfilled. Eventually, traditional families will rule again.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Abortion facts

In February of last year, a woman in Britain hung herself after aborting her twins. Emma Beck's suicide note contained a despairing cry for help: "I should never have had an abortion. I see now I would have been a good mum. ... I told everyone I didn't want to do it, even at the hospital. I was frightened, now it is too late. I died when my babies died. I want to be with my babies -- they need me, no one else does."

Then, in September, a woman died during a botched abortion after being left alone by the practitioner under anesthesia and without anyone in the Massachusetts clinic who was trained in CPR. In fact, one study shows women who go through with abortions have "a 248 percent greater risk of suicide, accidental death or homicide in the following year."


I think that's more than enough to be truly concerned, not only for the babies aborted, but for the mothers themselves.

Who needs enemies when you have kids?

Who better to spoil perfectly laid-out plans better than your own flesh and blood? Who can make themselves a better nuisance? Who can wait until you have just finished a job to wreak havoc on all your hard work?

I try to keep a semblance of order here. But random acts of terrorism keep distracting me. Like the yogourt on the armchair this morning, and the linen closet door gaping open with half the bedcovers on the floor in front of it this afternoon. Or the endless spills of food and drink on the floor, and the kleenex soaking in the cat's water... Not to mention running after said terrorists themselves to, ironically, ensure their safety. What about my sanity?

And my husband wonders what I have to be stressed about...

Friday, July 25, 2008

Last Abortion Clinic in South Dakota Closes

Now here's a good idea... nothing more complicated than making sure that the woman is completely aware of exactly what she is doing and of possible side-effects.

Last Abortion Clinic in South Dakota Closes after Law Requires Patients be Informed of Possible Side Effects
Thursday July 24, 2008
SIOUX FALLS, SD,

July 24, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On Monday, July 21, eight women arrived at the Planned Parenthood office in Sioux Falls in South Dakota for abortions, but were instead met with locked doors and a hand-written note indicating the only abortion clinic in South Dakota was closed.

Planned Parenthood closed its doors after their abortionists, who are flown in from other states, refused to work under the new law that went into effect last Friday. The law orders abortionists to inform patients of the humanity of their babies and that the procedure could affect their mental health two hours before the abortion is set to be performed. The law also provides that abortionists can be sued if they do not comply.

This law was the brain-child of attorney Harold Cassidy and passed with the help of determined pro-life leaders Dr. Alan and Leslee Unruh, who pushed for the regulation in the face of opposition, even from some in the pro-life movement. The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cleared the way for the law's enactment last week.

It remains unclear if the Planned Parenthood office has permanently ceased the practice of abortion. However, several women who were scheduled for abortions this week went to a pro-life center instead, where some have reportedly changed their minds about having abortions.

"The closing of this clinic is historic in that South Dakota is, for the time being, the first abortion-free state," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "It didn't take the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and it didn't take a new President or a new Supreme Court. It took the courageous determination of pro-life heroes like Mr. Cassidy and the Unruhs who saw an opportunity to save lives and pressed on until their dream became victory."

"We applaud their efforts and encourage other states to emulate their campaign," said Newman.

The Unruhs are currently involved in the Vote Yes For Life Campaign, which would effectively ban abortions in South Dakota, putting the finishing nail in the coffin of the abortion industry there.

Text of the new law and links to the court decision can be found at http://www.voteyesforlife.com


http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08072402.html


Now all we have to do is do that here in Canada, and push a ban on abortions after a baby is able to survive on it's own. There really is no need to kill a child that is able to survive outside the womb. Not even for the mother's health. You simply induce her or practice c-section, and put the baby on life support. If the mother doesn't want it, someone else will surely be glad to take it. It isn't babies that are hard to adopt... it's the older children. Make sure there aren't unhappy children in the world, support better access to adoption.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

What to do with a little pickpocket?

It started out a few months ago, when Maryssa and her friend came back from the corner store with a huge bag of candy. The friend's grandmother had given them money to buy candy, apparently.

