Tuesday, March 30, 2010

A Simple Woman's Daybook - Hat tip, Kristine

Outside my window - Blue Colorado skies and a thermometer that is (allegedly) going to hit 80 degrees today... in March!  How I love thee, Rocky Mountain springtime.  I can see a lovely artificial lake from my office building, and the walking path surrounding it is already filling up with strollers, dogs, and a man who sells hot dogs and snow cones... bliss.

I am thinking - By this time tomorrow, I will be en route to flyover country to visit the in-laws, and loving the Midwestern hospitality and cuisine that awaits us!

I am thankful for - A husband who willingly dug my suitcase of summer clothes out of the garage this morning at 6 am so that I could wear a "modified" sundress to the office (don't worry, I dressed it up).

I am hoping - That the Mexican dive I've been dreaming about hitting for lunch today has extra, extra hot green chile to satisfy my insane capsaicin cravings... can't get a high enough Scoville unit to satisfy this kid!

On my mind - Lent was so, so brief this year.  I blinked, and it was Holy Week.  I think being married had something to do with how "easy" it seemed; there's something to be said for accountability.

Noticing that - The media is continuing to surprise me with shockingly balanced reporting on Obamacare: the aftermath.  Last night even NPR (of all outlets) had some scathing words for our Commander and Thief.  Here's hoping America's wake up call hasn't called come too late...

A few plans for the week - Lounging around mom and dad's casa and enjoying some quality time with my other set of younger siblings.

From the kitchen - Heh.  Nada.  We were considering eating condiments for breakfast, but settled on freezerburned Ezekial bread toast with peanut butter. 

Around the house - My clothes.  Everywhere.  In a desperate attempt to find any pair of pants that fits comfortably, I've searched everywhere.  The one pair of maternity pants I've purchased were cheap, and they look and feel that way.  Also, in a startling turn of events, I hate my Bella band.  Hate it.  It's the least comfortable thing I could imagine putting on my body right now, when everything feels confining against my tummy and baby is just hanging out down low.  Whoever designed that thing was either a sadist or 6 feet tall and carrying much higher.

One of my favorite things - My daily catch up calls with my little sister, thousands of miles away but as reliable as the morning commute.  Lizzie + Mikey screaming in the background like a pterodactyl + a tall half-caf with cream = drive time bliss. 

A picture I am sharing - Honeymoon bliss...can we go back now?

Monday, March 29, 2010

Say it Again, George

Happy Holy Week, everyone!  As we enter into the mystery and majesty of our Lord's passion and death, let's keep in mind that the same forces who sought Him nailed to a cross 2,000 years ago are still very much at work today, and let's pray for our Holy Father as he, too, enters into the passion of Christ.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Couldn't Have Said it Better Myself

My dear readers, and particularly those of an anti-Catholic ilk, please enlighten yourself by means of the following piece from an unlikely source

Monday, March 22, 2010

The Hangover

Okay, not really.  Clearly the unborn one wouldn't take kindly to that... But if I ever needed a drink in muy life... whew.

Our Constitution: spat upon.  Our legislative branch of government: squabbling like a pack of wild dogs... or the British Parliment.  Our nation: bitterly divided over an issue bigger than any "hope" or "change" ... and yet the sun still rose on the land of the free this morning.  Perhaps a little less free than we were yesterday... but perhaps a little more sober.  Awake.  Aware that this is really happening.  And will continue to happen, so long as we are complacent.

As the newscasts rolled tape this morning, a few glimmers of hope: Virginia.  Flordia.  Lawsuits challenging the unconstitutional nature of the circus - the freak show - that took place on Capital Hill yesterday.  And, unexpectedly: Rep. Stupak.

I was as angry with him as with any of yesterday's perpetrators, but I heard news this morning that gave me pause: Pelosi, according to a source on the Hill, had the votes she needed, with our without Stupak.  And so he made a last ditch effort, a mere footnote in the saga of how America committed moral suicide really, which may have been for nothing, but which was something.  He secured the Executive Order.

In exchange for this concession on the President's part, Rep. Stupak was required to pay a heavy price: his own "Yes" vote for the abhorrent bill, perhaps putting the nail in his own political coffin.

