Friday, February 27, 2009

Sunday and Mass

The weekend is coming again.

I enjoy weekends. All of my kids are home, my husband is at home, I don't have to get up at 6:30.

But every weekend there is a certain factor of stress that eats away at me more and more as the years go by. It is the uncertainty of how-am-I-going-to-get-everyone-to-mass? Summers aren't so bad, because soccer activity is mainly limited to weekdays, except for tournaments, which can be very worrisome, because then I have to find masses in places I am not familiar with at times that will not interfere with games. (Or annoy the husband too much)

This weekend, I am going to see some very dear, old friends. They go to mass too, although I am not sure of the frequency. We'll be there most of the weekend, which makes it kind of hard to get to a mass without being impolite and leaving. If we ALL went to mass, it would be one thing, but since they are too good hosts to leave my husband behind while we go off, I think I'll be the only one to go. Which means, once again, finding the best mass that won't interfere with plans, like for a brunch for instance.

It all just stresses me out. If I had least had the blessing/support of the husband, it wouldn't be so stressful. If I didn't think I was annoying him by insisting on going every Sunday, maybe things wouldn't be so stressful. I hate going anywhere, or having stuff to do on weekends where we'll be gone too long, because then I have to worry about when and where we'll go and will I be able to get everyone there, or will I have to go twice and bring different people each time?

I dread Sundays.

And the irony is, once I get there, I don't get much of a mass. Jean-Alexandre is very helpful, I can leave Gabriel with him in a different bench, which helps to separate otherwise noisy kids. But Nicky is always noisy and doesn't want to stay in the bench. He would walk all over the Church chatting out loud, if I let him. The other two are mostly well-behaved, especially Dominic, but Nicky is worth 3 misbehaving children. And what can I do short of putting him in a straight-jacket and gagging him?

How long do I have to put up with this?

I think, just the thought of having to put up with another young child for another 3-4 years at mass would be enough to sway me from ever considering conceiving again. Yes, they look so cute, all swaddled up in their blankets, but a year later, they turn into terrible monsters that I no longer have energy (nay even courage) for dealing with. And is it just me and my imagination, or with each passing monster, does it take longer for them to grow out of the monster stage into civilized human beings?

There are days when I wish they would all grow up and leave the house already so I could be stress-free.

But then, I'd probably be even MORE worried about them getting to mass without me. Ohhhh the irony!

Stranger than strange

I guess this is where the word "queer" lives up to it's true meaning?

February 27, 2009

A gym owner in St.Catharines, Ontario, had just opened up a new women-only gym when he was approached for membership over the phone by a man. The owner, John Fulton, explained that it was a gym only for women, and thought it was the end of the matter, until a woman showed up with the same male voice. And something else. A penis.

The woman was a transsexual who had not yet had surgery to remove the male genitalia. Despite the fact that the owner didn’t outright reject the membership application, Mr.Fulton finds himself before a Human Rights Tribunal:

Mr. Fulton, however, has chosen to fight on the grounds that he never refused the woman membership, but was still exploring his legal rights and obligations when, just a week after the woman’s visit, he received a letter from her lawyer demanding a written apology and a cash settlement. She filed a human rights complaint a few weeks later.


Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Bloc Québecois

Hier j'ai reçu ceci du Bloc Québecois:

"À Ottawa, il n'y a qu'un seul parti qui se tient DEBOUT pour le Québec, et c'est le Bloq Québecois."

Ah bon. Mettons que si le Québec au complet pensait exactement comme le Bloq Québecois, ce serait peut-être vrai.

Mais ce n'est pas le cas.

"Pas un mot sur Kyoto dans le budget du gouvernement Harper!" qu'on nous dit.

Euh... c'est peut-être parce que, contrairement au parti BQ, le parti conservateur n'a pas été compètement dupé par la nouvelle religion Verte? Lisez là-dessus, et vous verrez que toute la propagande "Gazes à Effet de Serre" ne tient pas vraiment debout. Oui nous faisons face à de la pollution, oui nous devons prendre des décisions écologique, mais le sois-disant réchauffement de la planète n'a rien a voir avec nous. La terre se réchauffe et se refroidie depuis des millions d'années, dans le temps médiéval, la terre était plus chaude qu'aujourd'hui.

