Wednesday, October 28, 2009
...who the patron saint of flying is? I know I have heard of a saint who could apparently fly. Might have been Lawrence, but I probably just made that up.
Anyway, Fall Break has officially started here at Franciscan University. I will be flying to visit my favorite Jesuits back at Spring Hill College before making my way back home to New Orleans. Hopefully everything will go well.
Patron of flight, whoever you are, intercede for me!
Monday, October 26, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
I came across this op-ed, published a few days ago and written by Joanne Lipman. "The Mismeasure of Women" attempts to explain how women have made so many gains in the past 30 years and how now, more than ever, women are facing a stalling of their progress.
Now, I am the last woman to define herself as a "feminist" and I cringe when I hear the word. No worries, this editorial does not make any claims like abortion has liberated women - it's not even mentioned. (I was surprised!) The piece merely states the reasons why women aren't making the advances they used to. However, I feel like Joanne Lipman left out some finer points about it.
I think the status of women could be improved if the view of femininity can be improved.
Women in the workplace are so often viewed by two extremes.
1) The progressive modern woman: Other women in the workplace see them as co-workers, colleagues, and sometimes bosses. They are looked at in respect and sometimes fear.
2) Ungodly evil woman: Ultra-conservative men and women see working women as women who are trying to be "like men." They are denying their submissive nature and femininity.
I disagree with both. Women in the workplace are just women that work. Not all women are called to have a job in the home. Just face it guys, some women are smarter than you and deserve your job because of that. Hire on merit, not on sex.
Women in the home are viewed by one of two extremes:
1) Oppressed, ignorant women: The more liberal and progressive women's rights groups see stay-at-home moms are being under the oppressive control of evil husbands.
2) Good, God-fearing women: Other stay-at-home moms (homeschoolers, ultra-conservative or religious) see their fellow unemployed women as fully embodying their womanly duties - educating children, cleaning the house, and letting their men be the big breadwinners.
I disagree with both. Stay-at-home moms are merely responding to a particular call. Some women make great teachers for their home-schooled children, but not all women are cut out for it. Everyone has different skills and intellects. Progressive feminists need to understand that staying at home is not oppressive, but it is a choice that women now have.
If only people could come to understand that femininity is not defined by what the woman DOES, but is at the heart of who the woman IS. All women are born feminine and no matter where they work, they bring that workplace something a man never can - something distinctly female. Maybe if the world could acknowledge the work that all women do - regardless if its in the home or in an office - women will finally have an equal place among men. For if women are viewed as who we are and not by what we do, we will no longer be restricted.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
I dragged my new Yankee friend to go watch it with me and I enjoyed every minute of it. Here' the breakdown:
The documentary dealt specifically with Al Gore and his misleading climate data, it worked to uncover all of the exaggerations that are putting human lives at risk. Now, I just finished the documentary about 20 minutes ago, and I have not done hardcore research into the filmmakers or their subjects. In fact, I can't name anyone in or involved in the movie, I didn't take note. However, here are some of the highlights of the film: (I will try to be as accurate as possible, so basically I will NOT be Al Gore)
1. Al Gore's worship of Rachel Carson and her work in "Silent Spring" is largely based off unscientific assumptions about DDT and its affects on the environment. DDT kills malaria infected mosquitoes and it DOES NOT cause breast cancer - something environmentalists argue a lot. The banning of DDT is disproportionately affecting poor, developing countries like Uganda because of the increase of malaria instances. DDT is harmful to birds, so its important to determine which is more important - bird lives or human lives.
2. The hottest year on record was 1934 (before SUVs, before the population boom, before airplanes, etc...), not 2006 like Al Gore says. NASA made the mistake and is very quietly correcting their data. VERY QUIETLY.
3. The "hockey stick" graph used to show the "dramatic increase" in temperature and carbon dioxide is flawed. The hockey stick graph is not statistically accurate and any set of data can be made to look like one. It has been discredited.
4. The ICPP's report on climate change determined that sea levels will rise about 20 feet within a few millennia, not a few years like Al Gore claims.
5. The ICPP includes only meteorologists and climatologists on their panel, but do not include geologists, biologists, and astrophysicists. All of these other fields of science are concluding that climate change is a natural process brought about by the earth itself, but they have been shunned from the ICPP. The view on climate change by scientists is anything but "settled."
Now, the film makes excellent cases for each of my points above and many more flaws about Al Gore's environmentalism are addressed. These are just a few that I managed to remember. I recommend the film for anyone interested in learning the truth about climate change. However, I also recommend everyone watch "An Inconvenient Truth" as well, for no other reason than to understand what "Not Evil, Just Wrong" is addressing. The problems make more sense when you have actually seen Al Gore's argument.
The film, while not labeling itself as being pro-life, definitely comes across as being pro-human. It does address the issue about overpopulation. It addresses exactly who we should get rid of first if the earth really is so overpopulated. Obviously, they keep this question rhetoric, and address it to people and politicians like Al Gore who believe the earth needs a reduction of humans. We all know Mr. Gore will not be first in line to sacrifice his own life for the sake of the planet. Most likely this will be the poor, the minorities, and those in still developing countries.
While I do believe the environment is important and that we should be stewards of the earth, I also believe that I and the rest of humanity are part of the environment. I do not believe we are a cancer that is infecting and killing the environment. Humanity is not the problem here. I want to protect our environment, but not at the expense of human life. I will gladly sacrifice the peaceful sound of birds outside my window if it means saving over 300 children a day from dying of malaria.
To find out more about the documentary, visit their website and find out how to host a screening of your own!
Thanks to FUS College Republicans for the viewing and the free snacks!