Then the two oldest boys discovered their money was missing. $20 dollars had been taken. Turns out, the two girls took the boys' money and went out to buy candy. Maryssa has taken her own money to do this before, but never someone else's, and she also sneaks candy, or did. So I figured it was her idea and her friend just went along with it. Not commendable, but understandable.

Maryssa was duely punished, paid back the $20 dollars and was not allowed to play with her friend for a week.

Then just recently, we went to get some ice cream with said friend. Dominic had found some silly thing that he was playing with, and suddenly it went missing at the ice cream parlour. We looked for it all over, and couldn't find it. He cried and cried in the car on the way home. Maryssa's friend said she had some at home and would bring one over the next day to replace it. How nice of her!

The next day, she brought an exact replica of the rubber "thing-y" right down to the exact shade of green with the exact tiny stain of blue in one corner. Coincidence? I think not. She had Dominic's thing the whole time, saw how sad he was, felt bad about it, and "brought it back". Maryssa confirmed later that she knew all about it. I told her to tell us if something like that happened again.

Well, just a few days ago, Maryssa gave her friend a whole bunch of Pokemon cards that belonged to Dominic. Did she give them freely or did her friend ask for them? Who knows. But when I told them that they were not Maryssa's to give, and that Dominic wanted them back, the friend came back with only a small number of cards and they were not the same cards. All the strongest cards (it all works by points some cards are stronger than others) were missing, and most of the cards weren't even the ones they had.

Called her mother, and left a message saying Maryssa had given her friend some Pokemon card that didn't belong to her, and that Dominic was sad and wanted them back, but never got an answer back from her mother. Friend came over later and said "about your message, thsoe were the only cards I could find, the others are lost."

What? Already? Really? And why should I believe that after only 2 days, you've lost all the best pokemon cards?

I eventually told her she couldn't come to play anymore at our house because it was creating problems with Dominic. Dominic is the one always losing his stuff and it is really starting to annoy him. And I understand him completely. But I think until she "finds" the cards she lost, Maryssa will not be going to play with her either. I'm sure if she looks a little harder, she'll find them.

Marc doesn't want me to go over there and make "a fuss" over a few cards. But I think her parents should be aware of what is going on, and not just suddenly find out that we don't want her here anymore for apparently no reason. Why do things have to be so complicated all the time? Why do we put social niceties above our children's feelings and their right to their own belongings? So what if they are only cards, it's not just cards... it's $20, and a rubber thing-y as well. What will be next? A computer game? A movie?

The thing about sand...


Friday, July 18, 2008

From Crime to Virtue

Enjoyed this article too... From Crime to Virtue by George Jonas in the National Post.
Would I jail abortionists? No. I'd just refrain from decorating them. I think abortion is an abomination, but I've no urge to jail people for everything I abominate. I leave that to my "liberal" friends. I actually believe the state has no business in the bed-chambers of the nation, not even when they turn into death-chambers. Putting unborn children to sleep is a family matter. Maybe even born children --but let's not go there.
Actually, let's go there for a moment. In ancient Sparta parents used to toss their substandard children off a cliff called the Taigetos. Some may have done so with regret, but Spartan society had no use for physically infirm children. We find this shocking.
Read it all.

Christian & religious families happier, less likely to divorce

Well, here's some happy, positive news for us Christians and those of other faiths...

Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Christian & religious families happier, less likely to divorce
By Michael Foust / Baptist Press

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Men who attend religious services regularly are more likely to have happy and stable marriages, more likely to be involved with their children and less likely to divorce, new research says. Additionally, mothers who attend church weekly are half as likely to have children out of wedlock, the study says.

The research by the University of Virginia's W. Bradford Wilcox analyzed data from three national surveys: the General Social Survey, the National Survey of Families and Households, and the National Survey of Family Growth. The research also drew partially from data in Wilcox's book, "Soft Patriarchs, New Men: How Christianity Shapes Fathers and Husbands."

"Religious men (and their wives) enjoy happier marriages, they are less likely to father a child outside of wedlock, and they are more likely to take an active and affectionate approach to child rearing, compared to secular or nominally religious men," Wilcox wrote. "Therefore, any effort to strengthen men's ties to their children and families must acknowledge and incorporate the important role that religious institutions play in directing men's hearts toward home."