Moi j'appuie plutôt les conservateurs pour ce qui est de Kyoto. Et ma voix est Québecoise. Et - surprise, surprise... JE NE SUIS PAS LA SEULE! Et non... c'est à croire que le Bloc Québecois ne représente peut-être pas le Québec au complet finalement, et c'est tout à fait égoïste de leur part d'y croire, sans dire paternaliste de croire qu'ils savent mieux que nous, ce qui est bon pour nous.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

I totally Agree with this

... especially the last bit.

Let atheists have their bus slogans
February 21, 2009,
Guelph Mercury
Royal Hamel

Atheists are finding their voice in the public square. The slogan, "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life," has to date appeared on buses in England, Spain, the United States and Canada.

The original idea was the brainchild of Richard Dawkins, poster-boy for atheism, and well known for his bestselling book The God Delusion.

Responding to Christian advertisements on buses in London, Dawkins put up money and spearheaded the campaign to put atheistic philosophy on some 800 buses.

The campaign ran into problems in both Australia and Italy as censors initially kept the ads from appearing.

In Canada roughly 2,400 such advertisements have run on buses in Toronto, Calgary and Burlington. However, the Freethought Association of Canada has run into problems with city staff in Ottawa and Halifax who have thus far not approved the ads.

The ads have provoked sharp public response. Dr. Charles McVety, president of Canada Christian College, claims they are attack ads and should not have been approved. Calgary Catholic Bishop Fred Henry said the slogans were offensive, insulting and an attempt to marginalize Christians.

For my part, I am convinced that atheists should have the same right to publicly express their world view as Christians have. It would be patently unfair to deny their free speech rights, while insisting that ours be protected.

On that point at least I am in agreement with the famous freethinker Voltaire, the putative source of the dictum, "I disapprove profoundly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

That said, I am not suggesting that atheists should have more rights than Christians do. And I am increasingly concerned that politically correct busybodies like the human rights commissions and student associations on university campuses are demonstrating bias, if not outright hostility, against the free exercise of Christians to speak of their faith and moral values -- but that's a story for another time.

Back to the bus slogans.

Of course, when atheists come out of the closet like this they actually come out much further than they intended. For they claim that they are not a religion as such, but supposedly base themselves on science.

However, their statement, "There's probably no God . . ." is actually a faith statement pure and simple (a very doubting faith to be sure, but faith nonetheless since the premise cannot be proven).

They are free to believe it of course, but let's not pretend it's science.

When atheism comes to be seen as a faith system on par with other world views and faith systems it will no longer get a free pass in the public square for its pretence of being scientific and therefore neutral.

When atheists state, "There's probably no God . . ." they betray a profound uncertainty about their claim that God doesn't exist.

If I were to say, "There's probably a Jesus Christ who died for sin, who probably rose from the grave, and who probably ascended to the Father, and who is probably going to return and judge the world"-- I would gut my supposed faith. And the "probably" in the atheist slogan does the same to the atheist.

Indeed, some wag has suggested that this particular bus slogan is so harmful to the atheist cause that he wondered if believers in God might have orchestrated the campaign.

The advertisements encourage people to start thinking about God. The person of God, God's existence or non-existence, God's linkage to a life that is free from worry and filled with joy . . . all of these thoughts are now out in the open for discussion.

That is very good. Contrary to Richard Dawkins's assertion made to BBC media that thinking is "anathema to religion," Christians welcome thinking people and openly challenge them to evaluate the evidence before believing.

Actually, Christians owe atheists big time for plastering slogans about God all over the public square -- er, the buses anyway. Christians should chill out, and not be so threatened and uptight.

These slogans are like a gift. They give believers a perfect opportunity to speak up.

When one of these buses passes by I will point out the slogan to the friend beside me, and say something like, "You know, my life is largely free from worry, and I enjoy life as much, or more, than anyone else I know, and it's all because I follow Jesus Christ, this God that they think probably doesn't even exist. Wow! Who knew?"

Thank you, Richard Dawkins. I won't stand in your way. Buy all the bus ads you want!

