Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Abortion and the Culture of death

OK, I admit it doesn't seem logical to try to ban abortion.  At least not yet.  But to ban dialogue on abortion?  This is what all of the 5 major political parties have done, including the conservatives now.  (Green, Bloq, Liberal NDP and PC)  They are all telling us how to think and giving us no other option.  Who else are we to vote for?  If the Christian Heritage Party had a candidate here, I'd be voting for them.  But they don't.

All of Europe has laws on abortion.  Specifically, a date limit.  You can't abort after a certain number of weeks.  This varies from country to country, but at least there is an age limit.  That is a beginning.  And I think that something like that is something that most of us in the general population can agree apon, simply because there is no logic in aborting a child that would be viable outside of the womb.  Where is the logic in killing a child that, were he or she already born and in an incubator in intensive care, would have the right to live based on the sole fact that he/she is already born.  Two children, the same age, one is born and if you kill it, you go to jail.  The other is not, and if you kill it, you are rendering a service.  They both have beating hearts, functioning nervous systems, and lungs able to breathe (albeit painfully).  Where is the logic?  There is no logic.

The very least our government and future candidates to the government could do is to at least be open to putting a limit on abortion.  But no, they who treat pro-lifers with disdain, calling US stubborn, ignorant and set in our ways, they refuse to even consider the life of a VIABLE unborn child.  They refuse even to consider protecting the life of a wanted unborn child as in the case of Bill C-484, the bill for the unborn victims of crime act, that was shot down.

Shot down why?  Because FEMINISTS (not real women) fear that people might come to believe that unborn children are actually people, (yeah, like we weren't already aware of this fact) and that by according them rights, this will infringe on their rights.  Specifically, the right to choose to not have a child.  

Umm, last I heard, (funny, people wonder if I know this myself since I had five children - do I know how to make it stop?), SEX is where babies come from folks.  If you don't want kids, the only FOOLPROOF way to not have them (unless you are Mary and Gabriel comes to announce something to you), is by NOT having sex.

There exist any number of methods of contraception, none of which are foolproof, and none of which I will promote, because well, google Theology of the Body if you want to know, but they exist, and abortion should NOT be one of them.  If a "mistake" is concieved (and I am of the belief that God makes no mistakes), adoption is so much more humane than abortion.  Even when you've been raped, abortiondoesn't make the pain go away.  Adoption is always the better road.

"Oh look at the poor unwanted child, forget adoption, let's kill him and put him out of his misery."

One could also say: "Oh look at the poor little slave, forget emancipation, let's kill him and put him out of his misery."

Or: "Look at all the poor suffering people in the world, forget love, compassion, charity, outreach, fighting for better infrastructure, workers rights, etc... let's just kill all the poor people and put them out of their misery.  Oh heck, never mind that they are suffering, there is just too many of them... (see freaky store at bottom)

It's all the same.

Lets stop thinking "me, me, me" all the time.  No one group of persons can have ALL the rights, not even feminists, although they are coming pretty close.  Rights for feminists not only infringe on unborn babies rights, they also infringe on men's rights and stay-at-home mom's rights.  Feminists hate stay-at-home moms.  To them we are either totally ignorant or part of that right-wing, fanatic religious fringe.  To think that any woman would put the well being of her children over her own, to think that caring for one's children could be more important than a career!  To think these women could put themselves in a position where they are dependant on someone else, how degrading! How scandalous!  No wonder things like income tax penalize stay at home mothers.  How horrible to have to be dependant on men, of all creatures!  Yes, feminists hate men too.  Those macho freaks.  If only they could do it all without men.  Is any wonder that continually in courts, men's rights to their children are ignored in favour of women's rights?  

Those of us who actually like our men, that actually trust them to care for our needs, who consider them to be our "heroes" in the ways that count, who believe we are in a partnership with them, not competing against them, we are freaks, or simply ignorant.

Wake up feminists, you can't have it all.  My right to own a TV does not give me the right to steal someone else's TV if I don't have the money to buy it myself.

Your right to choose not to have a child does not give you the right to be irresponsible and then take the unborn child's life so you can be childless.  The poor child doesn't have to be stuck with you for a mother either, he can be adopted by the hundreds of couples that want children and can't have any.

I have accidentally come across anti-children sites, where feminists take out their rage on having to be the ones with a uterus by calling children snotty brats and all sorts of things.  And they call ME a freak?

Speaking of freaky... take a look at what some extreme green people think:
Recently citizen scientist Forrest Mims told me about a speech he heard at the Texas Academy of Science during which the speaker, a world-renowned ecologist, advocated for the extermination of 90 percent of the human species in a most horrible and painful manner.  Apparently at the speaker's direction, the speech was not video taped by the Academy and so Forrest's may be the only record of what was said. 

Saving the Earth with Ebola

Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number.

He then showed solutions for reducing the world's population in the form of a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. War and famine would not do, he explained. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved.

Pianka then displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls, one of which had red lights flashing from its eye sockets.

AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population is airborne Ebola ( Ebola Reston ), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs.

After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, “We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.”

With his slide of human skulls towering on the screen behind him, Professor Pianka was deadly serious. The audience that had been applauding some of his statements now sat silent.

After a dramatic pause, Pianka returned to politics and environmentalism. But he revisited his call for mass death when he reflected on the oil situation.

“And the fossil fuels are running out,” he said, “so I think we may have to cut back to two billion, which would be about one-third as many people.” So the oil crisis alone may require eliminating two-third's of the world's population.

How soon must the mass dying begin if Earth is to be saved? Apparently fairly soon, for Pianka suggested he might be around when the killer disease goes to work. He was born in 1939, and his lengthy obituary appears on his web site.

When Pianka finished his remarks, the audience applauded. It wasn't merely a smattering of polite clapping that audiences diplomatically reserve for poor or boring speakers. It was a loud, vigorous and enthusiastic applause.

Personally, I vote he rid us of himself first...  If he is willing to die of ebola to save the world, maybe I will consider sacrificing myself as well.


Who to vote for now?

Was browsing through Island Breezes and came across this:

From lifesite news:
In his strongest statements in support of unlimited abortion on demand in Canada, Prime Minister Harper today told reporters that his government would not only not open the abortion issue itself, but would prevent anyone else from raising it. 

Asked by a reporter if Harper could give assurances to pro-abortion groups, who are accusing the Conservatives of engineering a stealth pro-life campaign, Harper said that he could. 

"The answer is yes. This government will not open, will not permit anyone to open the abortion debate. Our position is clear," he said, speaking in French.
So now, the question is... who do I vote for?  The only real reason I had for voting conservative was because they were the only party left that wasn't a dictatorship when it comes to traditionally moral things.  I wasn't even voting pro-life there, because I doubt the candidate is pro-life.  I know the others aren't.  But now, even if the candidate is pro-life, there is no point in voting for him/her other than showing moral support because he/she won't be able to represent your common beliefs on the political scene anyway.  