If all that is necessary for evil to flourish is the silence of good men who do nothing... it's good to know that one man did something.  Not enough... but something.
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. Romans 5:1-4

Friday, March 19, 2010

Call Your Representatives... Today!

The final ObamaCare call list - I know you're sick of hearing about it.  God knows I'm sick of talking and writing about it.  But those bullying thugs on the Hill don't - or won't - hear our voices.  Pick up your phone and cast your vote, while the right is still ours.

(Please note: Most representatives' email contact forms require you to enter a zip code and address located within their district.)

Talking points: Americans for Tax Reform (PDF)

House Democrats on the fence:

Brian Baird (WA-03)
202-225-3536
EMAIL

Lincoln Davis (TN-04)
202-225-6831
EMAIL

Glenn Nye (VA-02)
202-225-4215
EMAIL

John Tanner (TN-08)
202-225-4714
EMAIL

Harry Teague (NM-02)
202-225-2365
EMAIL

Jason Altmire (PA-4)
202-225- 2565
EMAIL

John Boccieri (OH-16)
202-225-3876
EMAIL

Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24)
202-225-2706.
EMAIL

Scott Murphy (NY-20)
202-225-5614
EMAIL

Tell Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) not to give in to Obama.
202-225-6636
EMAIL

Here's The Hill's latest whip count

Here's the NRCC's Code Red target list

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Obama vs. Jefferson

"I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedures are in the House and in the Senate." - Barack Hussein Obama

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone.  The people themselves are its only safe depositories." - Thomas Jefferson

"By the time the vote has taken place ... (on healthcare reform), not only I will know what's in it, you will know what's in it..." - Barack Hussein Obama

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." - Thomas Jefferson


"This notion that this process has been not transparent, that people don't know what's in the bill... everybody knows what's in the bill!" - Barack Hussein Obama


"He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors." - Thomas Jefferson

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Do Your Thang

Call list: 16 Dems who voted NO and now may switch their votes to YES
(Please note: Most representatives' email contact forms require you to enter a zip code and address located within their district.)

House Democrats who voted against ObamaCare the first time but are still on the fence this time around:

Brian Baird (WA-03)
202-225-3536
EMAIL

John Barrow (GA-12)
202-225-2823
EMAIL

Allen Boyd (FL-02)
202-225-5235
EMAIL

Travis Childers (MS-01)
202-225-4306
EMAIL

Lincoln Davis (TN-04)
202-225-6831
EMAIL

Betsy Markey (CO-04)
202-225-4676
EMAIL

Jim Matheson (UT-02)
202-225-3011
EMAIL

Michael McMahon (NY-13)
202-225-3371
EMAIL

Glenn Nye (VA-02)
202-225-4215
EMAIL

John Tanner (TN-08)
202-225-4714
EMAIL

Harry Teague (NM-02)
202-225-2365
EMAIL

Bart Gordon (TN-6)
202-225-4231
EMAIL

Jason Altmire (PA-4)
202-225- 2565
EMAIL

John Boccieri (OH-16)
202-225-3876
EMAIL

Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24)
202-225-2706.
EMAIL

Scott Murphy (NY-20)
202-225-5614
EMAIL

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Save the Children

What won't the (mostly) democrats stoop to in their quest to "overhaul" health care?  You've gotta love the guts it took for Harry Reid to parade a bereaved 7 year old in front of the Senate earlier this week, feeding him lines carefully designed to tug on the right heartstrings and deliver the appropriate key words to communicate his sorrow over losing his mother due to (sob) "insufficient health care coverage."

But then, from a collective hell bent on the destruction of children at whatever cost, what wouldn't they stoop to?  Children are disposable and void of personhood while they're inside the womb, so why not pimp out a grieving toddler to make your point? 

Here's hoping that the American people recognize this pathetic and indecent posturing for what it is: smoke, mirrors, and wildly inappropriate behavior violating the rights of a child, all in hopes of a sympathy bump in the polls.

Nice try, but I think we all know that the rights and well-being of children are matters well above these people's paygrades.