Royal Hamel is an avid culture watcher who analyzes how culture impacts on religion and how religion impacts on culture. He is a member of the Mercury's Community Editorial Board. Contact him at

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Missionary in Paraguay returns Award

ZENIT, The world seen from Rome
News Agency
Cases Like Eluana's Can Have Happy Endings
Missionary Rejects Award in Protest of Italy's Euthanasia Ruling

ASUNCIÓN, Paraguay, FEB. 16, 2009 ( Father Aldo Trento has been caring for patients like Eluana Englaro for years, so when Italy refused to protect her life, he protested by returning one of Italy's highest honors.

Since 1989 Father Trento has been one of the best-known missionaries of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Charles Borromeo in Paraguay. He is 62 years old and is the head of a clinic for the terminally ill in Asunción.

On June 2, the Italian president, Giorgio Napolitano, conferred the title "Knight of the Order of the Star of Solidarity" on Father Trento.

Last Wednesday, the priest returned the honor to Napolitano in the wake of the latter's refusal to sign the special decree that would have saved the life of Eluana Englaro, who had been in a coma since 1992, and whose father had succeeded in a legal bid to have her feeding tube removed.

The priest asserted, "How can I, an Italian citizen, receive such an honor from you, who, with your action, permitted the death of Eluana in the name of the Italian Republic?"

"I have more than one case like Eluana Englaro," Father Trento told the Italian newspaper Il Foglio.

He continued: "I think of little Victor, a child in a coma, who clenches his fists. All we do is feed him through a tube. Faced with these situations, how can I react to the case of Eluana?

"Yesterday they brought me a girl who was naked, a prostitute, in a coma, who had been dumped in front of a hospital. Her name is Patricia and she is 19. We washed her. Yesterday she started to move her eyes.

"Celeste is 11; she suffers from a very grave form of leukemia; she was never taken care of and they brought her to me just to bury. Today she is walking. And she laughs."

The missionary said: "I have taken more than 600 of these sick people to the cemetery. How can we accept something like what happened to Eluana?

"Cristina is a little girl who was left in a garbage dump, she is blind, deaf, she trembles when I kiss her, she lives with a feeding tube like Eluana. She does not respond except for the trembling but little by little she will regain her faculties.

"I am the godfather for many of these sick people. I'm not bothered by their decaying bodies. If you could see with what humility my doctors care for them."

Father Trento says that he feels "immense sorrow" for Englaro: "It is as if you were to say to me: 'We're going to take away your sick children now.'"

For the missionary, "man cannot be reduced to chemicals."

He added: "How can the president of the republic offer me a Star of Solidarity? I took it and returned it to the Italian embassy in Paraguay."

This article is from the ZENIT news agency.

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Valentine's Day

American Minute with Bill Federer
February 14

In the 3rd century, Emperor Claudius II was faced with defending the Roman Empire
from the invading Goths.

He believed single men made better soldiers so he temporarily forbade marriage.

He also forced the Senate to deify the former Emperor Gallienus, including him with
the Roman gods to be worshipped.

Legend has it that Valentine was a bishop in Italy who risked the Emperor's wrath by
refusing to worship idols and for secretly marrying young couples.

Saint Valentine was dragged before the Prefect of Rome, who condemned him to be
beaten to death with clubs and have his head cut off, FEBRUARY 14, 269AD.

While awaiting execution, it is said he prayed for the jailers' sick daughter, who
miraculously recovered.

He wrote her a note and signed it, "from your Valentine."

In 496 AD, Pope Gelasius designated February 14th as "Saint Valentine's Day."

Signing an X for a kiss began in Medieval times where those who could not write
marked a criss-cross or "Christ's cross" in the presence of witnesses and kissed it to show

The X, or Chi symbol, was the Greek letter used to represent the name of Christ, as X-Mas
for Christmas, and was used as a written form of the oath "So help me God."

Friday, February 13, 2009

Arrest Warrent issued for Sudanese President

The New York Times reported last night that the judges of the International Criminal Court have decided to issue an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. While this is an extraordinary step in the direction of justice, it presents real danger in the short-term.

There is every reason to believe that Bashir may react by lashing out against civilians, aid workers or peacekeeping forces. We need a clear, bold message from President Obama that the U.S. will not stand for retribution from Khartoum.