Who do I vote for?  I won't vote Bloq, because Duceppe and all his ilk insult my intelligence.  If I am going to be labeled "bornée" I may as well act like it when it comes to them.  I won't vote NDP, because ummm.... they're a dictatorship and because they don't have a very good track record in management or in anything else I care about.  I won't vote liberal, because... gosh,... they're liberals... (yeah I know enlightened statement) and I won't vote Green (ha ha - the very idea), because I don't buy into the whole End of the World thing, and isn't that what they are all about?  So who is left?  Is there still time to become an independant candidate so I can vote for myself?

Stephen Harper

I liked this article in the Toronto Sun, about Stephen Harper. You forget in politics, that politicians are people too, and even when/if you don't agree with them on much over different political things, if you knew them in real life, you'd probably still like them, the way you still get along with people you know even though they can be totally on different spectrums politically or religiously or other.

Surely no one can really have been this nice.

Blame it on evil journalistic scepticism, but my mission yesterday became finding someone -- anyone -- who has something even a teensy bit bad to say about a certain Richview Collegiate Institute alumnus named Stephen Harper.

But in the hallowed halls of the Etobicoke high school celebrating its 50th anniversary yesterday, the many indulging in nostalgic memories of scarlet and gold would yield only glowing -- and rather protective -- reviews of Harper, Class of 1978.

In that year's yearbook, the gangly guy looking out at the future through hugely unattractive glasses was renowned as the school brain who led them in Reach for the Top and was a gold medallist for the highest graduating average.

Or as yet another of his fellow alumni confided with a chuckle, "I don't know if anyone's told you yet, but he was really a smart guy."

No kidding.

In Room 103, where balding men and well-preserved women were noisily catching up on their old high school friends from 1974 to '78, Susan Del Giudice smiled when asked about the terribly thin, geeky guy who once worked up the courage to ask her on a date.

"We took most of our classes together and he was the consummate gentleman but painfully shy," recalled Del Giudice, an elementary school principal. "He was an incredible writer. He wrote a beautiful letter to me that was very poetic and sensitive."

They gravitated towards each other, she said, because neither had a large circle of friends and both were considered the "nerds" of Richview. She still remembers their Grade 10 history class when the teacher and the students gave Harper a standing ovation after one of his presentations.


Monday, September 29, 2008


Every year, the Soccer club Celtix du Haut-Richelieu has a "soirée méritas" or "merit evening", where it recognizes the efforts of players, teams, coaches and volunteers. This year, the club has grown so much that they decided to do a gala instead, with a brunch. They also divided up the teams into different categories; Masculine Juvenile A, Masculine Juvenile AA, Feminine Juvenile A, Feminine Juvenile AA, Senior AA and AAA. For each categorie, three people were nominated for the following prizes: "Gants d'Or" (Golden Gloves) for best goaler, "Défenseur d'Or" (Golden defense) for best defense, and "Souliers d'Or" (Golden Shoes) for best offense. For each team, there were also three people from the team nominated for the following prizes: Team spirit and Player of the Season. In each category, three teams were nominated for the prize Team of the Season. They also had prizes for the volunteer of the Season, Coach of the Season, Best Rookie Coach, Official of the Season (referees, linesmen etc) and Best Rookie Official.

Dominic was nominated for Best Defense. He was also nominated for Player of the Season. Unfortunately, He won neither prize, but still, we told him, it is an honour to have been nominated. Here are the three nominated for Player of the Season, the winner in the middle.

Both Maryssa's team and Jean-Alexandre's team were nominated for team of the season in their category. Jean-Alexandre's team, who won everything, their tournament, the championship, ending first place in the regular league, and the McDonald's Cup, was beat out by the U12M - A team who never lost a single game. Not even once. Jean-Alexandre's team tied a couple of times and lost twice. Maryssa's team did not get the prize either.

U14M-A Jean-Alexandre's team, with their Coach, who won Coach of the Season and their Manager/Assistant Coach. They presented a plaque with pictures of the whole team to thank their coach. He won't be coaching anymore. Their manager also made smaller copies for them all. That was really nice.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

What's in a name?

1. YOUR SPY NAME (middle name and current street name)
Mary des Patriotes (Technically Mary is my first name - but it is not my usual name)
2. YOUR MOVIE STAR NAME (grandmother on your dad's side and your favourite candy)
Rose Mint
3. YOUR RAP NAME (first initial of first name and first three letters of your last name)
JCha (again, technically, J is the initial of my second name,... but whatever)
4. YOUR GAMER TAG (a favourite colour, a favourite animal)
Burgundy Pup
5. YOUR SOAP OPERA NAME (middle name, and city you were born)
Mary Oromocto
6. YOUR STAR WARS NAME (first three letters of your last name, last three letters of mother's maiden name, first three letters of your pet's name)
7. JEDI NAME (middle name spelled backwards, your mom's maiden name spelled backwards)
Yram Sretep
8. PORN STAR NAME (first pet's name, first street you grew up on)
Snoopy River
9. SUPERHERO NAME: ("The", your favourite colour and the automobile your dad drives)
(I have no idea what my dad drives, so I'll go with what my husband drives) The Burgundy Spectra (hmmm... sounds good)
10. YOUR ACTION HERO NAME (first name of the main character in the last film you watched, last food you ate)
(Gosh I can't even remember the last movie I watched, let me think...) (Ok, checked on my skype conversations, I knew I had told my buddy what I was watching - yes my memory IS that bad... - now I will have to google Stargate SG1 continuum to get the main characters' names... - yes I AM that bad) Here we go: Samantha Salad - I like that, both begin with S.

Friday, September 19, 2008

All moms work - Poppycock!

Well, this is interesting; Ian Capstick, the press secretary to Jack Layton, leader of the NDP believes that the idea that stay-at-home moms are also working moms is poppycock.

So let me get this straight. If I am a washing lady, and am paid to do nothing more than wash other people's clothes, that is a job.

If I am a child care giver, and am paid to do nothing more than care for other people's children, that is a job.

If I am a chef, and am paid to do nothing more than cook other people's meals, that is a job.

If I am an accountant, and am paid to do nothing more than keep track of other people's finances, that is a job.

If I am a personal chauffeur, bus-driver or taxi-driver, and am paid to do nothing more than drive other people places, that is a job.

If I am a tutor, and am paid to do nothing more than help students with their homework, that is a job.

If I am a teacher, and am paid to do nothing more than teach other people's children, that is a job.

If I am a maid and am paid to do nothing more than clean other people's homes, that is a job.

If I am doing all of the above and more, it is not a job, because it is for my own family and I am not being paid for it.