Monday, March 15, 2010

Selectively Tolarant

"Either you are with me, or you are my enemy." - Anakin Skywalker 

Ever notice how the concepts of "rights" and "freedom of speech" get tossed around like so many other buzzwords of our time, only to be rescinded the moment you say something with which the champion of said concepts takes offense to/disagrees with?

Such is the state of our cultural and political milieu.  In a society which publicly extols tolerance as virtue and relativism as the only absolute truth... it's absolutely mind boggling to watch what happens when one tries to carry either to its logical conclusion.

Because when those persons who claim to champion choice and acceptance as universal entitlements are faced with an idea, circumstance or individual they find unsavory, they do what comes naturally to the human mind: they make a judgment of their own, and do indeed beg to differ.

If you don't believe me, examine with an unbiased eye (if you can) the cultural showdown issue of the moment, Christianity vs. homosexuality.  It would appear that the Church, on the one side, is considered hopelessly outdated, hypocritical and hateful in her opposition to homosexual behavior, and in her refusal to officially condone or sanction such behavior, despite pressures to do just that.

On the other hand, the champions of the homosexual agenda, gay activists and the media, are portrayed as heroic and somehow revolutionary in their attempts to bully the Church into doing exactly that: changing.  The very thing they claim they cannot - or will not - do, they are demanding of their perceived adversary.  The irony is stark and might even be entertaining, were the stakes not so high.

Because it's not enough, it turns out, to live and let live.  When someone believes something to be true, holds it as dogma, extols it as reality ... they can't stand to be contradicted or disagreed with.  Besides shaking the foundation of certainty upon which their knowledge rests, it irks them that someone should beg to differ on something so dear and so true for them.  Despite every protest that "what's true for them isn't true for me... they won't rest until they reverse the adage and make it so, force it to be so.

Hence the push for curriculum overhaul and revision in our school systems.  Hence the agenda-driven entertainment programming on the big and small screens.  Hence the inability to rest until rights are not simply guaranteed for those who believe as they do, but the rights of those who disagree are eradicated.

How's that for tolerance? 

It begs the question really, quo veritas?  And whether or not true veritas can be discovered, if we're all operating from subjective positions of experience and personal belief.

Sigh.

What's a post-modern, globally-minded citizen to do?  If only there were some, I don't know, higher Truth to check our beliefs against, some immovable yardstick agaisnt which we might measure the assumptions and certainties of our age. 

If only...

Friday, March 12, 2010

Gay As I Wanna Be ...

Between Boulder and Mississippi (there's an unnatural pairing if ever there was one), the debate over "gay rights" is raging hot and heavy in the national and local press right now, leaving many wondering what all the fuss is about.

The Catholic Church's teachings on homosexuality, scarcely explored and oft-misrepresented, have come under particularly heavy fire in my neck of the woods in light of Archbishop Charles Chaput's affirmation of the archdiocese of Denver's - and the Church's - enrollment policies for Catholic schools.  In a press release given earlier this week, the Archdiocese eloquently and firmly stated that:
To preserve the mission of our schools, and to respect the faith of wider Catholic community, we expect all families who enroll students to live in accord with Catholic teaching.  Our admission policy states clearly, “No person shall be admitted as a student in any Catholic school unless that person and his/her parent(s) subscribe to the school’s philosophy and agree to abide by the educational policies and regulations of the school and Archdiocese.”

Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment. To allow children in these circumstances to continue in our school would be a cause of confusion for the student in that what they are being taught in school conflicts with what they experience in the home.
 Accusations of hatred, bigotry, intolerance and slander have been sent flying, and GLBT activists in Boulder - and nationwide - have been stirred into a frenzy, but is there cause for such distress?

Let's examine the reasoning behind the decision to refuse re-enrollment to these kids.  According to the above statement, prospective parents are fully aware of the implicit adherence to Catholic teachings upon enrollment of their offspring in a Catholic institution.  I suppose that Jewish, Muslim and heck, even Montessori schools have some kind of "code of conduct" or "system of belief" to which they ascribe, and from which they inform their academic curriculum.  If not, then what would be the point of attending  a specific type of school?