He must name a high-level diplomat with the stature, mandate and authority to bring peace to Sudan, protection to its people and accountability to the perpetrators—today.

Click here to tell President Obama to put someone in charge of Darfur immediately.

The ICC has never before indicted a head of state. This extraordinary development adds legal weight to a long obvious truth: primary responsibility for the atrocities in Darfur rests with the regime that Bashir heads.

Now we're at a pivotal moment for Sudan. What our leaders do next will determine whether we turn a corner or whether this crisis becomes tragically, brutally worse:

All nations and their heads of state must refuse to conduct business as usual with Bashir.
The U.N. Security Council must stand firm against any retaliatory violence and reject any attempt to abandon the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended the war in Southern Sudan.

If we continue to let war crimes go unpunished, if we fail to bring the full weight of American influence to bear on this crisis, the result could be untold misery for the people of Darfur.


Jerry FowlerSave Darfur Coalition

Donate to Help Save DarfurHelp build the political pressure needed to end the crisis in Darfur by supporting the Save Darfur Coalition's crucial awareness and advocacy programs. Click here now to make a secure, tax-deductible online donation.

Monday, February 09, 2009

Something my dad wrote, on money and trust

A homily by J.-N. Chabot, May 16, 2008

St James is quite stern towards the rich. On Monday we read from his letter that the rich will disappear like a flower in the field. He said: Let the believer who is lowly boast in being raised up and the rich in being brought low. It’s not that material goods don’t count… we need them to satisfy our basic human needs. Because our human bodies are united to an immortal soul, material things are necessary even for our spiritual life. Think of the sacraments, for example, we receive the graces attached to them through sensible signs, particularly in the Eucharist which requires bread and the wine. However material goods cannot become an end in themselves and St James accuses some people of doing just that. Those are the people whose main purpose in life is to get rich is order to have the power that money gives – power to buy material comfort and pleasure, power to control others.

What is money, anyway? There is another word for money which helps us to understand what it is. That word is credit – originally, credito, which comes from the Latin credere, to believe. In a way it means trust. The power of money is only equal to the trust or faith we put in it. We believe and trust that certain numbers certified as money have the power to move and acquire goods and services. When we stop believing or trusting that our money can do those things, it looses all its power. Without trust or belief, money is just a futile symbol - numbers without real power –worth no more than the paper it is printed on.

Money is create exclusively by banks or other institutions that function as banks. Those institution do a great job of creating money, but because of the way they create it, they bring about a lot of misery in the world especially in poorer or so-called developing countries. What I’m getting at is the problem of usury, or interest. The meaning of usury in the Bible and the present meaning of interest are practically identical. The practice of usury was condemned in the Old Testament and so was interest in Christian times until the Protestant Reformation. There was even a time when those who claimed that exacting interest was not a sin were considered heretics. Nowadays, we make distinctions and we call abusive interest, usury - and usury is still considered a sin. Moderate interest is tolerated.

However, there is a domain where interest is causing much havoc and suffering, especially as I indicated, in poor nations, and that is when interest is taken at the source, that is, where is created. The banks and other institutions that function as banks are the only creators of money and they create it in the form of debt – they create debt money. The problem appears when the interest is added to the debt. I’ll give you an example: Suppose I have a hen that lays golden eggs. It’s the only one in the world. I don’t sell my golden eggs, I only loan them – with interest. I lend you a dozen golden eggs and you have to pay back the dozen plus one extra golden egg for interest. Of course you don’t have a hen that lays golden eggs so you can’t pay the extra one, which means that when you pay back you dozen you will have to borrow again to pay the interest you don’t have. That interest will never be paid and will accumulate.