Let's take this a little further. The NDP will gladly pay for someone else to take care of my children while I get a "real job". This caregiver will be considered as having a "real job" because she is being paid to care for someone else's children. As long as you are being paid and they are not yours, it's a real job. She will not be washing their clothes or making their beds or preparing their meals. She won't really care about their accomplishments or their troubles, not like I would, she won't be driving them all over to their various activities. But her job is a "real job" and the NDP has no qualms paying for it. However, if I want to take care of my own children, that is poppycock?

I could go further and say that the best care for a child is, of course, state care. Because we wouldn't want the parents to have too much influence on their children would we? We don't want children growing up like their parents. We want to indoctrinate them in the thinking of the state at as early an age possible. But then you might think I'm exaggerating. And had anyone else said something like this 5 years ago, I might have scoffed at the notion and said they were exaggerating. I don't think the idea is such an exaggeration anymore.

The conservatives on the other hand will give all parents a minimum amount for each child admissible for child care. Therefore, all child care is subsidized, whether that care comes from a parent or someone else. So a family subsisting on one salary has as much help as the one subsisiting on two salaries, and the choice to stay at home and care for the future of humankind is considered a valuable and honorable option.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Theology of the Body for Teens

Just ordered this for my kids; The theology of the Body for Teens DVD Series. Got it with the workbook and the leader's guide. A little expensive, but I consider it investing in my children's future. That is worth all the money in the world to me. Hopefully, this will make them better prepared than I was.

I was rather ignorant and very naive myself. Also very trusting. Too trusting. Were I ever single again, I'd probably be one of those frustrated women who'd have a hard time trusting any guy again. I know there are trustworthy guys out there, because my brothers and my father are trustworthy. But gosh, for every guy willing to wait, there are hundreds who only want to hop into the sack with you right off the bat. Who'll dump you quicker'n that if you don't comply.

Were I ever single again, I'd probably end up a hermit.

Monday, September 15, 2008

Elle roulait à contresens

Montérégie - Accident de la route
Jean-Michel Nahas
Le Journal de Montréal
15/09/2008 08h39 - Mise à jour 15/09/2008 08h45

La mini-fourgonnette de la victime était méconnaissable.

Photo Le Journal - Ghyslain Lavoie

En état d'ébriété vraisemblablement avancé, une conductrice entrée à contresens sur l'autoroute 35 a péri dans une violente collision frontale, hier après-midi, près d'Iberville.

La femme a d'abord donné des sueurs froides à un chauffeur de poids lourd, qui a pu éviter le pire grâce à un ultime coup de volant.

Son lourd camion, qui a tout de même été accroché par la mini-fourgonnette de la chauffarde, s'est retrouvé dans un fossé bordant l'autoroute.

L'homme n'a heureusement pas été blessé mais il a subi un grave choc nerveux, selon sa conjointe.

Funeste trajet

Poursuivant son funeste trajet, la conductrice fautive a ensuite heurté de plein fouet une autre voiture. Son auto a explosé et pris feu sous le choc, qui lui a été fatal.

Le conducteur de ce véhicule a subi d'importantes blessures mais on ne craint pas pour sa vie, selon la Sûreté du Québec.

«C'est possiblement un cas de capacités affaiblies», a affirmé Grégory Gomez Del Prado, porte-parole de la SQ.

Friday, September 12, 2008

Problems in Bolivia

Now this is what I am talking about. This is what people are fleeing away from, this is why the US has so many illegal immigrants, this is why people have a love-hate relationship with the US, what is the US going to do about it?

(From the SOA Watch:) We are writing with grave concern about an emerging conflict in South America´s poorest nation, Bolivia and we need you to take immediate action. Bolivia is facing a critical moment in which the survival of a new era of hope is gravely threatened. After suffering decades of military dictatorships followed by years of economic dictatorship, Bolivia heralded in a new moment of dignity with the election of its first indigenous president, Evo Morales. However, just one month after a recall referendum gave Morales 67% of the vote, Bolivia's secessionist movement has unleashed unprecedented violence throughout the country. After three days of riots, 8 people have died, several government institutions have been destroyed and Bolivia´s gas pipeline has suffered millions of dollars in damage. OAS Secretary General José Miguel Insulza has called for the violent actions of opposition groups to end. Citing involvement with the opposition movement, Bolivia´s president Morales declared US Ambassador to Bolivia, Phillip Goldberg, persona non grata and asked him to leave the country. Among Ambassador Goldberg´s closest friends are Croatian businessmen in the city of Santa Cruz who lead the city´s powerful separatist movement. Washington responded by asking Bolivia´s ambassador to return to his country. South America´s presidents have united their voices in declaring support for Bolivia´s democracy and Evo Morales. Yesterday Venezuela in solidarity with Bolivia asked the US Ambassador to leave the country and recalled their ambassador from the United States. Venezuela is also citing US involvement in recent destabilization attempts in Venezuela. Unfortunately, as we know too well form our campaign to close the SOA/WHINSEC, the US has a long history of US intervention in the region. Morales has called for restraint by the military, a markedly different response from that of Bolivia´s military dictatorships. SOA Watch founder, Fr. Roy Bourgeois was one of the many recipients of the torture and random detention which was commonplace under the dictatorship of General Hugo Banzer, an SOA graduate. Thousands of Bolivians were tortured and hundreds disappeared under the following Garcia Meza dictatorship leading military command were SOA graduates.

Last year President Morales announced his decision that Bolivian troops would no longer train at the SOA/WHINSEC. Venezuela was the first to make this announcement in 2004, and since then a total of 5 countries have followed step. We urge you to take immediate action. Please call the White House with the message, please stop interfering in Bolivia and other Latin American Democracies. Please call the capital switch board and ask for your Senators and House Members and ask them to immediately investigate if the White House is trying to destabilize the democracies of Bolivia and Venezuela.

White House to reach the President (202) 456-1414

Capitol Switchboard to reach your Senate or House Member (202) 224-3121

This is where I'm nowhere even close to being conservative.

Shiloh vs Suri

Never thought I'd say this, but Brad and Angelina are starting to impress me. I came across this magazine at the grocery store, and almost bought it, for the title story.

Shiloh Jolie-Pitt and Suri Cruise are the precious pampered babies of Hollywood royalty, but, as Star examines in our new issue, they're growing up in two totally different worlds.

The daughter of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, Shiloh, 2, lives behind the walls of the elegant Château Miraval in the South of France, where competition is fierce and chaos rules. Quiet, gentle and easygoing, the adorable little blonde — who's big sis to newborns Vivienne and Knox — loves playing with older siblings Maddox, 7, Pax, 4, and Zahara, 3. Shi, who is affectionately nicknamed Tweety, takes orders from
Zahara and endures lots of good-natured roughhousing from her older brothers.

"The boys are tough," a source tells Star. "Zahara hollers back at them, but Shiloh is very gentle. The boys don't mean to be rough, but they pick her up and toss her around. She gets a lot of bruises. Often, Angie or Brad has to say, 'Stop that. Put her down!' "

The free-spirited little girl, who has Brad Dad wrapped around her tiny finger, wears hand-me-downs, plays barefoot and loves to pick flowers.

