Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Un sondage réalisé par la société Léger Marketing pour le compte de l'Association des parents catholiques du Québec (APCQ) révèle que près des trois quarts des parents québécois (72 %) sont d'accord pour que les parents aient le choix entre l'enseignement religieux confessionnel et le cours d'éthique et de culture religieuse. Quant à l'ensemble de la population québécoise, c'est plus des deux tiers (69 %) qui sont d'accord pour que les parents aient le choix entre l'enseignement religieux confessionnel et le cours d'éthique et de culture religieuse.
Mme Jean Morse-Chevrier, présidente de l'Association des parents catholiques du Québec s'est réjouie de ces résultats : « Nous nous félicitons que la population reconnaisse que les parents doivent avoir l'option d'un enseignement religieux et moral pour leurs enfants à l'école en accord avec leur propre confession religieuse. Il faut souligner que, contrairement à ce qu'on entend parfois, la population n'est pas pour l'imposition du seul cours d'éthique et de culture religieuse qui est obligatoire dans toutes les écoles primaires et secondaires du Québec. Nous pensons que la manière la plus simple de résoudre la diversité des opinions est de suivre la sagesse des Québécois exprimée dans ce sondage et permettre l'option d'un enseignement religieux et moral confessionnel à l'école. »
C'est parmi les Québécois âgés de 25 à 34 ans que l'on retrouve la plus forte proportion de personnes en accord avec le fait que les parents aient le choix entre les deux types d'enseignement (80 %). Cette proportion se situe entre 66 % et 73 % pour les personnes de plus de 35 ans. De plus, 71 % des Québécois francophones sont d'accord pour que les parents aient le choix entre l'enseignement religieux confessionnel et le cours d'éthique et de culture religieuse (contre 63 % des non-francophones).
Question : Seriez-vous d'accord pour que les parents aient le choix entre l'enseignement religieux confessionnel et le cours d'éthique et de culture religieuse ? Résultat pour les Québécois ayant un enfant ou plus : Oui 72 % ; Non 26 % ; Je ne sais pas, refus 2 %.
L'Association des parents catholiques du Québec a mandaté Léger Marketing afin d'évaluer la perception de la population québécoise envers le cours obligatoire d'éthique et de culture religieuse. Dans l'ensemble, 1 076 Québécois ont été interrogés entre le 9 et le 14 octobre 2008. À l'aide des plus récentes données de Statistique Canada, les résultats ont été pondérés selon le sexe, l'âge, les régions et la langue maternelle afin de rendre l'échantillon représentatif de l'ensemble de la population adulte du Québec. Finalement, nous obtenons avec les 1 076 personnes sondées, une marge d'erreur maximale de ± 2,9 %, et ce, 19 fois sur 20.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Brent Rooney ( MSc; email: http:/// )
In the 15 October 2008 McCain/Obama debate AUTISM was mentioned at the beginning and at the end of the debate. Dr. Darios Getahun (http:/// Kaiser Permanente) and colleagues have identified stressors for risks to newborns such as infection ('chorioamnionitis'), fetal distress, premature birth etc.[Getahun, 1] [URL: http:/// ]
One of the stressors listed by Getahun is a prior induced abortion.
Three times as many families are affected by the serious behavioral problems of autistic children than the number of families affectedby CP (Cerebral Palsy). Male infants have higher autism risk than do female infants; gastrointestinal problems are a likely autism risk factor. Whether vaccinations elevate autistic risk is not a settled issue; for vaccination warnings, visit http:/// .
There is evidence than metal poisoning (e.g.s. mercury, lead) raises autistic risk. Estimates of the prevalence of autism vary by a factor of 5 or 10. In a 2006 article by Judith Grether a prevalence of 6-7 per one thousand U.S. children with autism was used and I'll use Grether's modest estimate of 6-7 per thousand. Dr. Getahun never mentions AUTISM, but any risk factor that boosts the odds of premature birth, has raised the AUTISM risk of a newborn baby.
Premature birth is a risk factor for many serious birth defects, including CP, mental retardation, epilepsy, blindness, deafness, respiratory distress, gastrointestinal problems, serious infections,
AUTISM, etc. In 2008 Norwegian researchers led by Dag Moster reported that extremely premature newborns (under 28 weeks' gestation) had 9.7 times the autism risk as full-term newborns (at least 37 weeks' gestation).[Moster, 2] In another 2008 study (Catherine Limperopoulos et al.) it was reported that newborn under 1,500 grams (i.e. 3 lbs. 5 ozs.) had an absolute 26% risk of autism.[Limperopoulos, 3]
Since 1992 there have been five (5) statistically significantstudies to report that women with prior induced abortions hadhigher risk of delivering an extremely preterm newborn. [Smith, 4; Lumley, 5-6; Moreau, 7; Stang, 8] Opposed to these five studies are zero statistically significant studies reporting that women with prior induced abortions have a lower risk of an extremely preterm newborn compared to women with zero prior induced abortions.
In 2007 the Institute of Medicine in a textbook identified "Prior first trimester induced abortion" as an "Immutable Medical Risk Factor Associated with Preterm Birth" [Behrman, 9]; [ URL: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11622&page=625 ].
Bottom line: Abortion and Autism are Linked. The most common abortion procedure (vacuum aspiration abortion) has zero published animal studies to validate its safety. The lack of such animal studies means that 100% of 'suction' abortions violate rule 3 of the 1947 Nuremberg Code (i.e. animal testing of a new surgery or new drug must precede human trials). Senator Barack Obama has never been asked:
"How can you, Senator Obama, fully support the 1947 Nuremberg Code of medical ethics and also support 'suction' abortion, which has zero published animal studies to support its safety?"
Black American newborns have four times the rate of births under 28 weeks' gestation as Caucasian newborns (1.39% versus 0.35%).[Behrman, 9]
(I am a medical researcher with a special focus on preterm birth risk factors; http:/// [Rooney, 10,12])
Brent Rooney (MSc)
Reduce Preterm Risk Coalition
3456 Dunbar St. (Suite 146)
Vancouver, Canada V6S 2C2
1 Getahun D, Crooks VC, Laurence JM, Jocobsen SJ. Association
between Maternal Stressors During Pregnancy and Adverse
Perinatal Outcomes. Abstract #185396 APHA (American Public
Health Association) 136th Annual Meeting and Expo (October
25-29, 2008) [URL:
2 Moster D, Terje L, Markestad T. Long-Term Medical and Social
Consequences of Preterm Birth. New England Journal of Medicine
2008;359:262-273 [ Abstract URL:
3 Limperopoulos C, Bassan H, Sullivan NR, Soul JS, Robertson RL,
et al. Positive Screening for Autism in Ex-preterm Infants.
