The Whole Point of this Blog
I did a google search for my name (Jeanne) and came across the blog of another Jeanne called Body and Soul. It had an interesting title so I thought I'd go take a look. It turns out it is a very political blog, and quite leftist too, in terms of social justice, peace, etc,... which is okay by me, but I get bored after awhile reading nothing but politics, I like something to break up the seriousness... plus, in the same way I get tired of the conservatives bashing the liberals, I don't like hearing the liberals bashing the conservatives either, although this girl doesn't seem to be in it for pure bashing. In fact, she seems quite fair. I noticed she classifies her articles into different topics, among other was religion, and so, since this is what interested me most, (specifically to find out if there are any other "liberal" traditional Catholics out there...) I decided to go take a look under that topic. At first I couldn't determine whether she was protestant or Catholic, but I did like some of the comments she made. I found out she was Catholic but then I found out she doesn't think much of Pope Benedict XVI. I'm not a super fan of the former Cardinal Ratzinger either (in the sense that my heart doesn't pound faster at the mention of his name, nor do I jump at the chance to buy Pope Benedict XVI memorabilia, I think I'll leave that to the Cultural catholics), but I think he's done a fairly good job at preserving the Catholic Faith, although I am unsure of how open he is to issues like social justice among other things, and I tend to think that Pope John Paul II was a bit more open in that way. But hey, noone's perfect, and God uses imperfect people for his purpose.
Like her though, I have a great deal of respect for Monsignor Romero, who died a martyr. It's when I came to where she was absolutely in agreement with those blaming the Vatican for the millions of deaths due to AIDS in Africa because the Vatican banned condoms, that I groaned. Puh-lease. Like you can blame the Vatican, let alone anyone else, for the spread of AIDS. You CAN blame stupid (careless) American officials for using contaminated vaccines against some childhood disease for the AIDS virus actually getting out in the first place. They were testing these viruses on Africans because they weren't allowed to test them on American citizens. Of course they didn't know they were starting up the next epidemic, but what were they doing testing vaccines on Africans that they weren't allowed (or didn't want) to test on Americans? Yeah, they're just Africans, it doesn't matter what happens to them... I'll have to find a link to something on this because that came from a special in-depth documentary on the TV and I don't remember all the facts and I have nothing to back me up. As for the SPREAD of AIDS, especially once we found out exactly how it spread, you can only blame individual people for their own behaviour. To blame the Vatican because they "banned" condoms, is, well, illogical. First of all, the Vatican doesn't have the power to ban condoms anywhere. It only has the power to condemn them. Condems are still out there, in practically every drugstore. (At least in most well-stocked drugstores.) Second of all, if you are actually following the teachings of the Catholic Church, you don't need condoms anyway to prevent getting AIDS, because you're not having pre-marital sex and you're not committing adultery. The only other way to get AIDS would be through open wounds or unsafe blood transfusions both of which condoms will do nothing for. Third, if you are not following the teachings of the Catholic Church, whatever makes people think that you are suddenly going to observe that one rule? Come on, give me a break. Like someone is going to choose to ignore the no sex out of marriage rule and then in the same breath say, "oh but we can't use a condom, because that would be against the teachings of the Church." Whatever.
That brings me to the whole point of this post which was to talk about the whole point of my blog. Reading the blog of this other Jeanne made me wonder, is she actually against abortion, or only in favour of reducing the number of abortions? Is she traditional and liberal, or totally liberal? Who and what is she? It would take reading through a long list of posts to actually find out, and I figured, I want people to know right away what MY blog is about and WHO I am.
So, here it is folks; I observe the teachings of the church (or at least I strive to). I consider myself to be a traditional Catholic in that way. I am however, NOT conservative in the political realm, at least not when it comes to social justice and international policy etc. Or at least not according to American standards. I am Canadian and we're not exactly the same over here as I have had several occasions (not always nice experiences) to find out. (Pro-social justice americans literally blasting me out for being conservative on issues like abortion, even though we were all Christian (?) and accusing me of hiding it from them (I was the one who started the group in the first place) Not a nice experience for me, who for some reason figured that if it was a christian group I couldn't be the only pro-life one could I? I never dreamed I'd get blasted for being pro-life in my own christian group! )
I have to admit, Bush is not my favourite guy. I can't even stand listening to him talk on TV. But I am not going to blame him for hurricane Katrina and everything else that goes wrong in the US. One guy can't possibly be responsible for all that is bad in the world, and he must have some good in him. I would personally not have voted Bush in the last american elections, had I been american, but neither would I have voted Kerry. I would probably have voted the America First Party, which was, among other things in the last election, both pro-life and for fair-trade. But I am not american and I cannot "waste" my vote on this party (since voting for it would be pretty much throwing a vote away... sigh...) so I voted Progressive Conservative in our last Canadian elections, which is neither pro-life nor pro social-justice, but at least THEY are still letting their elected members vote freely on things in parliament. The Liberal party is a joke, they are forcing all party members to vote the same way on key issues such as abortion and homosexual marriage. So is the New Democratic Party, and as for the Bloc Québecois, well, they don't even have to force THEIR members to vote pro-choice and pro-homosexual marriage. And those were the only choices I had. If it weren't for the abortion/marriage thing, I would have voted Bloc. (My vote was pretty much a wasted vote anyway as the Conservative party didn't even have a chance in my riding, or really, in any riding anywhere in the province of Québec. It was a fight between Liberal and Bloc, and how do I hate the Liberal Party? Let me count the ways...) At least DH and I agree on politics (except when it comes to abortion and marriage) and he is just as disgusted with the Liberal Party as I am, albeit not always for the same reasons.