In practice, interest does not seem to work as shown by my example because the complexity of economic interaction hides the reality, but taken globally the result shows that this is exactly what is happening. In the world economies, even the capital remains unpaid, because the need for debt money increases as production expands. We only have to look at our national debt which is 525 billions; or that of the U.S. which is in the trillions and growing. The richer the country, the greater the debt. This is not only usury, it is slavery. (It’s surprising that some who should know better see no contradiction in this.) Creators of money don’t have to charge interest, they can be paid by other means, but it is the interest that consolidates monetary power into their hands, so they want to keep it as is. The result of all this is an ever increasing monopoly of credit, a consolidation of monetary institutions with the bigger swallowing up the smaller until the world is in the hands of a handful of worshippers of Mammon – the God of money. I am not exaggerating. Listen to what Pius IX wrote in his encyclical Quadrasesimo Anno on Reconstruction of the Social Order. That Encyclical was published on May 15, 1931 : (Yesterday was its 77th anniversary.)

In the first place, it is obvious that not only is wealth concentrated in our times but an immense power and despotic economic dictatorship is consolidated in the hands of a few, who often are not owners but only the trustees and managing directors of invested funds which they administer according to their own arbitrary will and pleasure. (#105)

This dictatorship is being most forcibly exercised by those who, since they hold the money and completely control it, control credit also and rule the lending of money. Hence they regulate the flow, so to speak, of the life-blood whereby the entire economic system lives, and have so firmly in their grasp the soul, as it were, of economic life that no one can breathe against their will.(#106)

This description of monetary dictatorship may not have extended much beyond the borders of different nations at the time of Pius XI, but it is now reaching the global level. However, the unjust distribution of power favouring the rich might backfire and the words of St James become true as well as those of the Virgin Mary in her Magnificat: He has filled the hungry with good things and the rich he has sent empty away. There is spiritual symbolism in those words, but they may have their temporal meaning also. As the rich consolidate their power over money, choking the producers of real goods, e.g. family farms and local enterprises, etc. that money will become increasingly disconnected from reality, from the production of goods and services, and people will loose trust and faith in its power. The tower of Babel the rich have been building will have to be abandoned and as a result those who adhere to the Christian social doctrine will be able to establish justice for the poor and the humble.

Saturday, February 07, 2009

Special interest groups

You know what I don't like about special interests groups, as compared to generalized human rights groups? When a special interest group gets too much power, they tend to forget everyone else and focus only on their own rights. They forget that other groups of people have rights too, and they start to see these other groups of people as competition. If other groups of people have interests that conflict their own, for instance, they see their rights as being trampled on. In other words, no one other group may have "rights" that conflict with their own.

Didn't our mothers all teach us to share when we were children? Apparently not. Because today, many feminists view embryos and foetus's as competition. A foetus's right to life infringes on a woman's "right" live hers as she sees fit.

I guess some people's mothers forget to teach them that you have to live with the consequences of your acts as well. Because, in most cases, if there is a foetus present conflicting with your life plan, it is a result of your own actions. Except of course, in the case of rape. But seriously, we all know that the hundreds of thousands of abortion practiced in Canada are mostly not due to rape. In fact, pregnancy due to rape, while it does happen, is extremely rare.

Pregnancy is temporary. The child does come out after 9 months. And you don't even have to keep it. Because childless couples on endless waiting lists are eagerly waiting to adopt. So what's the problem? Really?

I guess our mothers did not teach us responsibility or being held accountable. Feminists play the victim. Women, real women are stronger than that. We can conquer anything if we want to.

Gay rights activist have fought long and hard for tolerance and equity in the workplace. Now that this is the law, they are not content with just tolerance, they want everyone to believe the same as them. They believe that what they do is natural, and equal to heterosexuality, and they want everyone to believe this and accept homosexuality as good. Anyone of a differing opinion is now suddenly trampling on their rights.

What about my right to bring up my own children the way I want, with christian values and morality? Noone else has the right to come and tell my children that I am wrong and that they must believe something else. Would they come and tell my kids to ignore me if I say to wait for marriage to have sex? Is that their right now? Why not just come and collect all the kids as they are born and bring them to some huge government institution where you can indoctrinate them all.

Nowhere is it written that in order to LIKE a person, you must APPROVE of everything they do. If that were true, noone would like anyone else.

What of my right to hold a DIFFERING opinion? Are we no longer allowed to think for ourselves in Canada? If I perceive certain behaviour as self-harmful, both physically and psychologically, is it not my right to bring up my children to avoid such behaviour, while still being kind and respectful of the persons? I don't go around preaching to all the people who are living together without being married. I'd have to preach at myself for having been rather mistaken.

