Get A Clue
— Posted by Annie (November 15, 2006 at 3:31 pm)
I was really annoyed with a particular article from last Sunday’s Chicago Tribune. I have to wonder if Ross Werland is stuck in the 60’s? Doesn’t he realize that there are dozens of STDs because people choose to sleep around? And that most of these STDs wreak havoc on women – possibly rendering them infertile? But why should he care about that? He’s more concerned about whether or not people think he’s a freak.
As an aside, I happened to really like being part of a “small crowd” and so do most people I know from large families.
I suggest you write to our dear friend and enlighten the poor soul: (rwerland@tribune.com).
This entry is filed under Chastity, Contraception, Sexuality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Joe says:
And you read the Trib for what reason? Information? Com’on You should know better. The Chicago Tribune is a joke, time would be better spent counting blades of grass on your front lawn.
Comment posted November 15th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
Mike says:
Joe,
I agree reading the Chicago Trib is a waste of time. I have not purchased the paper in 15 years. Their articles are so slanted and biased, it makes me sick.
Heck, I’m a huge high school football fan and even Bob Sakomota makes me sick at the Trib when he ranks his weekly top 20 high school football teams. It seems his top 20 are influenced more by where the Trib wants to sell more papers then what teams should be in the top 20.
Anyhow, if anyone else loves high school playoff football like I do, then tune into WPWR-TV Chicago (Channel 50) this Friday and Saturday night they will be airing two great state semi-final games. Here they are…
Friday Night 7PM
Class 7A: St. Rita at Providence Catholic in New Lenox.
Saturday Night 7PM
Class 8A: Mt. Carmel at Lincoln Way East in New Lenox.
Let the games begin!
Mike
Comment posted November 15th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Mike says:
After Bloody Tuesday (Election Day), did anyone notice the reading at Mass on Wednesday?
It was St. Paul Chapter 2, versus 12-18. You need to read it. Listen to Barbara McGuigan talk about the passage on EWTN’s Weekly Pro-Life show on 11-14-06.
Here is how you can listen…
I think this is the best Pro-Life Show in the media. It’s weekly on Tuesday’s on EWTN Radio. If you missed Barbara’s Show this week you can listen to the archived version. Just click on the link and type in “Barbara McGuigan” in the second search engine.
http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/intro.asp
Mike
Comment posted November 15th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Mike says:
I’m sorry the reading was Philippians 2: 12-18.
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/philippians/philippians2.htm
Mike
Comment posted November 15th, 2006 at 10:36 pm
mary kay says:
Lauren,
This is from the Oprah blog. Wouldn’t want you to miss it…
You asked:
“where the heck are you getting the fact that obama would kill babies outside of the womb?”
Mike responds:
Lauren,
Didn’t you read the article linked in post #10 or did you not want to hear it or did you not comprehend it?
Mike
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 7:04 am
John says:
Joe said: “And you read the Trib for what reason? Information? Com’on You should know better. The Chicago Tribune is a joke, time would be better spent counting blades of grass on your front lawn.”
Your comment here doesn’t convince me why one ought not read the Chicago Tribune. Presumably it’s because it — like most every mainstream media outlet — generally has a liberal bias.
If that is in fact your rationale, that in itself doesn’t convince me why reading it is a waste of time.
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 11:25 am
Rosie says:
He doesn’t have to convince you John, he was offering his opinion and then Mike agreed, do you disagree?
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Annie says:
Joe may have just been offering an opinion, Rosie, but in my opinion, his tone was a little rude. And I think John has every right to ask a more convincing argument.
I’m assuming Joe and Mike and the rest of you didn’t even read the article I posted simply becuase it was from the Trib?
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Rosie says:
Fine, Annie, then let’s address every remark that is rude if we are going to single out one person. Let’s start with Lauren shall we? It seems to me that people are a little too accepting of outright nastiness than they are of a bit of sarcasm. She has been rude to you on several occasions and I have noticed that there has been NOTHING said in return. Is Lauren more deserving of your charity because she is a pro-abort, I don’t get it, are we supposed to coddle pro-aborts and not give fellow pro-lifers the by when they say something in a way that is questionable to us? I thought he was insulting the paper, not once did I think he was being insulting to you. John’s remark was insulting because he was acting as though Joe did a homework assignment that wasn’t up to his standards. Whatever, apparently their personalities clash.
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Lauren says:
I thought I had heard it all, but the Chicago Tribune has a liberal bias!?!? Where have I been?! The Trib has not endorsed a Democrat for president since 1872. Really, I’ve heard doozies in my day, but liberal bias in the tribune that tops them all. I thought it was common knowledge that the trib is a republican paper. I guess not.
Anyways—go Lincoln-Way East!!!! I presided as Class President there for four years. GO griffins kick some Mt. Carmel behind!
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Lauren says:
That article by the way was hilarious. Seriously no religious conservative who wants me to be abstinent is ever going to get me to be if I dont want to on my own. Even less likely the government is going to have an effect on that. And quite frankly I dont want my tax dollars spent telling me so. I’m 22 years old, and any sort of abstinence education is merely government funding religion and I am really really really really really really really really really really against that.
Annie I bet it would be fun to be part of a big family. I only have one sister. I love her dearly, I cant imagine having more of them to punch and hug.
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
mary kay says:
Am I wrong in believing that we aren’t requiring other sex-ed programs to be removed, but only asking that an alternative view (abstinence) also be taught?
I am really, really, really, really,really, really, really, really, really, really, against tax-payer money funding teaching birth control.
Why is any of this being taught in schools anyway? Either teach abstinence only as a viable option alongside birth control use, or better yet, stay away from using the school setting to teach ANYTHING about sex….
MK
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Annie says:
Rosie, I do hold pro-lifers to a higher standard. Just as I hold myself to a higher standard as a Catholic. In other words, we should know better.
And thank you Lauren for acutally reading the article! And thank you (and Mary Kay) for actually commenting on it.
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
mary kay says:
sorry about all those links, they came along with the article…I’m just not technically savvy…actually I’m technically impaired…
OOPS!
MK
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
mary kay says:
There, no links…
Graphic Girls’ Sex Ed Book Urging Lesbianism Published by Government Funded Toronto Agency
Called one of “most irresponsible and obscene” youth documents ever seen
By Gudrun Schultz
TORONTO, September 19, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Toronto youth are being given a manual with detailed instructions on lesbian sex acts that is published and distributed by Toronto social services agency, St. Stephen’s Community House, an agency funded by all three levels of government.
The Little Black Book–A Book on Healthy Sexuality Written by Grrrls [sic] for Grrrls claims to be a youth-friendly guide to teenage sexuality, offering girls advice and information.
In reality it reads like a guide to lesbian pornography, with section titles such as “My First Time F***ing a Girl” and “How to Use a Dental Dam” (a “safe sex” device for oral/anal sex).
The guide contains dangerously inaccurate information on “safe sex” practices, assuring girls that using devices to reduce sexually transmitted infections offers reliable protection, without including warnings of the failure rates of such devices. The World Health Organization warns that condoms, even when used properly, have a failure rate of 20 percent, crucial information missing from the manual.
“This is one of the most irresponsible and obscene school documents that we have ever seen,” said Joseph Ben-Ami, executive director for the Institute for Canadian Values, in a press release. “Using this as a guide to healthy sexuality for teenage girls would be one of the most potentially harmful decisions that any school could make.”
Ben-Ami called the book a “veiled propaganda piece,” saying it “undermines healthy parent-child relationships, substitutes voodoo myths for actual science, and provides advice that, if followed, will certainly result in real and serious harm to those who follow it.”
The guide encourages girls to explore lesbian sexuality, making the unfounded claim that only 10 percent of the population is heterosexual, with 80 percent being “mixed” or bi-sexual.
“The guide does not just endorse homosexual practice–it virtually promotes it, and portrays those who object to such practices, particularly parents, as being homophobes, stating that ‘A lot of parents are homophobic, and so are their children until they get minds of their own,” said Ben-Ami.
In one of the worst examples of biased and indefensible statements contained in the manual, the guide makes the out-of-context statement that “[i]f you need someone to represent God The Holiness, then for me, it’s a fat black dyke.”
“What this statement has to do with healthy emotional and sexual development is beyond us,” Ben-Ami said.
The manual was produced by St. Stephen’s Community House in Toronto, with funding from all three levels of government. The organization’s financial statements for the year ending March 31, 2006, show a total of $7,841,131 in government funding.
That number includes contributions from Canada’s federal government ($1,543,108), the province of Ontario ($3,968,825) and the city of Toronto ($1,156,454, as well as an additional $1,175,744 in fees from the city).
Page 24 of St. Stephen’s 2006 annual report lists the numerous donors, funders and partners of St. