But I feel like my Tea Party readers would enjoy this video:
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Swine Flu
Sorry about not being to put up many posts recently. I was suffering from swine flu all last week and I have been playing catch-up with all my classes this week. Thank goodness for understanding professors!
There is not much going on around Franciscan these days. Mostly, everyone is winding down from Fall Break and bracing themselves for the end of the semester. So far there hasn't been any major Pro-Life events this week, but I am sure that will change soon. The Students for Life club here is not silent for long.
One thing has changed on campus and has garnered the attention of our campus newspaper. There is a branch of Feminists for Life that is starting a club on campus. I haven't gone to any meetings nor have I gotten any emails from them, but I am looking forward to seeing what this club is all about. Since the Students for Life club is so big here, I hardly have any influence there. So I am thinking about joining this smaller pro-life club in order to take on some more leadership-y roles. I will let everyone know how that goes!
Other than that, I am just about complete my monster of a theology paper. I know, I know, I shouldn't be complaining about theology classes at Franciscan. I am just saying that this paper is a lot of hard work (and hard research!). Ironically, my paper is about innocent suffering. Maybe I will post bits of it later.
There is not much going on around Franciscan these days. Mostly, everyone is winding down from Fall Break and bracing themselves for the end of the semester. So far there hasn't been any major Pro-Life events this week, but I am sure that will change soon. The Students for Life club here is not silent for long.
One thing has changed on campus and has garnered the attention of our campus newspaper. There is a branch of Feminists for Life that is starting a club on campus. I haven't gone to any meetings nor have I gotten any emails from them, but I am looking forward to seeing what this club is all about. Since the Students for Life club is so big here, I hardly have any influence there. So I am thinking about joining this smaller pro-life club in order to take on some more leadership-y roles. I will let everyone know how that goes!
Other than that, I am just about complete my monster of a theology paper. I know, I know, I shouldn't be complaining about theology classes at Franciscan. I am just saying that this paper is a lot of hard work (and hard research!). Ironically, my paper is about innocent suffering. Maybe I will post bits of it later.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Does anyone know...?
...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
Pro-Life Pumpkins
from @MatthewWarner - (follow him on Twitter)
Give out more than just candy this Halloween, give out the message of life!
Send pictures of your pro-life pumpkin here.
Give out more than just candy this Halloween, give out the message of life!
Send pictures of your pro-life pumpkin here.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
The Mismeasure of Women
I don't know how I got onto the New York Time's website. One minute I was playing on Farmville and the next I was reading editorials. I must be my mother's daughter.
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.
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
Not Evil, Just Wrong
Tonight at Franciscan University the new anti-global warming hysteria documentary, "Not Evil, Just Wrong" made its world premiere. I have no idea if "world premiere" refers to just this campus or to America or the world in general, that's just what the poster said.
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!
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!
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Trial run of mobile blogging
This post will be a test for my new mobile blogging app on my G1. I am on my way to the Marian Rosary Procession on campus, so I will also be testing pictures.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The Interwebz is back! And it's a Feast Day...
Since last Friday, I have been without internet in my dorm room. If you're a college student, you will understand how devastating that kind of problem is. If you're not, you will probably think I have an addiction. I don't. I just take FarmVille very seriously.
My guardian angels must have been looking out for me because the internet has decided to come back to Marian Hall!
And of course, today is the feast of the Archangels - St. Michael, St. Gabriel, and St. Raphael.
As you may or may not know, the Archangel is only one of the nine choirs of angels, the others including:
Seraphim
Cherubim
Thrones
Dominions
Virtues
Powers
Principalities
and Regular Angels
Each play their own role in the Kingdom of God, but the Archangels have the distinction of being the leading angels when it comes to revealing God's plan in salvation history.
They also announce critical events - like the Apocalypse and whatnot.
My guardian angels must have been looking out for me because the internet has decided to come back to Marian Hall!
And of course, today is the feast of the Archangels - St. Michael, St. Gabriel, and St. Raphael.
As you may or may not know, the Archangel is only one of the nine choirs of angels, the others including:
Seraphim
Cherubim
Thrones
Dominions
Virtues
Powers
Principalities
and Regular Angels
Each play their own role in the Kingdom of God, but the Archangels have the distinction of being the leading angels when it comes to revealing God's plan in salvation history.
They also announce critical events - like the Apocalypse and whatnot.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
15 Abortions
If you talk to any pro-choice person, at some point in the conversation you will here this line:
"It's a very difficult choice. No woman WANTS to get an abortion. No woman LIKES abortion."
Unfortunately, if you look at the case of Irene Vilar, the above statement is absolutely false.
In one of the most tragic news stories that I stumbled upon today (thanks, again, to YouTube), this woman I named above has suffered through 15 - yes 15 - separate abortions. Although statistics show that once a woman does have one abortion she is more likely to have another one (I think that number is about 45%), it is still hard to believe that a woman could actually go through that torturous ordeal more than once. Why did she do it? According to her autobiography:
She "needed another self-injury to get high."
Yes, because of this woman's disturbing childhood (a suicidal mother and two heroin addicted brothers) and abusive relationship, she was forced into this manic abortion state. Her husband was very stern when it came to having children by stating repeatedly that children ruined his sexual desire. Self-centered much? Of course she was forced to take birth control pills but as she became more and more addicted to abortion, she intentionally started skipping months. All of this occurred in the past 16 years, meaning this woman had abortions scheduled annually. Yikes.
I believe that instead of judging her or praising her (depending on what side of the abortion debate you stand), we should all just pray for her. It seems like she is far beyond any human intervention on the matter and given the troubling history of mental and social problems in her family, she may be unreachable for a very long time. It certainly is a shame that no one had reached out to help her sooner.