Back in the States, Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes' daughter Suri, 2, is often the picture of cool chic in her designer outfits and chic haircuts (that match Mom's!). Raised according to the strict rules of Tom and Katie's Scientology faith, the word "no" is almost never used with the girl, who still uses a bottle.

"She is never disciplined, so when she painted on the wall, Tom and Katie told her it was beautiful," a source told Star.

Indulged to the max, Suri also doesn't have a bedtime, sleeps on pricey Scandia bedding and eats meals off Orsay Gold china.

It isn't because you're stinking rich that you have to be spoiled to death, and never wear hand-me-downs, and never have to share.

But it isn't just that, at first I thought Angelina was one of those politically correct do-gooders, off adopting a few children, so what. Just another celebrity adopting kids, making news. Then after reading a few comments from her, something about her not being sure she wanted another child, because they'd be white (compared to the others who aren't) or some other odd thing, I figured, yeah, the politically correct couple who had their token child, almost regret it, because now they've brought another child into the world to use up precious ressources, and will never have more children, only adopt those already alive and in need. Such good people not bringing more unnecessary children into an already over-crowded world, while at the same time, adopting some of the extra children out there that probably shouldn't have been born in the first place, but now that they're here...

Anyhow, it seems I was wrong, or like so often happens, her comments were taken out of context, or else she was bowing to pressure from others or something, because here they are, with twins. A family of six kids. Three of them biological children, and raising them up, it would seem, in a very down-to-earth way.

That, if nothing else, is worthy of praise.


Personally, I just want to know when the United States is going to come up with a Major Political Party that is MODERATE? For that matter, when is Canada going to come up with one? Oh never mind, the Conservatives are actually quite moderate. Problem is, I'm not moderate in the same way they are. I'm socially quite leftist. And then I guess you could accuse me of being part of the extremist right too. But you'd be wrong about that. You'd only make that assessment based on the fact that I am pro-life, and against gay-marriage. But it doesn't matter how open* on other things I am, people like Gilles Duceppe would still call me stubborn and ignorant because I don't think exactly like him on these two issues. You know, I used to happily vote Bloc Québecois once... before they started insulting my intelligence... and getting all dictatorial about not letting their party members choose how to vote on important issues. At least Stephen Harper lets his MPs vote freely.

My two-cents worth in pink: (okay in some cases, it's more like $2, but whatever)

Favors new drilling offshore US
How much drilling and in what way? How will this impact the environment? Nobody brings any of this up, it's just a yes or a no. So really, how can I agree with either of them on this one?

Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it
Well this is a no-brainer. You elect people to govern, that's how it works in a democracy. On the other hand, this is of course, a conservative interpretation of what is happening in courts where judges were appointed by the democrats. It is not officially what is supposed to be happening, even under Mr. Obama, however, if he intends on appointing judges that have a tendancy to do things their own way in court, then there is some truth to the matter.

Served in the US Armed Forces
Quite frankly, I do not give a d%&* if either of them served in the US Armed Forces. This does not automatically make you a better President. It might make you a DIFFERENT kind of President, but it does not necessarily make you a better one. What is it with american conservatives and their army anyway? We have an army here in Canada, I am proud of the job they do, mostly. I appreciate what they do, I would not be able to do it myself, but I am glad someone is there for our protection. However, I don't believe that makes them better than me. Just different.

Amount of time served in the US Senate
Again, SO WHAT. Weren't democrats bashing Palin for HER lack of experience too? SO WHAT!!!

Will institute a socialized national health care plan
Umm, coming from Canada, I don't actually think this is such a BAD thing. On the other hand, I suppose there are ways you could eventually work up to this... or do something similar, not the same as Canada. Don't they have some kind of second-rate, government-funded health-service over there for people who can't pay? Is it all that second-rate? Why not just make that better? Or why not have people pay insurance to a State health plan instead of private insurance and then subsidize it. Poorer people would pay less insurance. I mean, if you are paying some kind of health plan anyway, all this does is change where the money goes.

Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy
Yep, I guess I'm all McWhat'shisname/Palin on this issue. And so totally NOT Obama, who is the only one to have voted to kill babies born alive despite an abortion intended to kill them, and who are old enough to survive in units for pre-mature babies.

Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately
Ummm, I didn't want troops in Iraq in the first place, didn't think it was necessary, didn't agree with the reasons to be there, but you know what? They went, they pretty much destroyed the infrastructure, decimated the government, (decimating that particular government was actually a good thing) pretty much won the war, and now they have a responsibility to help re-build things. Pulling the troops out of Iraq at this point is NOT in my opinion, a good idea. Having a plan for eventual and progressive eliminition of the US army on Iraquis soil IS.

Supports gun ownership rights
I grew up in Northern Canada eh. My whole community is a hunting community. My husband, who grew up in Southern Québec, also likes to hunt. He owns guns. They are registered. They are in a locked cabinet. He is not a criminal. Criminals will have guns, and NOT register them even if noone is allowed to have guns. That's what a criminal does... he DISOBEYS the law. So what would taking away the right to own guns change? Absolutely N.O.T.H.I.N.G. Criminality is increasing because family units are breaking down. Single parents, divorced parents, kids in daycare because one income is not enough, people just not knowing what to do about their kids anymore... parents who leave their kids to pretty much bring themselves up... extreme violence on TV, in games, in movies, in music... these factors do not of course absolutely mean that your kids will be criminals, but it doesn't help. Taking guns away from non-criminals will not make the population safer, because criminals are not going to voluntarily give up their guns. That's just common sense.

Supports homosexual marriage
You know, I believe in the right of all people to not be discriminated against. You don't refuse a person medical care, or a job or whatever, based on homosexuality. Unless it is a job that requires certain conditions. I do believe in the right of a Catholic school to refuse the candidature of an openly active homosexual. I couldn't care less if said homosexual got a job as a secretary somewhere, a hairdresser, a doctor, a newspaper reporter, a fireman, a mechanic, whatever job where it is obvious that his homosexuality is not in conflict with his work. On the other hand, if a catholic homosexual, who was open about his homosexual tendancies but also openly striving to remain single, or even undergoing therapy (and yes, therapy does exist, and yes people have reverted to heterosexuality, despite claims of the opposite by extreme leftists) then I think the Catholic school would do well to hire the homosexual, he'd actually make an outstanding example. Yes it is hard to live that way. Yes it can be sad. But also, yes it is possible. I won't force that option on a homosexual, I think you have to get to that point on your own. I understand if you don't want to go there. But gosh, could the minority rampant extremist ones please stay out of our schools? I do not want my kids brainwashed into thinking homosexuality is a normal, natural and equal form of sex. It is not. It has also been proven that most homosexuals have more health problems than heterosexuals. And even in very pro-homosexual countries like Denmark, homosexuals STILL suffer from more mental health problems and depression too. But I digress. The point I wanted to make is that marriage has always been an OFFICIAL union, because it was created in order to better protect the children born of a union between a man and a woman. If children did not need both their fathers and their mothers growing up, if they could just be brought up by the tribe as a whole, or by one parent only, there would never have been such a thing as marriage. Children need a stable home, a mother and a father. End of story. Now I understand that homosexual couples might want (need) the same type of rights as any other childless (or not) couple in case of a break-up, in order to fairly separate common wealth or for other issues. So I support laws that would recognize homosexuals as a couple. I do not support calling them a family, or turning what they have into marriage.