Pediatrics 2008;121(4): 758-765 [ Abstract URL:
4 Smith GCS, Shah I, White IR, Pell JP, Crossley JA, et al. Maternal
and biochemical predictors of spontaneous preterm birth among
nulliparous women: a systematic analysis in relation to the
degree of prematurity. Intl J Epidemiol 2006;35(5):1169-1177
5 Lumley J. The association between prior spontaneous abortion,
prior induced abortions and preterm birth in first singleton births.
Prenat Neonat Med 1998;3:21-24
6 Lumley J. The epidemiology of preterm birth. Bailliere's Clinical
Obstet Gynecol 1993;7(3):477-498
7 Moreau C, Kaminski M, Ancel PY, Bouyer J, Escande B, et al:
Previous induced abortions and the risk of very preterm term
delivery: Results of the EPIPAGE study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol
2005;112:430-437 [ abstract URL:
8 Stang P, Hammond AO, Bauman P. Induced Abortion Increases
the Risk of Very Preterm Delivery: Results of a Large Perinatal
Database. Fertility Sterility Sept. 2005:S159 [here 'Very' means
under 28.0 weeks' gestation]
9 Behrman RE, Butler AS, Alexander GR. Preterm Birth: Causes,
Consequences, and Prevention. National Academies Press 2007
10 Rooney B, Calhoun BC. Induced abortion and risk of later
premature births. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
11 Thorp JM, Hartmann KE, Shadigian E. Long-Term Physical and
Psychological Consequences of Induced Abortion: Review of the
Evidence. Obstet Gynecol Survey 2003;58(1):67-79
12 [IN PRESS} Rooney B, Calhoun BC, Roche L. Does Induced
Abortion Account for Racial Disparity in Preterm Births, and
Violate the Nuremberg Code? Journal of American Physicians
and Surgeons 2008 or 2009
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Why I Can't Vote For Obama
By Huntley Brown
Dear Friends, A few months ago I was asked for my perspective on Obama, I sent out an email with a few points. With the election just around the corner I decided to complete my perspective. Those of you on my e-list have seen some of this before but it's worth repeating...
First I must say whoever wins the election will have my prayer support. Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments but I need to explain why I will not be voting for him.
Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness. I process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means He leads I follow. I can't dictate the terms He does because He is the leader.
I can't vote black because I am black; I have to vote Christian because that's who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should anyone from the other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now I won't be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.
In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning to name a few, wrong economic concerns will soon not matter.
We need to follow Martin Luther King's words, don't judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I don't know Obama so all I can go off is his voting record. His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007.
NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)
To beat Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton as the most liberal senator, takes some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.
There is a reason Planned Parenthood gives him a 100% rating. There is a reason the homosexual community supports him. There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas etc. love him. There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court. There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill. There is a reason he voted No on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. There is a reason he voted No on banning partial birth abortion. There is a reason he voted No on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito. These two judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion. The same practice Obama wanted to continue.
Let's take a look at the practice he wanted to continue
The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedures:
A. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. (Remember this is a live baby)B. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.C. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.D. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.E. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.
God help him. There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law.
Think about this: You can't give a kid an aspirin without parental notification but that same kid can have an abortion without parental notification. This is insane.
There is a reason he went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years.
Obama tells us he has good judgment but he sat under Jeremiah Wright teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's sermons. I wonder why now?
Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him. A disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 - 20 "Go and make disciples of all nations." This means reproduce yourself. Teach people to think like you, walk like you; talk like you believe what you believe etc. The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him?
Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets that said they have a ...
1. Commitment to the White Community2. Commitment to the White Family3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community.5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
Would you support a President who went to a church like that?
Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of Obama's former church. If President Bush was a member of a church like this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been marching outside.
This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20 years and just discovered he went to a racist church. The church can't be about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the whole world.
A church can't have a value system based on race. The churches value system has to be based on biblical mandate. It does not matter if it's a white church or a black church it's still wrong. Anyone from either race that attends a church like this would never get my vote.
Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian James Cone, author of the 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation. Cone once wrote: "Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.
Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?
So what does all this mean for the nation?
In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to lead a nation it meant one thing - judgment.
Read 1 Samuel 8 when Israel asked for a king. First God says in 1 Samuel 1:9 "Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."
Then God says
1 Samuel 1:18 " When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles." 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, "Listen to them and give them a king."
Here is what we know for sure.
God is not schizophrenic
He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain. As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot stand, so obviously many people are not hearing from God.
Maybe I am the one not hearing but I know God does not change and Obama contradicts many things I read in scripture so I doubt it.
For all my friends who are voting for Obama can you really look God in the face and say; Father based on your word, I am voting for Obama even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion. He might have to nominate three or four Supreme Court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against you. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights, even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look the other way because of the economy.
I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions. Finally I have two questions for all my liberal friends.
Since we know someone's value system has to be placed on the nation,
1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation.
2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the nation?
Blessings, Huntley Brown
Origins: Huntley Brown is, as described on his web site, a "a Christian concert pianist whose versatile repertoire includes classical, jazz, gospel, reggae and many other styles." An e-mail to Mr. Brown [from Snopes.com] about the item reproduced above, an explanation attributed to him about why he would not be voting for Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, drew the following response:
Yes, I wrote this e-mail. I was responding to my friends who asked me to vote for Senator Obama because he is black.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Fold over one end of ribbon:
Do the same for the other end:
Prepare second ribbon in the same
Place one bow on top of the other:
Wrap around twice and twist in back:
Secular Quebec's 'crisis of values' shows in health problems: cardinal
Hostile Media Blamed; 'Disoriented, unmotivated, unstable' population
Canwest News Service Published: Tuesday, October 14, 2008
MONTREAL - The Roman Catholic Primate of Canada, Marc Cardinal Ouellet, says the growing spiritual void in Quebec is contributing to "grave and costly repercussions" in the province's public health system.
In a philosophical review, Vita e Pensiero, published by the Catholic University of Milan, the Quebec City cardinal writes that Quebec's growing social problems can be attributed to the rupture between its religion and its culture.
"The listless anxiety of Quebec's young people, the decline in the marriage rate, the low birth rate, the increasing number of abortions and suicides, has contributed to a crisis of values," he writes.