There are certain things I have learned the hard way, that I happen to think many people have just not realized. If I want to spare my children the same hardship, it is entirely within my rights to teach them to behave differently.

Saint Mary's University Students Assaulted by Pro-Abortion Mob

How immature. Listen first people, then criticize later, if you must.



Heard the morning people on Chom this morning talking about Suleman. Calling her stupid and the doctors as well.

Now I don't expect everyone to understand about people believing that their embryos are already human beings that deserve life, but could they at least bring out the whole story and try to understand another person's point of view? The way they talked, for one, there was no mention of the embryos already being there, only that she decides to go and have all these kids when she already had 6. Apparently, there were less than 8 embryos, and she was only expecting one to survive. Eight babies resulted because of fertility hormones and replication of embryos, so some of these babies are identical twins or even triplets.

Again, the mother was not going to purposely abort the babies, so what could she do? If she really can't care for all of them, I am sure that many people would be very happy not to have to go to China to adopt. If she does keep them all, she has the support of her parents, and hopefully friends as well.

What I heard on the radio though, is that she hired a publicist who was trying to get Oprah Winfrey to pay her a couple million for an interview. I have to agree, if this is REALLY the case, that was a dumb move.

But gosh, I hate it when people go nuts like that over other people's decisions to have children. First, IT IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. Second, when having a lot of children is something deemed "disgusting" then there is something wrong with the world. Third, if they think that all she wanted was celebrity, then WHY ARE THEY GIVING IT TO HER? Just shut up and leave her alone!!!

If it is unethical to have a lot of children, it should be equally unethical to have no children. As long as some people are having a lot of people, it just balances out those who aren't having any! Someone else's kids are going to have to pay for their pension eventually!

Just my two cents worth.

Embryos given life... Mother scorned

LOS ANGELES, February 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews. com) -

According to the grandmother of octuplets born in California last week, rather than allow her leftover frozen embryos to be destroyed, dissected in a laboratory, or frozen indefinitely, their mother chose to give them a chance at life by implanting them in her womb. Little did she expect to give birth to eight relatively healthy babies, or to be deluged first by congratulations, then by scorn, as critics questioned her choice not to selectively abort as a single mother of reportedly little means.

Suleman, anonymous at the time, made headlines last Monday when she gave birth to the longest-living set of octuplets on record at Kaiser Permanente Hospital in West Los Angeles. The babies, six boys and two girls, are reported to continue growing in strength. "My family and I are ecstatic about all of their arrivals," said the mother in a statement following the births. The octuplets' grandmother described the babies as "so tiny and so beautiful."Later it was revealed that Suleman, who is divorced and according to her mother unable to have children naturally, had already had six children via previous fertility treatments. Media attention turned sour as headlines changed to challenge the ethics of the situation.

"Suleman's story transformed from a dream to a nightmare," wrote a New York Daily News columnist. The story was called a "freak show," "a tawdry nightmare," and "a seedy story of self-indulgence. " Some accused Suleman of giving bith as a means to fame and wealth. "If you want to find a way to be famous and to be, in your mind, a celebrity, there's lots of ways to go about it," says Cooper Lawrence, author of "The Cult of Celebrity." "If you're not a good singer and you can't write books," said Lawrence, "go have babies."

Some questioned the ethics of allowing Suleman to undergo treatment again after already having six children, which was billed as the climax of an alleged obsession with children. Yet her mother said Suleman had merely implanted the children already conceived as excess products from her previous treatments. "She doesn't have any more (frozen embryos), so it's over now," she said.

Another controversy erupted from ethicists who criticized Suleman's anonymous doctor for implanting eight embryos at a time. However, according to her parents, Suleman was expecting one more child to result from her remaining embryos, which they say numbered far fewer than eight. The eight would have resulted from some of the embryos splitting into twins or triplets. Typical IVF treatments implant as many as four embryos at a time, with the expectation that some will naturally miscarry or, if they continue to grow, will be killed in a standard procedure known as "selective reduction of pregnancy."