But the whole point of my blog is not to talk politics (or any other one topic for that matter) non-stop. It's just to talk about whatever comes into my head really. This is the blog of a stay-at-home/work-at-home mom. So my family will come into this quite often. I am somewhat artistically inclined, so that will come in too. I enjoy a good joke, and I'll probably post a few. In fact, any tidbit of interesting news, political or not might make it's way to this blog. I like to keep it diverse, because I have diverse interests, and that way, anyone reading this might actually find some of the things interesting.
So there we have it. I think that pretty much sums it up. If you happen to be liberal, drop me a note and we can talk social justice, if you're conservative drop me a note and we'll talk faith matters instead... and if you're like me, somewhere in the middle, PLEASE DROP ME A NOTE AND LET ME KNOW I'M NOT ALONE IN THIS UNIVERSE!!!
Edited to add:
Apparently it was not a contaminated childhood disease (polio) vaccine that was the cause of the start of the AIDS epidemic, but instead most likely a contaminated Hepatitus B vaccine. ANd I guess homosexuals fall under the same title as blacks, marginal, so who is going to care if somethings happens to them? It doesn't say here if they were just testing the virus, but in any case, they certainly weren't careful, and they couldn't have chosen to transfer the virus to any two other groups more likely to propagate it if they had wanted to. Neither group is well-known for it's celebacy.
"The answer to this question was singularly advanced by a Harvard-degreed independent investigator, Dr. Leonard Horowitz in the award winning book Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola -- Nature, Accident or Intentional? (Tetrahedron Press, 1998; 1-888-508-4787; http:www.tetrahedron.org) Dr. Horowitz unearthed and reprinted stunning scientific documents and National Institutes of Health contracts proving that chimpanzees, contaminated with numerous viruses, were used to produce hundreds of hepatitis B vaccine doses administered to central African Blacks along with homosexual men in New York City at precisely the time Dr. Myers and colleagues claim the origin of HIV "punctuated event" occurred". Whole article here...
Like her though, I have a great deal of respect for Monsignor Romero, who died a martyr. It's when I came to where she was absolutely in agreement with those blaming the Vatican for the millions of deaths due to AIDS in Africa because the Vatican banned condoms, that I groaned. Puh-lease. Like you can blame the Vatican, let alone anyone else, for the spread of AIDS. You CAN blame stupid (careless) American officials for using contaminated vaccines against some childhood disease for the AIDS virus actually getting out in the first place. They were testing these viruses on Africans because they weren't allowed to test them on American citizens. Of course they didn't know they were starting up the next epidemic, but what were they doing testing vaccines on Africans that they weren't allowed (or didn't want) to test on Americans? Yeah, they're just Africans, it doesn't matter what happens to them... I'll have to find a link to something on this because that came from a special in-depth documentary on the TV and I don't remember all the facts and I have nothing to back me up. As for the SPREAD of AIDS, especially once we found out exactly how it spread, you can only blame individual people for their own behaviour. To blame the Vatican because they "banned" condoms, is, well, illogical. First of all, the Vatican doesn't have the power to ban condoms anywhere. It only has the power to condemn them. Condems are still out there, in practically every drugstore. (At least in most well-stocked drugstores.) Second of all, if you are actually following the teachings of the Catholic Church, you don't need condoms anyway to prevent getting AIDS, because you're not having pre-marital sex and you're not committing adultery. The only other way to get AIDS would be through open wounds or unsafe blood transfusions both of which condoms will do nothing for. Third, if you are not following the teachings of the Catholic Church, whatever makes people think that you are suddenly going to observe that one rule? Come on, give me a break. Like someone is going to choose to ignore the no sex out of marriage rule and then in the same breath say, "oh but we can't use a condom, because that would be against the teachings of the Church." Whatever.