In the article, Where is Quebec Going? Cardinal Ouellet describes Quebecers as "disoriented, unmotivated, unstable and preoccupied with values that are superficial and fleeting."
As a result of its precarious social behaviour, the province is ripe for "a new evangelization and spiritual awakening," the Cardinal says.
He also blames certain Quebec media outlets for contributing to the problem by being hostile to the Church. They have gone out of their way to denounce Catholicism, he charges.
"This spiritual and cultural void is fuelled by cliche-ridden, anti-Catholic rhetoric that we often find in the media," he writes.
"By ridiculing their own religious heritage they are destroying the soul of Quebec."
Last year during Quebec's roaming hearings on the integration of immigrants, Cardinal Ouellet said Quebecers' malaise over integrating newcomers was rooted in their abandoning the Catholic faith, blaming "secular fundamentalists" for leading Quebecers astray.
"I think the major problem is the malaise of the Catholic majority which needs to find a religious reference point, which needs to renew with its spiritual values," Cardinal Ouellet then told reporters.
Cardinal Ouellet is considered among the highest-ranking Roman Catholic officials in the country and is known for his conservative views.
He is the Primate of the Catholic Church in Canada, but that is an honorary title given to all Quebec City archbishops, since it is the oldest diocese in the country.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Besides voting against a ban on partial-birth abortions and using fetuses for embryo research and all the like, he also does not support the pregnant woman bill which would give women faced with an unexpected pregnancy support thus helping women if they wish to choose another option besides abortion.
He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term.
(...) when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of thefew senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.
Read more... (be forewarned, this is a long piece... but scary, truly this wacko is NOT pro-choice but pro-abortion all the way)
Friday, October 10, 2008
“You will note that we have not included the abortion issue in this pamphlet… Since none of the three major parties has seen fit to stand up for life, no comparison can be made on this issue.”
According to the REAL Women pamphlet, which two parties do you think support the defense of artistic merit for child pornography and the decriminalization of prostitution? (The Liberals and NDP) Which two parties call for the elimination of the "artistic merit" defense for child pornography? (The Conservatives [and CHP]) Which party supports the decriminalization of marijuana? (NDP)REAL Women http://www.1clicklobbyist.ca/sendstudionx/link.php?M=400627&N=59&L=16 has put together an informative pamphlet entitled “Strengthening Our Nation” which sets out the positions of the three major parties on the following current issues:
Safety, Law & Order
Non-Medical Use of Drugs
Special Interest Funding
Take Action: Click on the link below to the "Strengthening Our Nation" pamphlet and read for yourself where the parties stand on key issues. Print off a copy for reference and share it with others!
PDF doc. Strengthening Our Nation (Election 2008)
Word doc. Strengthening Our Nation (Election 2008)
NOTE from REAL Women: “Because of space limitations, we were able to include only the policies of the three major parties that currently hold seats in the House of Commons.”
II) Christian Heritage Party Platform
As the above pamphlet does not include the views of the Christian Heritage Party, they are outlined below for comparison purposes.
Safety, Law & Order
Supports mandatory sentences. Does not support conditional sentences (sentences served at home). Plans to strengthen legislation on youth to make them more responsible for their criminal acts. Supports the repeal of C-68 (long gun registration), and would adopt the National Firearms Association’s ‘Practical Firearms Control System’ to train and licence law-abiding citizens to arm themselves to protect home and family.
Non-Medical Use of Drugs
Opposes decriminalization of marijuana. Supports funding for drug prevention and treatment services. Opposes drug injection sites. Takes tough approach to illicit drug use, marijuana grow-ops, and drug dealers. Would treat addiction as a medical problem and allow courts to order treatment. Would increase funding for treatment centres with highest success rates, such as Teen Challenge.
Would eliminate “artistic merit” defense for possession of child pornography.
Opposed to physician-assisted suicide
Supports elimination of all tax disadvantages to single-income families.
Supports a “family friendly child care allowance” of $12,000 ($1,000 a month) for each family with children under 18 living at home, if one parent stays home to raise their children.
Supports present prostitution laws. Advocates much stiffer penalties for pimps and public exposure. Advocates compulsory rehabilitation for ‘Johns’.
Special Interest Funding
Supports elimination of special interest funding.
In addition the CHP has drafted a chart comparing Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green, and CHP policy on a broader range of issues. Download a copy here: http://www.1clicklobbyist.ca/sendstudionx/link.php?M=400627&N=59&L=294
III) Dig Deeper – Complete 2008 Election Party Platforms
Forget the commercials. Before you vote examine for yourself each party’s vision for Canada.
Green - http://www.1clicklobbyist.ca/sendstudionx/link.php?M=400627&N=59&L=290
Liberal - http://www.1clicklobbyist.ca/sendstudionx/link.php?M=400627&N=59&L=289
NDP - http://www.1clicklobbyist.ca/sendstudionx/link.php?M=400627&N=59&L=288
CHP - http://www.1clicklobbyist.ca/sendstudionx/link.php?M=400627&N=59&L=296 and http://www.1clicklobbyist.ca/sendstudionx/link.php?M=400627&N=59&L=295
Conservative - http://www.1clicklobbyist.ca/sendstudionx/link.php?M=400627&N=59&L=293
IV) Defend Traditional Marriage & Family: “Election Guide for Serious Christians”
Defend Traditional Marriage & Family, a Waterloo region pro-family group http://www.1clicklobbyist.ca/sendstudionx/link.php?M=400627&N=59&L=292 , has put together with Canada Family Action Coalition and Campaign Life Coalition an “Election Guide for Serious Christians.”
Print off a copy here: http://www.defendmarriagekw.org/ElectionGuide_08.pdf
V) SUPPORT OUR EFFORTS: If you appreciate our efforts, newsletter and technology please support us as we work to defend family, faith and freedom!
Please send your support today!
To become a quarterly donor of $25, $50, or $100 every 3 months, or to make a one time donation using our secure server, please visit http://www.1clicklobbyist.ca/sendstudionx/link.php?M=400627&N=59&L=121
If you prefer to make your donation by cheque please mail it to:
United Mothers Inc
P.O. Box 234339 10th Avenue S.E.
Thank you for all you do to make this world a better place!
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Don't mention "bird brains" to Ray Petersen, because after what happened this week, he won't hear a word of it. Petersen, a community police officer for Granville Downtown South, was walking in the 1500-block Granville Street (directly under the Granville Bridge) Wednesday morning when a duck came up and grabbed him by the pant leg. Then it started waddling around him and quacking.