Catholic teaching, however difficult to swallow in a multicultural milieu such as ours, has remained consistent, if nothing else, over the millennium.  Why then all the shock and disbelief over the school enforcing their own clearly stated policy?

Because it's "intolerant."  Of course, that same argument could be turned against the parents in this situation, seeking to enforce and superimpose their beliefs upon the Catholic Church... but I don't suppose that's going to be a popular argument.

Because the Church is one of the last remaining scapegoats of our time.  It is perfectly acceptable - laudable even - to demonstrate the most outrageous anti-Catholic bigotry in the media and in common conversation at cocktail parties.  It's acceptable to advocate for the advancement of anti-Catholic legislation in our government.  And it's becoming increasingly popular to pressure Catholics into abandoning their practices of faith in public... in short, it's the last acceptable form of discrimination.

But isn't that precisely what the Church is attempting to do to gays?

In a word, no.

The Church views the practice of  homosexuality as just one disorder in a long list of conditions which afflict the human person.  (Consequently, until recent decades, so too did the American Psychological Association, but you'll have to score a copy of DSM-II if you don't believe me.)

Let me be quite clear in stating that the Church does not - nor has she ever - condemned the homosexual person.  Partly because she staunchly refuses to identify the person by the disorder from which he suffers.  A person is never just an alcoholic or just a cancer sufferer... the condition does not the man make.

I'm sure blood pressures are spiking at this point because, yes, I just drew the analogy between homosexuality and disease.  But hear me out.  Or rather, hear us out.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in paragraph 2357:
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
Hard words, those.  But read on.  Paragraph 2358 concludes:
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.(emphasis mine)
 Respect.  Compassion.  Sensitivity.  Three values that any human person - however he or she might identify sexually - longs to be viewed in light of.

Do I contradict myself, then?  Am I foolishly advocating for an archaic institution which is in regular violation of all three of the aforementioned values?

Again, no.  It is not the Catholic Church who commits the grave sin of giving the suffering person over to their difficulty, to their compulsion... it is our culture.

Study after study has revealed the loneliness, depression, hopelessness, and instability which mark the homosexual lifestyle... but we now advocate for it as a "civil right," insisting that it is intolerance of the behavior - not the behavior itself - which is causing such anguish.  It's funny though, because in the Netherlands, arguably one of the most pro-gay places on the planet, a place where the practice of homosexuality has been widely and unquestioningly embraced, the suicide rate among individuals identifying as gay is 8 times that of men in heterosexual marriages.

I return then to the Denver Archdioceses' statement, focusing now on the closing paragraph: "To allow children in these circumstances to continue in our school would be a cause of confusion for the student in that what they are being taught in school conflicts with what they experience in the home."

Odd that the Church, the very "cause" of such suffering in persons identifying as homosexual, would base a decision upon the purported well being of the students.  I'd wager many would argue that's not at all the case.  But it is, much as our confused and troubled world would like to deny it.

The Church recognizes the grave disservice done to a child who is being taught one thing at home and another in school... and with that, the autonomy of the parent.  Now, does this mean the Church should cow to the beliefs of the individual and adjust her doctrine accordingly to suit the will of the people?  Again, no.  It doesn't work that way.  I've said it before, but "man does not his own reality construct."  Well, except on reality TV.  But that's really another matter.

What this couple is essentially asking of the Church is a renouncement of belief on the Church's part.  Notice that the Church does not respond in kind, does not demand from the couple that they renounce their beliefs.  It is quite simply a difference of opinions ... on the nature of sin.

Our role as Catholics, as Christians, is to preach the Gospel, not to enforce it.  I know a million people would argue that this is precisely the Church's policy ... but they misunderstand the nature of sin and of the human person.  The Gospel, after all, speaks for itself through Christ and His disciples, through their lived witness, and much of what is contained "is a hard teaching... who can bear it?"

Who indeed?

More to follow...

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

A Woman's Place

In a multi-national study of 24,000 adults in 23 countries recently released by Reuters, respondents were asked to respond to the following statement: "A woman's place is in the home, true or false?"