Many criticized the mother for deviating from the norm of IVF treatment by refusing to abort some of the babies despite the risk to her health on top of her apparent money troubles. In an ABC interview, endocrinology expert Dr. Richard Paulson said that so many children at once are a problem to be avoided at all costs. "Patients who conceive octuplets would routinely be offered - even advised - selective reduction," said Paulson. "I have to assume that in this case, the patients decided to try and carry to viability, and they were lucky, plus they got some really good doctors."

Angela Suleman said that was not an option for Nadya. "What do you suggest she should have done? She refused to have them killed," the grandmother said. "That is a very painful thing." Judge Andrew Napolitano, FOX News' Senior Judicial Analyst, confirmed it was quite possible that the octuplets were an unexpected multiplication of fewer embryos, and praised Nadya for choosing not to abort the unexpected lives."Notwithstand ing all of the above, the mother has done a positive good by bringing these children into the world," wrote Napolitano yesterday. "Life is superior to non-life. Human souls are eternal. Every human life is of potentially infinite value. The God who gave us life reflects His glory through each one of us."

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

British Environmental Advisor Backs Population Control, Two Kids Per Family

How's that for a fricken idiot? Has he checked the birth rate in the UK recently? In 2007 it was 1.90 kids, just under 2 kids per woman. In 2008, it went down to 1.66 per woman. That's already quite a bit less than 2 kids per woman.

If a few rare people are having more than two kids, it only balances out the many more that aren't having kids at all... I hate it when people say stupid things, hoping the rest of us are stupid enough to believe anything.

Maybe, just maybe, the current economic problems are due in part to the DECLINE of the birthrate? Did he ever think about that? Maybe, just maybe, all those OLDER people not working anymore, but needing to be supported by a constantly declining younger population is causing part of the problem? Did he ever think of that? Maybe, just maybe, if you criminalize women (like China does) for having more than 2 children, the birth rate will be then so low, (because of all the women STILL not having any) that it won't be able to support HIM when his turn comes to retire. Did he ever think of THAT?

Teach the pleasure of gay sex to children as young as five, say researchers

You know, I'm not going to go bashing gays, or beat them up, or whatever. But honestly, could they back off of our children? Heterosexuals don't teach the pleasure of hetero sex to kids at five. Just BACK OFF OKAY!

Someone else had this to say and I totally agree:
The economy is going to hell in a handbasket. Tax payers are feeling the bite in their pocket and yet having to subsidise our financial services industry because of banking practices that push beyond the boundaries of boldness and yet our government can find a spare £600,000 to advocate teaching five year olds about homosexuality? Five year olds! These children aren't even of the age to read Biff, Chip and Kipper and yet the government finds a spare £600k, in what Alistair Darling calls the worst economic climate for 60 years, to learn whether their sexual attitudes require exploring? Unbelievable.

You know what people? When you DON'T KNOW WHEN TO STOP, it eventually backfires on you. YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE PEOPLE STARK-RAVING MAD and then you will lose all your hard fought for "rights". I put rights in quotations because they're rights you should have anyway. Rights anyone should have. Nothing more.

Thankfully, I actually know gay people, because if I thought all gay people were all like the gay activists, I'd... I don't know what I'd do...

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Pope Warns of Easy Outs for Troubled Marriages

Says Commitment Still Possible, Even in Modern Culture
VATICAN CITY, JAN. 29, 2009 (

The value of Christian marriage runs the risk of being practically destroyed if the sacrament is declared null because of pretexts, says Benedict XVI.

The Pope affirmed this today when he addressed the Roman Rota at the beginning of the juridical year. In his reflection, he noted that many topics could be considered, but he chose an evaluation of the implementation of two addresses given by Pope John Paul II more than 20 years ago on the theme of marriage impediments due to psychological problems.

Citing the Polish Pope, Benedict XVI lamented that it is still possible to detect the need to preserve the ecclesial community from "the scandal of seeing the value of Christian marriage being practically destroyed by the exaggerated and almost automatic multiplication of declarations of nullity of marriage in cases of the failure of marriage on the pretext of some immaturity or psychic weakness on the part of the contracting parties.

"Thus, the Holy Father exhorted the tribunal to "treat the causes with the due depth that is required by the ministry of truth and charity that is proper to the Roman Rota."