"I thought it was a bit goofy, so I shoved it away," Petersen said in an interview. But the duck, a female (he thinks it was a mallard), wasn't about to give up that easily. Making sure she still had Petersen's eye, she waddled up the road about 20 metres and lay on a storm sewer grate. Petersen watched and thought nothing of it.
"But when I started walking again, she did the same thing. She ran around and grabbed me again."
It became obvious to him then that something was up.
So when she waddled off to the sewer grate a second time, Petersen decided to follow. "I went up to where the duck was lying and saw eight little babies in the water below. They had fallen down between the grates."
So Petersen took action. He phoned police Sergeant Randy Kellens, who arrived at the scene and, in turn, got in touch with two more constables.
"When they came down, the duck ran around them as well, quacking. Then she lay down on the grate," Petersen said. While Kellens looked over into the grate, the duck sat on the curb and watched.
Then the two constables, John Schilling and Allison Hill, marshalled a tow truck that lifted the grate out of position, allowing the eight ducklings to be rescued one by one with a vegetable strainer. "While we were doing this, the mother duck just lay there and watched," Petersen says.
Once the ducklings were safe, however, she set about marching them down to False Creek, where they jumped into the water. Kellens followed them to make sure they were all right, but elected to remain on shore.
The experience has changed Petersen's mind about ducks. He thinks they're a lot smarter than he's used to. And while he never ate duck before, he says he wouldn't dream of it now.
He's sensitive, romantic and tries hard to please you, but when there's a problem he seems oblivious. When you ask for input on a decision, he says, "It’s up to you." Women give this book to men, tell them to read it and say, "This is what I have been trying to tell you all this time!"
No matter how hard you try to please her, she's not happy. You work hard, but don’t feel appreciated. You feel you have lost control of your life. Learn how to gain respect and become a hero to the woman in your life. After reading this book, ask a woman if what it says is what she really wants. You may be surprised at her response.
Check it out
Posted: October 04, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
by: Jonathon Falwell
(...) The new movie titled "Fireproof" is proving to be a great encouragement tool for Christian couples across the nation. Released last weekend, the film starring Kirk Cameron as a firefighter battling to save his marriage was the nation's fourth-most attended movie of the week (in only 839 theaters). The filmmakers tell me that it was even the top-grossing film in about 200 of the theaters it was in. (...)
(...) To learn more about "Fireproof," please visit these websites: http://www.fireproofmymarriage.com/ and http://www.fireproofthemovie.com/.
NOTE: I was fascinated to read that Kirk Cameron will not kiss an actress while filming a scene for a movie. Therefore, in "Fireproof," Cameron's real-life wife, Chelsea Noble, was brought in to shoot the kissing scene (she was made up to resemble actress Erin Bethea, who plays Cameron's wife in the film). I appreciate that he would take his commitment to his marriage this seriously. This may sound corny and conventional to the mainstream, but I think it's a wonderful example of how seriously Christian men need to be in protecting and safeguarding their marriages.
Read complete article
Interesting fact about Kirk Cameron, I remember him from the 80's sitcom, Growing Pains.
By Frank J. Gaffney Jr.
It’s election season, so it is appropriate that an important vote will be cast this weekend. No, I am not talking about early balloting in Ohio or Oregon for the November presidential race. Rather, this vote is a national one — and it will be taking place at a theater near you.Read more
This weekend, the returns will be tallied on box-office sales of the opening weekend of An American Carol — a marvelously politically incorrect take-off on the timeless Dickensian morality tale. Set around the Fourth of July in contemporary America rather than a Victorian Yuletide, it has been created and directed by my friend, the zany and wildly successful David Zucker.
This Carol’s Scrooge character, played by Kevin Farley, is a dead-ringer for radical leftist filmmaker Michael Moore. The ghosts who visit him — including John F. Kennedy, George S. Patton, and George Washington — labor to teach their subject about the greatness of this country, the absurdity of the “Blame-America-First” Left’s toxic hatred for it and the opening the latter provides for Islamists bent on our destruction. Punctuated by trademark Zucker slapstick humor (his other credits include Airplane!, The Naked Gun, Scary Movie 3, and assorted sequels), the movie makes a deadly serious point: Everything is on the line in this War for the Free World and those of us who prize our freedoms will lose them if we fail to protect them against enemies foreign and domestic.
For what it's worth, the mention of "the opening the latter provides for Islamists bent on our destruction" almost makes me NOT want to go see it, because as much as I think that the whole global warming thing is exaggerated, I also think the whole Islamist bent on destroying us thing is also exaggerated. For what it's worth, I think the majority of Islamists just want peace like the rest of us.
However, it would be nice to see the left get scorched for a change, instead of it always being the right. Either way, I always end up getting targeted. But at least this time I won't be targeted because of my faith...
(...) This week marks the opening of two highly charged movie comedies. The first, "Religulous," is a Borat-style journey starring Bill Maher that is designed to demonstrate that anyone who believes in God is a total moron. The second, "An American Carol," is a slapstick satire that pokes fun at the far left. Director David Zucker, who did the "Airplane" movies, mocks Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell and other liberal enthusiasts. Full disclosure: I have a small part in "Carol." (...)read more:
(...) No question but that both movies are going to anger some folks. Maher in particular is a provocateur. Promoting his film on "The View," he told one of the women, a believer, that she should go to a mental hospital. Borat would be proud.
On the "Carol" front, more than a few people will be horrified that movie icon George Clooney is mocked. Talk about roping a sacred cow! Belittling God is one thing, but denigrating Clooney? Are there no limits to the madness?
It will be interesting to see which movie wins at the box office. Will the pagans score big? Or will the first conservative satire ever clobber the atheists? At this point, only God knows, with apologies to Mr. Maher.
Friday, October 03, 2008
Friday, October 03, 2008
So . . . two priests walk into a bar. Oops, wrong joke. So . . . two priests walk into the Ministry of Education. One priest says, "I'm registering a complaint. I don't like the way you teach sex education and talk so freely about sexuality in English, health and biology courses. The way you present these topics fails to affirm our deeply-held religious beliefs and our lifestyle of abstinence."
Without any discussion, the Ministry officials tell the priest, "Why don't you write the course on Sex Ed? And while you're at it, write a set of guidelines to help teachers better affirm your beliefs and lifestyle in every subject and in every grade. We'll make it happen -- YOUR curriculum will soon be OUR curriculum."