Provocatively worded, yes.  Even more provocative were the statistics it yielded:
"[the survey] showed that people from India (54 percent), Turkey (52 percent), Japan (48 percent), China, Russia, Hungary (34 percent each) and South Korea (33 percent) were most likely to agree that women should not work.

And, perhaps surprisingly, people aged between 18 and 34 years are most likely to hold that view, not those from the older, and more traditional, generation."
Okay all you old school feminists out there, start freaking.  It would seem that the liberated younger generation sprung from your loins are starting to assert their own "freedom of choice," recognizing that sometimes the workplace isn't the greatest place to be.

Now I'm all for women working outside the home... provided that there are not more pressing matters to be attended to inside the home.  And if the family can swing it.  And that's a big if.

And it doesn't just "happen."  Not in this economy.  Not in a financial and cultural system such as ours where dual incomes are assumed and housing rates and the cost of living reflects this, painfully in some cases.  No, choosing to stay home means choosing a whole host of other potential hardships: loneliness, loss of income, career-track derailment... not to mention an interminable sentence of regular diaper changing and laundry folding.  So who in their right mind would choose such a lifestyle?

A mother, that's who.  Because from the moment of conception, her life becomes utterly other-centered, and all those big dreams and career goals necessarily take a back seat to that little bit of immortality you've conspired to bring into the universe. 

Does this rule out a future in the workplace, a foray into politics, a potential professorship one day down the road?  By no means.  These may still be in the cards ... but not in the immediate future.  The here and now becomes much more focused, necessarily given over to the child who depends utterly upon you, more demanding than any boss and more pressing than any deadline.

It is not impossible to be a mother working outside the home... but neither is it ideal, contrary to what we may have had drilled into us growing up.  I can remember so many conversations with girlfriends and classmates which included the phrase "But I don't want to be just a mom," followed by furtive approval-seeking glances cast round the group or classroom.  Because although we were programmed with a deep reverence for choice ... there were some choices that were just unacceptable, not to mention archaic.

Which is odd, all things considered.

As it turns out, at least according to this study, there are more and more oddballs cropping up round the world, women embracing the bold choice to take on a most serious and demanding task worthy of all their training and pedigree: parenting their own child.  Apparently it's a even more specialized market than we realized, and it can't be done by just anybody.

Or rather, can't be done as well by just anybody.  Because although you might be the best lawyer your firm has employed in 50 years, the best pediatric cardiologist in your geographic area, or the most charismatic second grade teacher in your entire district... no one can be a better mother to your children than you can, and that's a fact. 

So the next time somebody tries to bully you into reconsidering your "free choice" to be an at-home parent, be sure to call to mind the nobility of your work, and the specialization required to be the heart of your home ... and kindly clue them into the highly specialized and wildly sought-after market niche you're filling: somebody's mom.

Monday, March 8, 2010

Might As Well Face It

I'm addicted to LOST.

Can anyone else speak into the stunning contrast between the entire series and C.S. Lewis' Perelandra?  Or am I making that up?  Also, if someone could tell me whether or not John Locke is, in fact, Satan... I think I'd rest easier at night.

I can't believe there are a mere 5 episodes left... and I don't know how we'll possibly fill the void of Tuesday nights.  This show is quite literally the only piece of pop culture that doesn't leave me feeling void and sometimes soiled after consuming... and I think about it after it ends.  Every. Freaking. Episode.

Guess I'll have to get a real hobby.  Maybe one like this guy.  Yikes...

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Contracepting Vocations

Check out this fabulous piece I stumbled upon during a random google image search for a picture of my 10 week old babe.  I'm sure I'll be reflecting on this for weeks to come.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Monster Baby

My nephew and godson, Michael Joseph, is the most precious little man I've ever met... and perhaps the most proficient in growth and development.  He's 5 months old today and tips the scales at 22 lbs.  This, I have been told, is not normal.











Now, be assured, he has the height to match his heft, though the above image is perhaps a tad unflattering to his midsection... but I love his little tummy! 











Suffice it to say, I'm wondering how precocious the development of my own little peanut will be ... and hoping that he or she is comparatively more petite, at least in the beginning. 

 
Love you Mikey!