The research -- titled "Is Religion An Answer? Marriage, Fatherhood, and the Male Problematic" -- was posted on the website of The Center for Marriage and Families in June. It was commissioned by the National Fatherhood Initiative.

The research paper noted that over the past 50 years large numbers of men have become disconnected from family life. The "percentage of children living in father-absent homes rose from 11 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 2000," the paper said. Additionally, 38.5 percent of babies in 2006 were born out of wedlock, it said.

The breakdown of marriage, the sexual revolution, declining real wages and the rise of individualism all have contributed to distancing men from their families, the research said. Religion, though, can play a role in bringing men closer to their families, it said. The research found that:
-- 70 percent of husbands "who attend church regularly report they are 'very happy' in their marriages," compared to "59 percent of husbands who rarely or never attend church."
-- men and women who attended religious services several times a month or more "were approximately 35 percent less likely to divorce between 1988 and 1993, compared to their married peers who rarely or never attended religious services."
-- fathers who attend church several times a month or more "devote at least two hours a week more in youth-related activities," "are significantly more likely to engage in one-on-one activities with their school-age children" and "are also at least 65 percent more likely to report praising and hugging their children very often" compared to fathers who don't have any religious affiliation.
-- mothers "who attend church weekly or more are about half as likely to have a child outside of wedlock, compared to mothers who attend church less often or never."
Continued.....

Michael Foust is an assistant editor for Baptist Press.

On the second page (in the continued part) it also notes:
Marriages are strongest when the husband and wife attend religious services together, the research said.
Could someone please let my husband know?

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Sore Losers

Played the last game of the season for the adult recreational league tonight. We happened to play against the team that has a guy on it who, all three times we have played against them, has managed to really stand out.

In a bad way.

He thinks he's better than everyone else. He commands his team, tells them what to do, acts like he's really good, and then makes mistakes. He's not bad, he's a fairly good player, maybe even one of the better ones on his team, but he's nowhere near as good as he seems to think he is. And he plays rough. Noone likes to play against him because he doesn't seem to care if he hurts you or not.

One of the guys on my team got hurt. He couldn't stand up. People were going to carry him off the field, but then the referee blew twice. Half-time. So we just let him sit there to catch his breath and relax before getting off. Mister Big-shot started getting all excited and wanted us to get him off the field right away. No matter that people tried to explain to him (in English because he hasn't bothered to learn French yet apparently) that the referee just called half-time... even the referee tried talking some sense into him and told him to let us take care of our player... but he wouldn't shut up.

Mr Big-shot decides to be goalie in the second half. My team is practically rubbing their hands together at the idea of scoring goals on him. We score two early on, and Mr. Big-shot leaves the game. Stops playing. Gives up.

So, I'm walking to the car to get my wallet, to pay for beer afterwards. (Last game of the season remember-beer is obligatory.) And Mr. Big-shot and his friend are walking to their car together, which just happens to be parked next to mine. Said friend is listening to Mr. Big-shot complain the whole way. As they are getting in the car, Mr. Big-shot says to his friend, (cover your eyes), "Fucken white people!"

Yeah, Mr. Big-shot and his friend are black.

You know what? I didn't come out of there thinking "Fucken black people." I know too many good, decent black people to say something that stupid.

You know what Mr. Big-Shot? I'M RIGHT BESIDE YOU. I CAN HEAR YOU. I SPEAK ENGLISH. I'M WHITE. The problem isn't white people. The problem isn't black people either. The problem is "fucken" poor team spirit. Your friend? Good, decent player, with good team spirit, a pleasure to play against. You could learn a lesson from him. You? You need to come back down to earth and CHILL OUT.

And to think I'm going to lose sleep over some idiot like this... unbelievable...