Of course, the scenario is ludicrous. Except that it already happened in British Columbia, where two gay men claimed the public school curriculum failed to affirm their sexuality.
The couple, who are known homosexual activists, went to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal to allege systemic discrimination against homosexuals by the B.C. Ministry of Education. A few years later, they filed another complaint. At first, the Ministry of Education denied the allegations but, as time dragged on, it decided to capitulate. The Ministry gave in -- without any defence or discussion, or even an impartial consideration of the allegations. In fact, it rolled over and played dead so fast it makes the Second World War Italian army look like hardcore U.S. Marines.
In giving up, the B.C. government made a legal agreement that gave the complainants unprecedented control and influence over the province's curriculum in exchange for dropping the human rights charges.
The complainants have since developed resources on alternative sexuality that teachers can use to integrate the topic into any subject from grades K to 12, as well as a Grade 12 course that covers issues like sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Education Ministry now proudly proclaims that it is a world leader in diversity training, but not all parents and teachers are pleased. There's controversy over the content and whether it should be an elective or a required course, and how appropriate the resources will be for young children and whether the whole scheme usurps the parent's role as the primary educator of their children. Just this week, it was announced that these events had spurred an initiative to "Take Back our Schools" by parents and organizations who believe the government has overstepped its limits.
The above are all important discussions and ones that should take place between parents, teachers and education bureaucrats.
But lost in these arguments are more foundational issues. First of all, the government handed over the provincial curriculum in exchange for an unprecedented secret agreement (it wasn't made public for over a month and was only then obtained through the Freedom of Information Act) with private citizens who are known to have a controversial agenda. Since when is that the process for curriculum development? No discussion; no consensus; and no scrutiny.
Secondly, the course and resources are geared toward tolerance and acceptance of diversity. There's nothing wrong with teaching kids about respect for others and tolerance for those with different perspectives or lifestyles. But these concepts are based on only one group's interpretation and definition of those concepts.
In these resources, tolerance is not merely an acceptance of another as being different -- it is affirming them for that difference. That is, the issue isn't whether you accept people -- it's whether you affirm their choice (in this case, choice of sexual orientation) and, if you don't affirm their choice, you are homophobic.
There are two notions of tolerance in society: The first assumes that all of society is moving toward consensus on one truth. The second accommodates differing viewpoints and seeks to create a society where people with different viewpoints exist together, with acceptance and respect.
I suspect most of us would agree that Canada should be a society where there is openness and respect for all views, not just for one particular point of view.
Thirdly, this kind of curriculum implies that a lack of education is the only issue at the root of not accepting alternative sexual lifestyles. Anyone who objects to a particular lifestyle -- even for moral reasons -- is simply not sufficiently educated.
So is this curriculum geared toward changing thinking, beliefs and even moral values so that everyone thinks the same?
If so, how will exams be marked? What if educated kids still don't affirm sexual diversity -- do they fail?
The Soviet Union is a prime example of what happens when society believes that education should be used to create uniform acceptance of a particular philosophy. Any who dared to disagree with the philosophy of Communism, as taught in Soviet classrooms, was quickly classified as being mentally ill -- or worse.
There's nothing wrong with talking about diversity and tolerance.
But there is something wrong with forcing the ideals of two individuals (from a known group and with a known agenda) onto children and demanding conformity. After all, true tolerance is accepting opinions that are different -- not demanding that all opinions be the same.
Susan Martinuk's column appears every Friday.
© The Calgary Herald 2008
Pensez-y bien!!! Coupures en culture...
Prison à vie pour les crimes commis par les mineurs...
Retour sur le droit à l'avortement...
Vers un système de santé privé...
Guerre en Afghanistan...
Appui aux grandes pétrolières...
Maudite belle plate forme électorale...
«Est-ce que c'est en donnant 100$ de plus par mois à chaque familles, qu'on aide vraiment les familles? Ou c'est en créant une société où les enfants vont pouvoir vivre dans un environnement qui est sain; vont pouvoir avoir accès à une éducation de qualité?» Laure Waridel.
«Peut-être que M. Harper vous pourriez m'expliquer qu'est-ce qu'on calice en Afghanistan et qu'on refuse d'aller au Darfour?» Dan Bigras.
«Peut-être que tu te dis: «La culture, l'environnement, les inégalités sociales, l'intolérance... Je pense-tu vraiment à ça quand je vais voter.» Ben j'espère que oui. Parce que, si tu penses à la peur, les terroristes, la guerre, ça veut dire que tu risques de voter pour S. Harper. Pensez à plus tard aussi. Pensez que la peur, c'est l'immobilité, pis qu'on est toujours mieux de bouger.» Sylvie Moreau.
"Voici une merveilleuse initiative qui redonne de l'inspiration pour s'indigner et s'inspirer. Prenez position. Parce que les politiques d'Harper s'attaquent à nos plus grandes richesses: Culture, environnement, droit à l'avortement, droit humains, Paix, santé publique, et j'en passe...Unissons nos voix!" Maude
Décidément nous n'avons pas le même point de vue politique
Coupures en culture...
D'accord, je ne suis pas nécessairement pour ça
Prison à vie pour les crimes commis par les mineurs...
Retour sur le droit à l'avortement...
Justement, IL NE REVIENT PAS SUR LE DROIT À L'AVORTEMENT, et j'en suis déçue. Il serait grand temps de mettre des limites, comme d'ailleurs le font tous les pays d'Europe, quant à l'âge du foetus, avec, comme exception, quand la santé de la mère est en danger. Cela varie de 12 semaines à 22 semaines environ, la limite. Au Canada, pas de loi, donc nous avons le droit de tuer un foetus à 9 semaines comme à 9 mois. Il n'y a pas de logique à dire qu'un bébé né prématurément à 25 ou 30 semaines a tous les droits d'un être humain, dont le droit à la vie, et dire dans le même souffle qu'un foetus de 30 semaines de gestation n'a pas de droits et n'est pas un être humain. En plus, plus un foetus est vieux, plus il y a de chances qu'il survive à l'avortement et, soit qu'il est laissé sur une tablette tout seul à mourir ou soit on lui donne les soins dont il a besoin pour survivre et il risque d'avoir des complications et des déficiences. Tout ça, c'est sans parler de l'énorme manque quant à la promotion de services et d'options AUTRES que l'avortement. Les femmes ont-elle vraiment le choix face à une grossesse non-désirée quand seul l'avortement leur est suggéré? Les femmes méritent mieux que l'avortement, ne devraient pas avoir à choisir entre leur vie et celle de leur enfant. Ou sont l'appui et les services nécessaire à une femme pour qu'elle puisse continuer ses études ou embarquer dans une nouvelle carrière tout en poursuivant une grossesse inattendue? Pourquoi ne pas rendre l'adoption plus attrayant et plus facile d'accès? C'est rendu pratiquement impossible d'adopter au Québec, l'état préfère l'instabilité des foyers d'accueuil. Les droits des parents passent avant les besoins des enfants. L'adoption ne veut plus dire qu'on ne verra jamais son enfant. Stephen Harper ne veut même pas dialoguer là dessus, et donc, à mes yeux, est aussi pire que tous les autres.