That brings me to the whole point of this post which was to talk about the whole point of my blog. Reading the blog of this other Jeanne made me wonder, is she actually against abortion, or only in favour of reducing the number of abortions? Is she traditional and liberal, or totally liberal? Who and what is she? It would take reading through a long list of posts to actually find out, and I figured, I want people to know right away what MY blog is about and WHO I am.
So, here it is folks; I observe the teachings of the church (or at least I strive to). I consider myself to be a traditional Catholic in that way. I am however, NOT conservative in the political realm, at least not when it comes to social justice and international policy etc. Or at least not according to American standards. I am Canadian and we're not exactly the same over here as I have had several occasions (not always nice experiences) to find out. (Pro-social justice americans literally blasting me out for being conservative on issues like abortion, even though we were all Christian (?) and accusing me of hiding it from them (I was the one who started the group in the first place) Not a nice experience for me, who for some reason figured that if it was a christian group I couldn't be the only pro-life one could I? I never dreamed I'd get blasted for being pro-life in my own christian group! )
I have to admit, Bush is not my favourite guy. I can't even stand listening to him talk on TV. But I am not going to blame him for hurricane Katrina and everything else that goes wrong in the US. One guy can't possibly be responsible for all that is bad in the world, and he must have some good in him. I would personally not have voted Bush in the last american elections, had I been american, but neither would I have voted Kerry. I would probably have voted the America First Party, which was, among other things in the last election, both pro-life and for fair-trade. But I am not american and I cannot "waste" my vote on this party (since voting for it would be pretty much throwing a vote away... sigh...) so I voted Progressive Conservative in our last Canadian elections, which is neither pro-life nor pro social-justice, but at least THEY are still letting their elected members vote freely on things in parliament. The Liberal party is a joke, they are forcing all party members to vote the same way on key issues such as abortion and homosexual marriage. So is the New Democratic Party, and as for the Bloc Québecois, well, they don't even have to force THEIR members to vote pro-choice and pro-homosexual marriage. And those were the only choices I had. If it weren't for the abortion/marriage thing, I would have voted Bloc. (My vote was pretty much a wasted vote anyway as the Conservative party didn't even have a chance in my riding, or really, in any riding anywhere in the province of Québec. It was a fight between Liberal and Bloc, and how do I hate the Liberal Party? Let me count the ways...) At least DH and I agree on politics (except when it comes to abortion and marriage) and he is just as disgusted with the Liberal Party as I am, albeit not always for the same reasons.
But the whole point of my blog is not to talk politics (or any other one topic for that matter) non-stop. It's just to talk about whatever comes into my head really. This is the blog of a stay-at-home/work-at-home mom. So my family will come into this quite often. I am somewhat artistically inclined, so that will come in too. I enjoy a good joke, and I'll probably post a few. In fact, any tidbit of interesting news, political or not might make it's way to this blog. I like to keep it diverse, because I have diverse interests, and that way, anyone reading this might actually find some of the things interesting.
So there we have it. I think that pretty much sums it up. If you happen to be liberal, drop me a note and we can talk social justice, if you're conservative drop me a note and we'll talk faith matters instead... and if you're like me, somewhere in the middle, PLEASE DROP ME A NOTE AND LET ME KNOW I'M NOT ALONE IN THIS UNIVERSE!!!
Edited to add:
Apparently it was not a contaminated childhood disease (polio) vaccine that was the cause of the start of the AIDS epidemic, but instead most likely a contaminated Hepatitus B vaccine. ANd I guess homosexuals fall under the same title as blacks, marginal, so who is going to care if somethings happens to them? It doesn't say here if they were just testing the virus, but in any case, they certainly weren't careful, and they couldn't have chosen to transfer the virus to any two other groups more likely to propagate it if they had wanted to. Neither group is well-known for it's celebacy.
"The answer to this question was singularly advanced by a Harvard-degreed independent investigator, Dr. Leonard Horowitz in the award winning book Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola -- Nature, Accident or Intentional? (Tetrahedron Press, 1998; 1-888-508-4787; http:www.tetrahedron.org) Dr. Horowitz unearthed and reprinted stunning scientific documents and National Institutes of Health contracts proving that chimpanzees, contaminated with numerous viruses, were used to produce hundreds of hepatitis B vaccine doses administered to central African Blacks along with homosexual men in New York City at precisely the time Dr. Myers and colleagues claim the origin of HIV "punctuated event" occurred". Whole article here...
Just got around to reading this, and it sparked a memory. A while back I read that vaccines were attenuated, or weakened, by passing them through animals first, which inadvertently picked up animal retro-viruses. At first it all sounded like science fiction to me, and I hadn't even bothered to find anything documenting it. In any case, thanks for citing the source. Interesting, and horrifying indeed.
ReplyDeleteAnd as for the rest, I don't think you're alone. We'd probably have to sit and chat about it all to see if there really are many differences in our thinking on social justice issues, but I'm thinking the differences, if any exist, would be slight. :)