Thursday, July 10, 2008

TESTING THE FAITH

'Gay' man sues Bible publishers
$70 million for emotional distress because homosexuality cast as sin
Posted: July 09, 200810:52 am Eastern© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Bradley Fowler (RightPundits.com) A homosexual man who has a blog on Sen. Barack Obama's campaign website is suing two major Christian publishers for violating his constitutional rights and causing emotional pain, because the Bible versions they publish refer to homosexuality as a sin.

Read more...

Because umm.... most Bibles don't?

Homosexual or not, you gotta agree, this is just plain, well... stupid!

It's time to talk about abortion

Alone among developed countries, Canada has no abortion law. Is 'settling' for a non-decision any way for a democracy to behave?
ANDREW COYNE July 9, 2008 ANDREW COYNE-->


Also at Macleans.ca:
The real scandal is the order itself
Let us work to abolish this dubious, vaguely offensive tradition


This is not about abortion. This is about democracy.

It is about how we decide things, and by what rules, and how we treat each other when we disagree. Indeed, it is about whether we are allowed to disagree; whether dissent on a contentious issue is respected, or even recognized; and whether, in the face of clear evidence over many years that an issue is not settled — that it was never settled — a democracy should be allowed at last to debate and decide it. Like a democracy.

The furor over Henry Morgentaler's appointment to the Order of Canada, on the other hand, now that is about abortion. There may be some who object out of a disinterested concern for fairness, on the principle that an honour bestowed on behalf of all of the people of Canada should not be given to a man whose life's work is, still, so profoundly upsetting to so many Canadians. But for most people, it's about abortion. In honouring him, we are honouring it, normalizing it, stamping it with the seal of approval.

Or rather not abortion, as such, but the legal void that surrounds it, which Morgentaler did so much to bring about: the extraordinary fact that, 20 years after the Supreme Court ruling that bears his name, this country still has no abortion law of any kind. It isn't that abortion — at any stage of a pregnancy, for any reason, and at public expense — is lawful in Canada. It is merely not unlawful. When it comes to abortion, we are literally a lawless society: the only country in the developed world that does not regulate the practice in any way.

read more...

Saturday, July 05, 2008

Canada

If you know several people who have hit a deer more than once, you may live in Canada.
If you have switched from "heat" to "A/C" in the same day and back again, you may live in Canada.
If you can drive 90 km/hr through 2 feet of snow during a raging blizzard without flinching, you may live in Canada.
If you install security lights on your house and garage, but leave both unlocked, you may live in Canada.
If you carry jumpers in your car and your wife knows how to use them, you may live in Canada.
If you design your kid's Halloween costume to fit over a snowsuit, you may live in Canada.
If the speed limit on the highway is 80 km -- You're going 90 and everybody is passing you, you may live in Canada .
If driving is better in the winter because the potholes are filled with snow, you may live in Canada.
If you know all 4 seasons: almost winter, winter, still winter, and road construction, you may live in Canada .
If you have more miles on your snow blower than your car, you may live in Canada.
If you find 2 degrees "a little chilly", you may live in Canada.
If you actually understand these jokes, and forward them to all your Canadian friends & others, you definitely live in Canada.

Novena for Henry Morgentaler

We (the youth of CLC) are starting a novena to St. Joseph petitioning for the conversion of Henry Morgentaler and all other supporters of the culture of death. A novena involves praying for nine consecutive days for the same intention through the intercession of a particular saint. Novenas are incredibly powerful, and St. Joseph, being so close to Mary and Jesus, is a particularly powerful saint. This novena was also chosen because Saint Joseph is the patron saint of Canada, and the patron saint of a happy death.

Please join us in saying a simple prayer each day for nine days. Also, pass this on to any friends, family, or fellow pro-lifers who might be interested. We plan on starting the novena on Friday (July 4) and it would be great if everyone could say it together. However, if you don’t get this email until later don’t hesitate to say it on your own. Every prayer counts! Thank you!