Vers un système de santé privé...
J'ai vu des arguments pour et contre, ici comme aux États-Unis (nous ne voulons pas d'un système comme le leur ou il faut payer et parfois s'endetter si on n'a pas d'assurance, et ils ne veulent pas d'un système comme le nôtre ou les gens meurent parce qu'ils ne peuvent pas voir de médecin à temps). Je ne sais pas c'est quoi la solution, mais franchement notre système de santé est POURRI. L'autre jour Dominic avait une réaction à l'herbe à puce, et j'ai du me rendre à l'urgence pour ça. Pourquoi? Parce que nous n'avons pas de médecins de famille dans le coin (ils ne prennent pas de nouveaux patients) et pour se faire voir dans les cliniques, on se rend à 7h00 du matin, pour se mettre en file, pendant 1/2 heure ou plus, pour essayer d'avoir un rendez-vous pour la journée même. À 8h00 du matin, il ne reste plus d'ouvertures pour la journée. On n'a pas de médecins, mais les médecins qui viennent de l'étranger sont obligés de travailler comme chauffeurs de taxi ou autre. C'est ridicule. Je ne sais pas c'est quoi la réponse, mais c'est certain que ça doit changer. Mais là, c'est plutôt le domaine des gouvernements provinciaux.
Guerre en Afghanistan...
On s'est rendu, on ne peux pas d'un coup décider qu'on en a fini et revenir. On ne se rend pas dans un pays, défaire tous les systèmes en place et puis crisser notre camp après. Nous devons les aider à rebâtir. Cela dit, il devrait certes avoir un plan d'évacuation éventuel...
Appui aux grandes pétrolières...
Moi, en tout cas, j'ai malheureusement encore besoin d'essence... Par contre, J'ai hâte qu'on trouve une autre solution plus économique, et surtout qu'on l'applique aux mini-vans, et non-seulement aux petites autos... Ce n'est pas parce qu'on est une grosse famille qu'on doit nécessairement polluer plus.
«Est-ce que c'est en donnant 100$ de plus par mois à chaque familles, qu'on aide vraiment les familles? Ou c'est en créant une société où les enfants vont pouvoir vivre dans un environnement qui est sain; vont pouvoir avoir accès à une éducation de qualité?» Laure Waridel.
Premièrement, ce n'est pas $100 par mois à chaque famille, mais $100 par mois de subvention PAR ENFANT en bas âge pour la garde d'enfants. C'est À PART des prestations pour enfants. Selon moi, c'est BIEN mieux que la garderie à $7 (ou $9) par jour q'offre le gouvernment du Québec:
1. C'est utilisable dans n'IMPORTE QUEL garderie, puisque l'argent est donné aux parents, donc pas besoin de se mettre sur une liste d'attente...
2. Si un des parents décide de rester à la maison, ils reçoivent le même montant pareil, cela va à celui ou celle qui s'occupe des enfants. Donc on ne favorise pas les foyers dont les deux travaillent, pour laisser tomber les foyers qui n'ont qu'un salaire. Entre payer un étranger à s'occuper des enfants et payer la mère, j'aime autant payer la mère.
C'est un choix personnel. On ne devrait pas être pénalisé pour ce choix. Mais encore là, on l'est. Quand vient le temps de faire l'impôt, il y a plein de déductions qui ne servent à rien pour les foyers qui n'ont qu'un seul salaire, car un gouvernment quelquonque a eu l'idée stupide de faire en sorte qu'on puisse seulement déduire le gardiennage ou les activités sportives etc, sur l'impôt de celui qui gagne le moins. Si la personne gagne zero, ben, zero moins $300, c'est toujours zéro. On en paie des frais pour le soccer actuellement qui pourraient être déduits de notre impôt, si seulement j'avais de l'impôt à payer... mais non,... Les concurrants des conservateurs sont assez loins de changer cette situation je crois.
Pour ce qui est de l'environnement, quand nos lacs sont pollués et qu'on ne peut ni boire ni pêcher, ni nager, c'est qu'on a un problème. Quand les gens doivent rester à l'intérieur à cause de la pollution à Montréal, nous avons un problème. C'est certain qu'on a de quoi à changer. Nous sommes trop consommateurs, nous utilisons trop d'emballage, nous préférons le déjà prèt et le "fast-food" à la bonne nourriture.
Mais de là à créer une histoire de fin du monde dans 30 ans, c'est un peu exagéré. Il y a 20 ans, le scientifiques nous disaient qu'on s'enlignaient vers un nouvel ère glaciaire, à cause de la pollution. Aujourd'hui, ils disent le contraire. C'est très à la mode de penser ainsi, avec des vedettes comme David Suzuki, mais ce n'est pas tous les scientifiques qui pensent pareil, même si le média préfère ignorer ceux qui disent le contraire. La terre a toujours connu des réchauffement et des refroidissements, avec au sans l'être humain et cela va continuer àa se faire, avec ou sans l'être humain. Les phases solaires ne sont pas sans conséquence sur notre planète.
Quand on rempli un verre d'eau de glaçons et qu'ensuite on le rempli ras le bord d'eau, quand on laisse le tout fondre sur le comptoir pendant une heure, est-ce que l'eau déborde? Non. Pourquoi? Parce que la glace prend la même quantité d'espace dans le verre que l'eau qui fond. Il serait donc logique de croire que la fonte des glaces ne résulterait pas nécessairement en l'innondation de la moitié de la planète non plus.
Parce que les politiques d'Harper s'attaquent à nos plus grandes richesses: Culture, environnement, droit à l'avortement, droit humains, Paix, santé publique, et j'en passe...
Nos plus grandes richesses.... droit à l'avortement? Non, mais franchement je n'aurais jamais penser inclure l'avortement sur la liste de nos plus grandes richesses, plutôt sur la liste de nos plus grandes hôntes.