What about sterile couples or couples that don't WANT kids, you say? If homosexuals can't be married because they can't biologically have kids, then why should these couples be married?

If they don't WANT kids, then that's their problem, they still have the OPTION and the capacity. Sterile couples still have the option of adoption. They can still be one MOTHER and one FATHER with one or more adopted children. In fact, if we could pair up some of those unwanted children that get aborted all the time, with some of those sterile couples who WANT children... that would be nice too.

Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase

Voted against making English the official language
Huh? And what other language did Obama propose we make an official language in the USA. Not spanish!? No! That would be so insulting... to all those who hate illegal immigrants. No but seriously, why would did he even want to make another language official anyway? It's not like the US has quite the same history as Canada.

Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals
Ahhh, yes... illegal immigrants. Somehow, I do not believe that the problem with illegal immigrants will be resolved either by giving them better benefits in the US or by making tougher laws and inventing tougher penalties for them. People, you need to look at WHY there are illegal immigrants in the first place, and start doing something about making them WANT TO STAY IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. If you lived in a place where you were always on the brink of starving to death, because your idiot government won't make people pay a decent minimum wage, won't defend your rights as a worker, and worse, treats you as a criminal and/or a communist if you get together with other people in your situation to either try to fight for your rights, or to do something as innocuous as starting up a simple co-op. So here are your options: You starve to death, or worse you watch your children starve to death or you risk assassination/disappearing/jail/whatever in order to survive. Great options. Now, I ask you... WHAT THE HELL ARE EITHER OBAMA OR McCAIN PLANNING ON DOING ABOUT THAT? Lets not be silly here folks, the US and Canada, and other First World countries have a lot of influence. We could be doing something here...

0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.
28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.)

15% (no change)
39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.')

(no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250
(reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!

Don't they have married people who make only 30K over there? Why bother indicating that these people are single or married if you are not going to give the equivalent of the other option? So would a married person making 30K pay less taxes or what? Or do you automatically get twice the salary in the US for the same job, from the same employer just because you have a marriage certificate? Gosh people... when you compare things, do it properly. Or at least indicate that the married person who makes 30K doesn't pay income tax if that is the case. Then again, I suppose this was written for Americans, and would be considered common knowledge if it were the case.

- 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)
Restore the inheritance tax
Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.

Yeah, well this tax just sounds stupid. Especially for poor people.

New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

Ummm people, the money you will pay for taxes on socialized medicine, you will SAVE on not having to pay medical insurance. Did you think of that? Why not just have a government health insurance plan that everyone pays into, that is subsidized by government, so people can pay less out of their pockets, especially poor people. Sounds logical to me.

You can verify the above at the following web sites:
http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_obama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes.html http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/

* Where "open" means I have the same opinion as you

Thursday, September 11, 2008

For those who have a shoe Fetish...

... this really won't interest anyone else.

Still kind of undecided on the all-purpose sandal. I did narrow it down to the sandals below, which you can see here.

But then, someone told me to "Get out of the conservative traditionnal brown... go funky lady" :) So I thought... wouldn't hurt would it?

And I came across this among other things:

Check out the straps on these things. Kind of makes one want to wrap her legs around her husband's... maybe strap him to the bed... oops... did I just say that?

Now how can I buy just one pair of sandals? I'll never be able to forget these ones. Sigh... If only I had money to blow and no conscience to make me feel guilty about it.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008


In the market for sandals again... this time, thanks to my friend Dani, I have discovered zappos... now all I have to do is choose. Here are some of my favourites:

I want them open enough that they won't be too hot in summer, and I like a heel that isn't too clunky, I prefer not wedge, but I don't like a narrow heel either. I don't like the heel too high, but I do like a heel. I also don't want to spend a fortune, so the ones on the far right, second row aren't an option at over $200.00, unless some kind soul wants to donate money... ha ha.

Yeah, I know, really thought-provoking post... But just in case you have a shoe fetish... here they are close up.

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

Out with the old

If you were to walk into my kitchen, it would not be immediately apparent that, at heart, I am a girl who likes to be organized. I like things to have a place and to be neatly organized in a stylish, but practical way. It has to be easy to get at, easy to put away and logical. I have always enjoyed classing things and organizing things.

It would only take one look at my kitchen counter however, to believe exactly the opposite of me. There, you will see empty milk bags that children have left there instead of rinsing them and putting them in the recycling. You will see the occasional half-eaten and rusting apple. You will see an endless amount of toys and other miscellaneous objects that I have picked up off the floor with the intention of returning them back to whence they came. Papers abound, as do stamps, crayons, and other office paraphernalia. My counter is, 80 % of the time, a catch-all for everything. And there is no room for me to prepare meals.

Every once in awhile I get sufficiantly annoyed, clean everything off, return things to their proper nesting grounds, and I have a clean counter for a whole day. Then objects come creeping back.

I had a plan for this. A plan I may end up carrying out on my own if my mental sanity relies on it. A kind of office area to liberate my counter. I am not there yet.

This week, I started doing some serious cleaning of shelves and the pantry. I am about half done, after 3 or 4 days on the job. I am continually interupted by "more dodo" (breastfeeding), various errands, appointments and other duties, as well as soccer, school and homework. I got to the corner where some of my spices are, and that's it, I decided, I'd had enough of some spices there, some spices on top of the stove, some over here, and some down under there. The spice/utensil holder was old and broken:

I went out and got the ultimate spice holder/organizer that I have been thinking about for months now. It liberates counter space, it uses space that was previously unusable, and when you shut the door, you can't see it anymore. Is that a spice rack or is that a spice rack?

I placed the utensils in this lovely pitcher that was just sitting there, on top of the cabinets, gathering a thick (and I mean thick) layer of dust. (Sticky dust, it was really hard to get off!!)

Okay, so the counter on the other side is still a relative mess, (I've seen worse, then again, I've seen it better,) but the counters on this side are mostly clean, the tops of the cabinets are clean, the shelves and everything on them are clean, and I have gotten rid of a few things that nobody will even remember they had. (Shhhhhh, don't tell my husband.)

Feels good.