For Life,

Prayer to Obtain a Conversion
O glorious patriarch St. Joseph, who merited to be called "just' by the Holy Ghost, I urgently recommend to the soul of Henry Morgentaler, which Jesus redeemed at the price of His Precious Blood.
Thou knowest how deplorable is the state and how unhappy the life of those who have banished this loving Saviour from their hearts, and how greatly they are exposed to the danger of losing Him eternally. Permit not, I beseech thee, that a soul so dear to me should continue any longer in its evil ways; preserve it from the danger that threatens it; touch the heart of the prodigal child and conduct him back to the bosom of the fondest of fathers. Abandon him not, I implore thee, till thou hast opened to him the gates of the Heavenly city, where he will praise and bless thee throughout eternity for the happiness which he will owe to thy powerful intercession. Amen.
Pray 1 Our Father, 1 Hail Mary, 1 Glory Be

Friday, July 04, 2008

I try to be green

So, I go to Tim Horton's yesterday, (because I'm Canadian eh?) for a coffee and a donut for Nicky. I order my coffee, and I have my re-fillable mug on the counter (because despite the fact that I am killing the earth by irresponsibly having too many kids, I am conscious of garbage and waste and whatnot and as I have mentioned before, I dis-like the disposable mentality of this disposable society, where people as well as things have become disposable and not much different from fast-food, to be consumed, forgotten and thrown out).

The girl asks me what size I want. So I lift up the mug, show it to her, and say "a large, it's a 16 oz."

Then she asks me if it's to go or for here. I say to go, figuring she must be talking about the donut and my muffin, because obviously the mug is to go.

After Nicolas has finally decided which donut he wants, she arrives at the counter with the donut in one bag, my muffin in another bag, and a coffee for me in a disposable cup!

Well, I tried.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

The Lord GOD speaks-- who will not prophesy!

Today's first reading:

Book of Amos 3,1-8.4,11-12.
Hear this word, O men of Israel, that the LORD pronounces over you, over the whole family that I brought up from the land of Egypt: You alone have I favored, more than all the families of the earth; Therefore I will punish you for all your crimes. Do two walk together unless they have agreed? Does a lion roar in the forest when it has no prey? Does a young lion cry out from its den unless it has seized something? Is a bird brought to earth by a snare when there is no lure for it? Does a snare spring up from the ground without catching anything? If the trumpet sounds in a city, will the people not be frightened? If evil befalls a city, has not the LORD caused it? Indeed, the Lord GOD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants, the prophets. The lion roars-- who will not be afraid! The Lord GOD speaks-- who will not prophesy! I brought upon you such upheaval as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah: you were like a brand plucked from the fire; Yet you returned not to me, says the LORD. So now I will deal with you in my own way, O Israel! and since I will deal thus with you, prepare to meet your God, O Israel:

Courtesy of : Daily Gospel



People are prophecying. Trumpets are sounding everywhere, the lion roars, but who will hear? The Lord deals with us in his own way... and what better way than to let us sink further into the trap we set for ourselves. If things are terribly wrong in our society, who have we to blame for it? No one but ourselves.

Quand le Seigneur Dieu a parlé, qui refuserait d'être prophète ?

Première lecture d'aujourd'hui:

Livre d'Amos 3,1-8.
Écoutez cette parole que le Seigneur prononce contre vous, fils d'Israël, contre tout le peuple qu'il a fait monter du pays d'Égypte : Vous êtes le seul de tous les peuples de la terre que j'aie choisi d'aimer ; aussi je vous demanderai compte de tous vos crimes. Deux hommes font-ils route ensemble sans s'être mis d'accord ? Est-ce que le lion rugit dans la forêt quand il n'a pas de proie ? Le lionceau va-t-il crier du fond de sa tanière sans avoir rien pris ? L'oiseau tombe-t-il dans le filet posé à terre sans y être attiré par un appât ? Le piège se relève-t-il au-dessus du sol sans avoir rien attrapé ? Sonne-t-on de la trompette dans une ville sans qu'un danger menace le peuple ? Un malheur arrive-t-il dans une ville sans qu'il soit l'oeuvre du Seigneur ? (Car le Seigneur Dieu ne fait rien sans en révéler le secret à ses serviteurs les prophètes.) Quand le lion a rugi, qui peut échapper à la peur ? Quand le Seigneur Dieu a parlé, qui refuserait d'être prophète ?