Disons que pour bien des choses, je suis plutôt de gauche, la justice sociale, je préfère les petites entreprises aux grandes, je trouve qu'on doit trouver des moyens de soigner notre planète (sans prêcher la fin du monde), etc, etc...
Mais finalement les conservateurs sont trop conservateurs pour moi (sauf sur l'avortement, et pour ce qu'il y a de soutenir la famille) et les autres sont trop libérals, donc, pour qui je vais voter? Pour MOI-MÊME!!!
Mise à Jour:
J'y ai pensé en fin de semaine et je voulais juste clarifier que je ne visais pas les femmes qui avaient eu un avortement quand j'ai dit que c'était une honte, (je sais qu'il y en a plusieurs qui en ont eu une et qui le regrettent - ou qui ne voyent pas d'autre option), je visais plutôt la société en général, c'est à dire que c'est une honte que la première (et souvent la seule) solution qu'on a pour une femme qui se retrouve avec une grossesse inattendue, c'est l'avortement. Je crois que les femmes méritent mieux que ça. Je crois aussi que les féministes se trompent quand elles lient l'avortement avec le droit d'une femme de choisir si elle veut ou ne veut pas avoir d'enfants. Je ne crois pas que ce soit une "libération" de la femme, je crois plutôt que l'avortement permet encore davantage aux hommes de profiter des femmes, car on peut toujours "s'occuper" des "problèmes" éventuels. (Du genre: "Sois tu t'en débarrasses, ou c'est moé qui crisse le camp." Quelle libération, quel choix...)
Thursday, October 02, 2008
So I decided to pick up the book today, and check it out myself. I like it. It is well-written, and while it does have catechism in there, it explains it well and in a way that children can understand. Heck, it explained the Blessed Trinity in a way that I hadn't really understood myself yet. And of course there is some adventure in it, the children get to see what happened to St Patrick in Ireland.
I definitely recommend this book as a fun way to learn more about your faith. For adults too!
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Souvenez-vous que nous sommes avec Dieu quand notre âme est en état de grâce, et loin de lui quand nous sommes en état de péché grave; mais son ange - notre ange gardien - ne nous abandonne jamais...
C'est notre ami le plus sûr et le plus sincère quand nous n'avons pas le tord de l'attrister par notre mauvaise conduite. (GdT, 205)
J'y crois fortement. J'irais jusqu'à dire que j'ai eu des conversations avec mon ange gardien. Oui, il me répond, oui, je l'entends, pas avec mes oreilles bien sûr, mais ce sont plutôt des pensées qui me viennent en réponse à mes questions. Je le sens très proche de moi à l'occasion, comme par exemple, à ce moment-ci alors que je suis en train de parler de lui.
Il ne faut jamais perdre l'espoir:
N'ayez pas peur de toutes les embûches que vous tend le démon: le Seigneur est toujours avec vous. Il combattra avec vous et pour vous. Jamais il ne permettra que vous soyez trompés ou vaincus. (Ep 3, 49)
Ça, je le vois de plus en plus. Avec le soccer qui prend tellement de temps et demande beaucoup, J'ai souvent peur de manquer la messe, ou que mes enfants soient obligés de la manquer. Car je n'ai pas un mari qui me soutient dans ma foi. Il ne serait pas d'accord qu'on manque le soccer pour une chose inutile comme aller à la messe. Chaque fois que cela m'a inquieté cet été, j'ai prié le Seigneur de me trouver un moyen d'aller à la messe et y emmener mes enfants. Il n'y a que Jean-Alexandre qui a manqué une messe cet été (à part les plus jeunes que je laisse parfois à la maison).
I will try to post these videos on the blog this month. If I don't forget.
During October, as many observe Respect Life Month, I ask you to “face the choice”—by hearing first from Melissa Ohden, a woman who was aborted at five months’ gestation…and was born alive.
Melissa survived a saline abortion and was placed in a neonatal unit, where her parents found her and adopted her. Today Melissa works in a social welfare agency in the Midwest.
This spring Melissa gave birth to a baby girl in the same hospital, the same maternity ward, where she had been aborted.
Like other Feminists for Life speakers, Melissa promotes pro-woman solutions especially on college campuses. “My biological mother was in college when she chose to abort me. I deserved better. My biological mother deserved better, too,” Melissa says.
Future videos, which will be released throughout the school year, will include stories from women:who faced unplanned pregnancies during college—and succeeded both academically and as mothers;
- a “former card-carrying member of NARAL” who had an abortion;
- a birthmother who made an empowering choice for herself and her child despite a lack of support from those she counted on the most;
- a rape survivor who “didn’t know who the father was but knew who the mother was” and chose life; and
- a woman who started a pregnancy resource center to honor her own mother’s life-risking choice to give birth to her.
As each video is released, please forward this message to family, friends, co-workers, roommates, churches, organizations, any contacts you may have in the media or public office.
Please feel free to share the videos through Facebook or MySpace, or to embed the videos on your website or blog.
I didn't know it was Respect Life Month. It's also the month of the Rosary.
Eventually, certain organizations do end up being obsolete or losing their "raison d'être." Kind of like women's rights groups in Canada and the US. You can ridicule heterosexual men in public, but woe to anyone who touches a woman or a homosexual. Women's rights infringe on men's rights. Feminist's rights infringe on traditional women's rights. We prefer the working, career woman with only one or two kids to the stay-at-home mom who has 4 or more. The career woman gets more support than the one who stays home. Better tax breaks too, and in Québec, inexpensive daycare (albeit hard to find, inexpensive daycare).
It is more honorable to care for other people's children than to stay home and care for your own. And if you read the liberal newspapers, at least once or twice a year (especially around March 8) you can read the common point of view that feminists have towards stay-at-home moms; that is to say, we are really ignorant and need to educate ourselves on the dangers of letting ourselves be dependant on anyone, or else we are just stubborn religious extremists who don't want to understand. Yeah, I'm being hard on feminists today. Sorry, I'm not really targeting all of you. Just the extremist ones.
How many are actually paying attention to this?
There are African Americans,
Native Americans, etc...
And then there are just - Americans.
You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction.
You Call me 'White boy,'
'Whitey,' 'Caveman,' ...
And that's OK.
But when I call you Nigger,
Kike, Towel head,
Sand-nigger, Camel Jockey,
Beaner, Gook, or Chink...
You call me a racist.
You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you,
so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?