I hate fearmongering

I hate it when it comes from conservatives as per Mr. Obama's slip of the tongue about "my muslim Faith". Frankly, I couldn't care less what religion he's from, I wouldn't vote for him regardless, were I American, BECAUSE OF WHAT HE STANDS FOR, not because of the religion he claims to follow. And weren't these conservatives bashing the minister of his Church anyway, not too long ago? Like just because the minister of your church holds certain views, and you still go there, that means you must hold the same views? But then, when liberals bash Mrs Palin for her minister's views, that doesn't count?

I hate it when it comes from liberals, as per the fact that the conservative hopeful in the St-Hubert riding is a member of Opus Dei. This not only made the front page of LaPresse today, but exclusively filled the next two pages. Oh those poor liberals, how worried they are that someone from such a secretive, right-wing organisation is running for MP. Yes, this should worry all of us.

Last time I went to an Opus Dei function (which was actually not very long ago, just last month) everyone there seemed very mentally healthy, thank you very much, and noone was pushing torture or self-mortification. Do they honestly think this lady is going to be bringing up things like that? Gosh, I'd be much more worried about a muslim hopeful, the whole Sharia law thing seems to me rather more scary than optional, personal self-mortification. And I'm not worried about the muslim either, because, minus a few exceptions (there are always exceptions) I think most muslims came to Canada to GET AWAY from that, not to bring it here.

Now, I don't belong to Opus Dei, and Opus Dei is not my thing, but none of the people I know that go there, walk around with hushed whispers, keeping secrets, looking self-mortified, or mentally sick or whatever. For the most part, we talk, we laugh, we have fun. Amazingly enough, compared to some right-wing conservatives, some I know even LIKED Harry Potter and were organizing a Harry Potter HALLOWEEN party. That's right folks, Halloween... you know,.. the devil's feast? (Personally, I think Halloween is one of my favourite days.)

So could we just give up already on the fearmongering? Really, you insult my intelligence with such nonsense.

Saturday, September 06, 2008

So which is it? Ice increasing or ice decreasing?

This article pretty much says the opposite of one that I read recently in Lapresse about how ice is melting so fast, and things are getting worse. This one says ice has been increasing. So who speaks the truth?

Is it just me?

You know what? I don't give diddley anymore.

Ok, I won't promote pollution or anything, I recycle, I re-use (a heck of a lot more than most people - hey, I even wash ziploc bags and reuse'em), and I compost. IN FACT, in spite of the fact that we are supposedly suffocating the poor earth by having kids who are sucking in all its ressources, we STILL manage, with a family of 5 kids, to put out less garbage per week, than people with NO KIDS. Actually, quite often we don't even put out garbage, because the bin is just too empty for it to be worthwhile. WHAT'S MORE, we might even skip a couple of weeks IN A ROW. Not bad eh? I do this because I care about air quality, and water quality, and the quality of a lot of others things. Also, because I dislike the whole disposable mentality thing, and waste and whatnot. Because disposable doesn't stop at things, people become disposable too. And because the old adage "waste not, want not" still rings true.

But OH PEOPLE, get over the end of the world theory already... Ice ages come and go, colder periods come and go, hotter periods come and go. This has been happening since before the dinosaurs. Before there were people to pollute the earth. TIME TO WAKE UP!!! Maybe, JUST MAYBE, something else out there is in control of the climate!!! Like maybe the sun for instance!

Nah,... I bet it's aliens.

Thursday, September 04, 2008

He lives to terrorize me

I am gone downstairs for 10 measley minutes and this is what awaits at my return:

Cat food strewn all over the floor. Yes, I spend far too much time on the computer. Yes, I hate housecleaning. But gosh... how can anyone keep a house clean with 5 of these terrorists running about?

Ok, I take it back, I've managed to brainwash the first 2 into being civilized human beings for the most part, and the third is on her way... but still...


He did it again, and it is still morning:

Playing cards this time. And no, this time I was not on the computer when he did it, I was taking a shower...

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

How to make a simple medieval dress

Came across this tutorial while looking for patterns for possible costumes:


This dress is based on simple shapes and uses remarkably little fabric. Most people can get the size they need out of 3m of a standard 60" wide fabric. Choose a decent linen or fine wool for accuracy, but the dress will also make up well in more fun fabrics such as velvet or furnishing brocade.

The pattern is based on fourteenth century examples excavated in Greenland and adapted very slightly for ease of manufacture.

I decided that before I tried it out on myself and Maryssa, I would wing it with a doll. Now, the doll I chose is arguably not the best option for trying out a pattern for humans because said doll has a very large neck and very little shoulder width. So I improvised a bit.

The next time I make one of these, the gores (triangular pieces in the skirt) will definitely be of a contrasting colour, at least the one down the front anyway.

Maryssa is sleeping with her doll (mine actually - her name is Matilda), and wants me to make matching dresses for herself and I.

And now for a message from one of our sponsors

... well, not really. I sponsor myself. Actually, this group doesn't even support me, I support them... but here's the message anyway:

NARAL calls FFL anti-choice? Puh-leaz.‏
From: Feminists for Life (info@feministsforlife.org)
Sent: September 3, 2008 7:50:16 PM

The Washington Post noted that, within minutes of the announcement that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin had been named as Senator John McCain’s running mate, NARAL Pro-Choice America sent out a fundraising appeal as well as a text message to its supporters saying the vice presidential candidate is a "member of the anti-choice group Feminists for Life."

WE are anti-choice???

What’s so anti-choice about Feminists for Life’s work to promote holistic, woman-centered solutions—including housing, childcare, maternity coverage, and telecommuting options?

FFL is all about choices—so that no woman feels that she has no choice but abortion.

Which choice is it that NARAL Pro-Choice America doesn’t support? Marital parenthood? Partnered parenthood? Single parenthood? Or the various adoption options that birthmothers choose as best for themselves and their children?

Maybe NARAL forgot that this “anti-choice” feminist was in the room with their representatives working to give women support and choices by successfully supporting the passage of the Violence Against Women Act and enhanced child support enforcement as well as fighting against cuts in benefits for the children of poor women, which were later proven to have coerced more women to have an abortion.

Perhaps they also forgot FFL’s successful effort to secure healthcare for working poor and pregnant women and their unborn children through changes in regulations in the state Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Oh, wait, NARAL Pro-Choice America actively opposed our effort to give women support and choices.

Then there was my testimony before the US House Judiciary Committee in support of the passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, also known as Laci and Connor’s Law, which recognizes the loss of an unborn child through violence—against her choice.

Or maybe they are disturbed by the FFL-inspired Elizabeth Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act that will help address the unmet needs of pregnant and parenting students on college campuses (that NARAL has been strangely silent about) and that enjoys bipartisan support?

No, NARAL, we are not anti-choice. We are pro-life, just like our feminist foremothers: Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and so many more.

We proudly remember our roots.

And we remember NARAL’s, too, and how NARAL’s co-founder Dr. Bernard Nathanson later became a pro-life activist. He told FFL’s past president Rosemary Bottcher how he and Larry Lader convinced the leaders of the ‘70s women’s movement to support abortion. The real goal of the movement was equality in the workplace, but Nathanson and Lader convinced them that children were an obstacle to success like men’s—and that abortion was the answer.