Again referring to his predecessor's address, the Pontiff noted the distinction between a "psychic maturity which is seen as the goal of human development" and "canonical maturity which is rather the basic minimum required for establishing the validity of marriage."

He further noted the difference between "incapacity" and "difficulty," recalling John Paul II's assertion that "only incapacity and not difficulty in giving consent and in realizing a true community of life and love invalidates a marriage."

And Benedict XVI looked at the distinction between the "canonical dimension of normality, which based on the integral vision of the human person 'includes moderate forms of psychological difficulty' and the clinical dimension that excludes from the concept of [normality] every limitation on maturity and 'every form of psychic illness.'

"Finally, he enunciated the difference "between the 'minimum capacity sufficient for valid consent' and the idealized capacity of full maturity ordered to a happy conjugal life."


The Pope stated that it is necessary to rediscover "the capacity that in principle every human person has of getting married in virtue of his own nature as man or as woman."

And he cautioned against the risk of "falling into an anthropological pessimism that, in light of the current cultural situation, considers it almost impossible to marry."

"Besides the fact that this situation is not uniform in the diverse regions of the world," the Holy Father continued, "consensual incapacity cannot be confused with the difficulties that many experience -- especially youth -- coming to consider matrimonial union as normally unthinkable and impractical."

"On the contrary," he said, "the reaffirmation of the innate human capacity for matrimony is precisely the starting point to help couples discover the natural reality of marriage and the relevance it has in the plan of salvation."

"The capacity should be placed in relation with what matrimony essentially is," the Pontiff added, citing "Gaudium et Spes": "'the intimate communion of life and conjugal love, founded by the Creator and structured with its own laws,' and, in a particular way, with the essential obligations inherent to it.

"The Bishop of Rome urged the tribunal to a "healthy realism," as John Paul II encouraged, because the capacity to marry "refers to the minimum necessary for the boyfriend/girlfriend to be able to give their being as masculine and feminine person to found this bond to which the great majority of human beings are called."

Personally, I don't get the "I don't believe in marriage" people. You don't believe in marriage, but you are willling to shack up and have kids? Seriously. You are willing to have premature sexual relationships with people you don't necessarily know, willling to to move in with someone you don't know if you want to spend the rest of your life with, willing to have kids with them, but you don't believe in marriage? How does not getting married protect you?

I don't get the "falling headlong into a relationship" thing. Why dive into something you don't know you can depend on? Isn't that the best way to get hurt? Gosh, it's not like we're animals here and must act on instinct or something.

Monday, February 02, 2009

Children Are Quick

TEACHER: Maria, go to the map and find North America
MARIA: Here it is.
TEACHER: Correct. Now class, who discovered America ?
CLASS: Maria.

TEACHER: John, why are you doing your math multiplication on the floor?
JOHN: You told me to do it without using tables.

TEACHER: Glenn, how do you spell 'crocodile?'
TEACHER: No, that's wrong
GLENN: Maybe it is wrong, but you asked me how I spell it.

TEACHER: Donald, what is the chemical formula for water?
TEACHER: What are you talking about?
DONALD: Yesterday you said it's H to O.

TEACHER: Winnie, name one important thing we have today that we didn't have ten years ago.

TEACHER: Glen, why do you always get so dirty?
GLEN: Well, I'm a lot closer to the ground than you are.

TEACHER: Millie, give me a sentence starting with 'I.'
MILLIE: I is . . .
TEACHER: No, Millie . . .. Always say, 'I am.'
MILLIE: All right . . . 'I am the ninth letter of the alphabet.'

TEACHER: George Washington not only chopped down his father's cherry tree, but also admitted it. Now, Louie, do you know why his father didn't punish him?
LOUIS: Because George still had the axe in his hand.

TEACHER: Now, Simon-Pierre, tell me frankly, do you say prayers before eating? SIMON-PIERRE: No sir, I don't have to, my Mom is a good cook.

TEACHER: Clyde, your composition on 'My Dog' is exactly the same as your brother's. Did you copy his?
CLYDE: No, sir. It's the same dog.

TEACHER: Harold, what do you call a person who keeps on talking when people are no longer interested?
HAROLD: A teacher