You have the United Negro College Fund.
You have Martin Luther King Day.
You have Black History Month.
You have Cesar Chavez Day.
You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi.
You have the NAACP.
And you have BET.
If we had WET (White Entertainment Television),
We'd be racists.
If we had a White Pride Day,
You would call us racists.
If we had White History Month,
We'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR lives,
We'd be racists.
We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,
a Black Chamber of Commerce,
and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.
Wonder who pays for that?
If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships,
You know we'd be racists.
There are over 60 openly-proclaimed Black-only Colleges in the US,
yet if there were 'White-only Colleges',
THAT would be a racist college.
In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights.
If we marched for our race and rights,
You would call us racists.
You are proud to be black,
brown, yellow and orange,
and you're not afraid to announce it.
But when we announce our white pride,
You call us racists.
You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us.
But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member
or beats up a black drug-dealer
who is running from the LAW and posing a threat to ALL of society,
You call him a racist.
I am proud.
But, you call me a racist.
Why is it that only whites can be racists?
And why is it only men can be criminals? Politically correct people would have us believe that few women are capable of violence, and that most violence stems from men. And yet if you look at statistics, (and forgive me, I am just recalling form memory something I read in some article and can't link to it, cause I don't know where it was anymore so look up statistics yourself or take my word on it - cause I'm too busy - err, lazy - to look it up myself), women actually have a higher incidence of violence towards their children than men do, and violence in lesbian couples is actually not all that uncommon. But get this, if a woman commits an act of violence, it is "oh the poor woman, she must have had such an unhappy abused childhood." If a man commits an act of violence, he's a bastard.
Yeah,... I'm doing it again... got a one-track mind today.
Did I mention I love him? He's my hero.
If I were to dress on the men's side every time, I would have no problem. I would probably fit men's size small to medium every time, perfectly. Problem is, I DON'T WANT TO DRESS LIKE A GUY! I have no problem with uni-sex clothing when it comes to sports. In fact, I often prefer the colours of the men's clothes to the pastel shaded women's clothes. A pair of running shoes is a pair of running shoes. I see no difference between men's or women's. But outside of sports, I'd like to look a little feminine!
But it is so hard to find something wide enough, long enough, and large enough in the right places... gosh it can be so frustrating to be me. Shoes are just as bad. There is so little choice in size 11.
So, one would think that the obvious solution would be to look in a tall women's boutique.
Cruising on the internet, I came across a site that linked to this site: http://www.longlegs.ca/cat.cfm?cat=5&pageAction=cat Thing is, the first site welcomes tall women and then goes on to say you are considered a tall woman if you measure 5'10.
Ummm, I only measure 5'8. Barely. I think it may be closer to 5'7 and 3/4. It's 170 cm anyway. Nope, according to this, if I measure 170 cm, I am actually only 5'7. (Maybe I should just get myself measured again for fun) Not extremely tall in other words.
So, back to the Long Legs site. They have a catalogue for clothing and shoes. I am right in there for shoe sizes. No problem other than the fact that I don't really like any of their shoes. The tops would also probably fit me, except that once again, these seem to be made for tall skinny girls in mind. Don't like many of their tops though, only 3 of them, and they are either too expensive or sold out of my size. But they'd be long enough. One of my problems with empire waists is that the waist, which is supposed to be just under the bust, often falls right across the bust on me. So I seem to be a little long in that area too, or maybe it is the shoulders? Anyway, this would probably not be a problem with the Long Legs tops. I looked at the vests (and there is a really nice burgundy one) and they are mostly 27 1/2" in the sleeves, which would actually fit quite well. 26" would probably be enough, but 27 1/2" is okay. The sleeves would stop about halfway down my hand. Which is fine. Which is great for a coat actually, or a vest, or a sweater.
But the pants? Gosh, they have nothing shorter than 36" inseams! But since pants are usually not the hardest thing for me to find, I guess that's okay.
If only there was a store that sold clothes for athletically built women. Clothes that create the illusion of curves, for those that don't have any. And tops with sleeves that are long enough, for those of us who have monkey arms.
Federal Election 2008
The federal election campaign 2008 is winding down. We have just two weeks left before voting day on October 14th.
It has been a disappointing campaign for a number of reasons. The Liberal party under its leader, Stéphane Dion, appears to be in a meltdown, running third behind the NDP in both Quebec and British Columbia. The left is fragmented between the Liberals, NDP and the Green Party.
This leaves the Conservatives under Stephen Harper with the upper hand. He has, however, disappointed social conservatives with his adamant refusal to open the abortion debate. The reason for this is Quebec – in fact – it’s all about Quebec. BQ leader Gilles Duceppe, who is in danger of losing seats in his province, is using the scare tactics of the last two federal elections to attack Mr. Harper, claiming that the latter will bring in a law restricting abortion. Except for pockets around Quebec City, and some of the rural areas, the Bloc’s argument resonates in Quebec as it is still dominated by the secular elitist intelligentsia, mainly out of Montreal, who disdain the spiritual values of Quebec’s past.
Will Quebec change? The answer is yes, but unfortunately not in time for this election. Unfortunately the BQ, which is even further to the left of the NDP, will remain in the House of Commons in substantial numbers until the next election, because of its scare tactics on abortion and Mr. Harper’s cuts to "culture" funding, which also resonates well in Quebec.
In addition, as occurred in the last two federal elections, the pro-abortionists in English-speaking Canada were in the throes of organizing to raise the abortion issue to "scare" English-speaking voters again in the last weeks of the campaign, which was an effective method of deflecting votes from the Conservatives. Mr. Harper’s recent comments on abortion, however, has now cut the pro-abortionists off at the pass.
Although this explains Mr. Harper’s position on abortion and is perhaps even understandable under the circumstances, it does not make it easier for those of us who are pro-life.
This election, therefore, is a difficult one.
We are attaching our election pamphlet entitled, "Strengthening Our Nation" for distribution, which covers a wide range of election issues. It can be obtained in bulk from our national office and is available electronically on our web site (realwomenca.com).
I really, REALLY can't stand Duceppe anymore. I agree, it's ALL about Québec. You know, the ordinary québecers aren't so extremist. If the BQ is losing seats, um, maybe it is because it really DOESN'T have a purpose outside of separation. Because it really DOESN'T represent the common quebecer. I think it used to, before it got so lefty. To think that it was founded by people from Mulroney's conservative party. I hope the ADQ wins next election in Québec and rids us of those liberals forever too.