And we remember NARAL’s former president, Kate Michelman, telling the Philadelphia Inquirer (on tape) that abortion was “a bad thing.”

The early American feminists would have agreed. They knew abortion was not good for women and that it violated basic human rights—long before sonograms showed the unborn child in meticulous, undeniable detail.

This would all be too ridiculous for words, except for the sad fact that NARAL and like-minded abortion activists have the attention of millions of women who have the highest rate of abortion—college-age women.

Trying to marginalize our work to address the unmet needs of women and the “rest of the choices” by slamming Feminists for Life is just par for NARAL Pro-Choice America’s course.
Apparently they are satisfied with millions more women laying their bodies down to undergo a surgical abortion or swallowing a bitter pill called choice.

Apparently they don’t believe women when they say that lack of resources and support drive them to abortion.

If you think that FFL needs the capacity to promote holistic solutions to the needs of women, especially those with the highest rate of abortion, if you can see, over and over, that FFL is a leading force redirecting the debate toward woman-centered solutions (as evidenced most recently by changes in the Democratic and Republican party platforms), if you think it’s telling that Planned Parenthood’s president and affiliates can’t resist misusing FFL’s trademarked slogan, Women deserve better,® and if you think it is time to help pro-woman, pro-life student leaders “Say NO to the Status Quo” and Rally for Resources, then please, do your part. And do it now.

We are being inundated with requests for information and help.

With the spotlight on Feminists for Life, this is our year to make significant gains to reach those at highest risk of abortion and better serve women.

With your help, our time is now.

Because women deserve better,
Serrin M. Foster President

PS: As you might suspect, interest in Feminists for Life is high, and the phones are ringing off the hook, with interviews in the New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, Associated Press, NPR, The Hill, Catholic News Agency, Our Sunday Visitor, mentions on The Today Show, CNN, CBN, Christian News Service, Voice of America and many more.

Please forward this message to someone you know who shares our belief in the strength of women and passion for life, and join us in our efforts to say NO to the status quo.TM We need to grow.


"Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women. Women deserve better than abortion."


Feminists for Life is a nonpartisan, nonsectarian organization.FFL does not endorse or support candidates of any party.

Feminists for Life is a 501(c)3 organization.All donations and membership contributions are tax deductible to the extent allowed to law. Refuse to Choose and Women Deserve Better are registered trademarks of Feminists for Life of America.

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

School is harder on the parents.

I don't get how people can be happy to see their kids go back to school. First, I like having my kids around. Second, school is no holiday. I don't get all the jokes about cheering one's kid back off to school. The people who cheer when their kid is gone must only have one. Only one to feed at night, only one to watch to make sure he's doing his homework. Or maybe she already does all her homework on her own.

I bet none of them have to watch an almost 3 year old to make sure he's not making trouble, while keeping countless people off the computers and away from tv in order to do their homework. Or worse yet, getting them to eat a snack quickly, change into soccer clothes, off to a soccer pratice, eating sandwiches there and doing homework at the same time with the ones who don't have a practice and alternating when it's someone else's turn to pratice, coming home at just after bedtime, trying to get everyone showered and in bed at a decent time.

I don't know how my mother handled the stress. Of course, she didn't have to check 4 or 5 supply lists and get them right. Actually, she didn't have to buy anything at all until high school, because back then at least, in Moose Factory, a free education was actually free. The most she had to get for us was a pair of running shoes. Everything was supplied by the school. Also, we didn't get homework until about grade five. And then, it was only the odd project or two.

Also she didn't have anyone in any sports that she had to drive them to. We had after-school sports and get this... A BUS WAS PROVIDED FOR THOSE COMING HOME LATE FROM SCHOOL . Wow. Yes, people knew how to provide things back then. Parents didn't have to pick their children up if they were staying late for a school sport.

My mother didn't have to buy anything for us until high school. And even then, it was just a couple of binders, or one really big one, loose leaf paper, pens and pencils, a ruler and maybe some coloured pencils for projects. There was eventually the odd geometry set or scientific calculator, but I think we even got our school agenda for free... I don't remember ever paying for it. If we took art, most of the art supplies were provided. Text books were assigned, we borrowed the same textbooks that students had been using for years. We didn't have to buy new and updated ones every year. There was no such thing as exercise books, we used the good old photocopier... and photocopies were not charged to us.

Ahhhhh, whatever happened to a simple blackboard and chalk and a slate you used over and over again to copy out your lessons, then erase them? Whatever happened to learning stuff by heart, with poems and songs, instead of using textbooks and pedagogical tools... School was simpler and cheaper once... and kids came home, milked the cows, hunted for the eggs, fed the animals, and had no soccer.

Good old days....

Monday, September 01, 2008

Sarah Pallin

Not very "feminist", not in a stereotypical way, but still the strong woman... Sarah Pallin. I think I like her. Who wouldn't like some lady with five kids who refused to abort her youngest even if she knew he was autistic, who lives in Alaska and hunts moose? (Or is it caribou?)

I'm a criminal

The other day I took Jean-Alexandre and Nicolas with me to get some jeans and shoes for Jean-Alexandre and some school supplies that were missing for some of the others. It was late afternoon, and Nicolas fell asleep in the car on our way to the shoe store. So, it being late afternoon, and not wanting to wake him up unnecessarily, I decided to park in the shade, and let him sleep. I parked next to the door and was only gone for ten minutes. I even sent Jean-Alexandre back before me, once he had chosen the shoes, while I stayed behind to pay.

As I pulled out of the store's parking lot and was driving down the street, I got pulled over by the police.

"What?!" I think to myself,"I'm sure I did my stop, I didn't run a red light, and I am definitely NOT speeding."

TWO police officers (not just one) walk up to my windows, one on either side. I role down my window for the one on my side.

"Youv'e just been shopping at Yellow?" He asks.


"We had a call..." he says.

"Oh great," I think, "someone stole something and they think it was me.?"

"You left your baby alone in the car, with the windows up while you went shopping?"

"I was parked in the shade and I was in there for 5 minutes!" I say. (Always better to make it a bit less than more right?)

"You NEVER leave a baby in a car alone! That's just not done. It's against the law!"

Oh well, that I didn't know. I figured some things are an obvious given, without being an actual law. Like you don't throw your child off a cliff, but there is no actual law that I know of that says it is illegal in Canada to throw your child off a cliff. However it IS illegal to kill your child, which pretty much covers throwing it off a cliff. So I figure it is pretty much common sense not to leave your child sleeping in a car, at midday, in the middle of a large parking lot, while you go shopping for an hour or two. I figure, if you do this and your child dies of dehydration, you could be charged with criminal negligance. On the other hand, if you are just popping in and out, it is late afternoon, it's not very hot out, you are parked in the shade, and you are close to the doors, you can easily get away with it. Unless, of course some meddling got-nothing-better-to-do-than-make-trouble person happens to see the baby peacefully sleeping in the car and calls the police.

So then the officer wants to see my driver's licence and the registration and insurance for the car. I hand him my licence and the insurance and start hunting in the glove compartment for the registration.

"This insurance is outdated." He tells me.

Oops. "I guess my husband didn't give me the new one." I say, starting to get flustered. Until this point, I was extremely annoyed but not flustered. So I continue hunting through the glove compartment, muttering excuses, until I finally find the registration and lo and behold...

"Here's the insurance, this one's up to date." It was right in there with the insurance. Looking at who the insurance is made out to, Iguazu Inc, reminds me that I'm actually in Marc's company car, which means that the expired insurance was not even actually the insurance for the right car anyway.

Both officers leave, and the one comes back a few minutes later. "Your son was taken to hospital in an ambulance a few years ago in 2005." He tells me in a severe, accusing voice. "Does this mean anything to you?" I inwardly roll my eyes. Now he is trying to scare me.

"Not that one." I tell him. I figure I probably don't sound very repentant. Probably because I am not.

"How many children do you have?"


"Then you should know better."

As I am still not admitting anything he continues, asking me something about if I am repentant or not.

"I won't do it again." I tell him. No, you can be sure that I will not do it again. (At least, not with that car, where it is too easy to see a baby peacefully sleeping. The van on the other hand, has tinted windows... nah, better not take chances.) Not because I'm sorry. I'm not. I'd do it again. But who knows what other meddling busybody would happen by again... I probably wouldn't get off so easily a second time.

"Ok." He gives me back my licence and other papers.

You know, if I happened across a baby alone in a car, parked in the middle of a parking lot, at midday, in the heat, with no shade and windows rolled up, I might wait around for 10-15 minutes. I might check to see if the baby was sweating profusely. I wouldn't call the police unless the baby seemed to be suffering and noone seemed to be coming back for it. That's in the worst of cases.

If I happened along a baby sleeping peacefully in a car, in the shade, at the end of the day, saw that he was close to the doors of a small boutique, so the mother isn't far and likely not gone for long, I wouldn't even bother hanging around to see if she came back or not within 10 minutes. I certainly would not call the police. Even if it IS against the law now. Hey if you NEVER leave a baby alone in the car, does that mean I have to wake the poor thing up every time I need to pay for the parking or pay for gas, or run in and leave a key? Gosh, aren't we getting a little ridiculous?

I can see why when you make a law, you don't write in the law, "unless you are not going very far, nor for very long and you are parked in the shade and it isn't hot and..." But gosh, people, do you have to STILL call the police? The officers have to respond. No matter if the baby was ok. So while I am annoyed with him for getting all paternalistic on me, I am still more annoyed with the meddlesome busybody who called him over in the first place.

Whatever. I'm an unrepentant criminal.

Picture this

It was just one of those days today, that start off with sun in the morning, a bit cool because it is the end of summer, but quickly warming up. We left for Granby in the morning, to go to Jean-Alexandre's tournament. Today his team was playing in the semi-finals and from there, either moving on to the game for the gold orthe game for the bronze.

In the first half of the game, the Celtix (our team) scored 4 points one of which Jean-Alexandre, although he plays defense, way in the back (11 on a field), managed to put in. Noone scored in the second half. So we were happily on our way to the game for the gold.

Within the first 10 minutes of the first half, the Celtix scored 3 points. When you have 11 on a field, you have the option of mixing up your formation. For example you can have 4 defense (last line) 3 demi (middle line) and 4 offence (first line - the ones who score most of your goals). You can also have 3 defense, 4 demi and 4 offence... or whatever. The coach of the other team put FIVE defense to stop the Celtix.

The boys still managed to put one more in late in the second half, which brought the score to 4-0. WE WON GOLD!!!

To end the day just right, we drove home, and decided to make a detour to the apple orchards. We had fun picking apples in the still warm late-afternoon sunshine, and lo and behold, 4 hot-air balloon teams appeared in the field just in front, and started blowing up their balloons. We got to watch them go up in the air, while snacking on apples, plums, blueberries, apple donuts and some apple juice.

Definitely a beautiful day.

The hostess with the moosest

I'm very happy about this pick too... A member of Feminists for Life!

The Hostess with the Moosest


Saturday, August 30, 2008

Over in the Frumistan province of the NR caliphate, our pal David is not happy about the Palin pick. I am - for several reasons. First, Governor Palin is not merely, as Jay describes her, "all-American", but hyper-American. What other country in the developed world produces beauty queens who hunt caribou and serve up a terrific moose stew? As an immigrant, I'm not saying I came to the United States purely to meet chicks like that, but it was certainly high on my list of priorities. And for the gun-totin' Miss Wasilla then to go on to become Governor while having five kids makes it an even more uniquely American story. Next to her resume, a guy who's done nothing but serve in the phony-baloney job of "community organizer" and write multiple autobiographies looks like just another creepily self-absorbed lifelong member of the full-time political class that infests every advanced democracy.

Second, it can't be in Senator Obama's interest for the punditocracy to spends its time arguing about whether the Republicans' vice-presidential pick is "even more" inexperienced than the Democrats' presidential one.

Third, real people don't define "experience" as appearing on unwatched Sunday-morning talk shows every week for 35 years and having been around long enough to have got both the War on Terror and the Cold War wrong. (On the first point, at the Gun Owners of New Hampshire dinner in the 2000 campaign, I remember Orrin Hatch telling me sadly that he was stunned to discover how few Granite State voters knew who he was.) Sarah Palin and Barack Obama are more or less the same age, but Governor Palin has run a state and a town and a commercial fishing operation, whereas (to reprise a famous line on the Rev Jackson) Senator Obama ain't run nothin' but his mouth. She's done the stuff he's merely a poseur about. Post-partisan? She took on her own party's corrupt political culture directly while Obama was sucking up to Wright and Ayers and being just another get-along Chicago machine pol (see his campaign's thuggish attempt to throttle Stanley Kurtz and Milt Rosenberg on WGN the other night).

Fourth, Governor Palin has what the British Labour Party politician Denis Healy likes to call a "hinterland" - a life beyond politics. Whenever Senator Obama attempts anything non-political (such as bowling), he comes over like a visiting dignitary to a foreign country getting shanghaied into some impenetrable local folk ritual. Sarah Palin isn't just on the right side of the issues intellectually. She won't need the usual stage-managed "hunting" trip to reassure gun owners: she's lived the Second Amendment all her life. Likewise, on abortion, we're often told it's easy to be against it in principle but what if you were a woman facing a difficult birth or a handicapped child? Been there, done that.

Fifth, she complicates all the laziest Democrat pieties. Energy? Unlike Biden and Obama, she's been to ANWR and, like most Alaskans, supports drilling there.