I have not read her book and I am not going to. Why? It's not because I am intolerant. It's not because I am judging her. I would love to get to know more of her story. However, this statement on her official website is why I cannot:
" 'Impossible Motherhood' is committed to eliminating the stigma of abortion by creating new ways to talk about abortion honestly and publicly."
All I can say is, may God help her and her family. I am going to the Tomb of the Unborn here at Franciscan tomorrow to pray for the 15 children that have lost their lives.
"It's a very difficult choice. No woman WANTS to get an abortion. No woman LIKES abortion."
Unfortunately, if you look at the case of Irene Vilar, the above statement is absolutely false.
In one of the most tragic news stories that I stumbled upon today (thanks, again, to YouTube), this woman I named above has suffered through 15 - yes 15 - separate abortions. Although statistics show that once a woman does have one abortion she is more likely to have another one (I think that number is about 45%), it is still hard to believe that a woman could actually go through that torturous ordeal more than once. Why did she do it? According to her autobiography:
She "needed another self-injury to get high."
Yes, because of this woman's disturbing childhood (a suicidal mother and two heroin addicted brothers) and abusive relationship, she was forced into this manic abortion state. Her husband was very stern when it came to having children by stating repeatedly that children ruined his sexual desire. Self-centered much? Of course she was forced to take birth control pills but as she became more and more addicted to abortion, she intentionally started skipping months. All of this occurred in the past 16 years, meaning this woman had abortions scheduled annually. Yikes.
I believe that instead of judging her or praising her (depending on what side of the abortion debate you stand), we should all just pray for her. It seems like she is far beyond any human intervention on the matter and given the troubling history of mental and social problems in her family, she may be unreachable for a very long time. It certainly is a shame that no one had reached out to help her sooner.
I have not read her book and I am not going to. Why? It's not because I am intolerant. It's not because I am judging her. I would love to get to know more of her story. However, this statement on her official website is why I cannot:
" 'Impossible Motherhood' is committed to eliminating the stigma of abortion by creating new ways to talk about abortion honestly and publicly."
All I can say is, may God help her and her family. I am going to the Tomb of the Unborn here at Franciscan tomorrow to pray for the 15 children that have lost their lives.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Mutant Robots from Outer space!!
... well ok, not from outer space.
In a recent interview, Dr. Ray Kurzweil dropped the news that he believes humans will become immortal in 20 years. How is this possible, you might ask?
We will become robots. DUH.
Or to put it in Dr. Kurzweil's term, "cyborgs."
I found the article about this prediction here at Telegraph.co.uk. I assume it's going to spark some interesting debates about bioethics and end of life issues. Not to mention the problem science is having playing God.
Here are some key sentences from the article:
"I and many other scientists now believe that in around 20 years we will have the means to reprogramme our bodies' stone-age software so we can halt, then reverse, ageing. Then nanotechnology will let us live for ever."
"Virtual sex will become commonplace."
"So we can look forward to a world where humans become cyborgs, with artificial limbs and organs."
Dr. Kurzweil is talking about immortality based around technological advancements that would replace and "improve" on the human body. Effectively this is saying,
"Dear God,
Anything you can do, we can do better. We can do better anything better than you.
In your face,
Humanity"
It doesn't sound like a very nice statement, does it? I think the whole venture into "improving the human body" will lead to incredibly dangerous ramifications.
Come on, Dr. Kurweil, haven't you read any Michael Crichton?
In a recent interview, Dr. Ray Kurzweil dropped the news that he believes humans will become immortal in 20 years. How is this possible, you might ask?
We will become robots. DUH.
Or to put it in Dr. Kurzweil's term, "cyborgs."
I found the article about this prediction here at Telegraph.co.uk. I assume it's going to spark some interesting debates about bioethics and end of life issues. Not to mention the problem science is having playing God.
Here are some key sentences from the article:
"I and many other scientists now believe that in around 20 years we will have the means to reprogramme our bodies' stone-age software so we can halt, then reverse, ageing. Then nanotechnology will let us live for ever."
"Virtual sex will become commonplace."
"So we can look forward to a world where humans become cyborgs, with artificial limbs and organs."
Dr. Kurzweil is talking about immortality based around technological advancements that would replace and "improve" on the human body. Effectively this is saying,
"Dear God,
Anything you can do, we can do better. We can do better anything better than you.
In your face,
Humanity"
It doesn't sound like a very nice statement, does it? I think the whole venture into "improving the human body" will lead to incredibly dangerous ramifications.
Come on, Dr. Kurweil, haven't you read any Michael Crichton?
American Universities
Being a student of higher learning, after my catechetics class, I went on YouTube. Although YouTube has a lot of really sketchy and ill-produced videos, there are some gems that can be found.
Today I discovered Steven Crowder. In a recent video, he went on campus to UC Berkeley (you know, the one with all the hippies) and uncovered what has happened to education in the hands of liberal professors.
The video highlights the failings of misinformation, revisionist history, and propaganda - all favorites of socialist, communist, and totalitarian governments. Oh, and also a big favorite among the liberal professors that make up 35% of all university professors.
Watch the video and see why its so crucial that American children learn REAL American history, before they get to the stage of mindlessly following anyone who calls themselves an "intellectual."
Today I discovered Steven Crowder. In a recent video, he went on campus to UC Berkeley (you know, the one with all the hippies) and uncovered what has happened to education in the hands of liberal professors.
The video highlights the failings of misinformation, revisionist history, and propaganda - all favorites of socialist, communist, and totalitarian governments. Oh, and also a big favorite among the liberal professors that make up 35% of all university professors.
Watch the video and see why its so crucial that American children learn REAL American history, before they get to the stage of mindlessly following anyone who calls themselves an "intellectual."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
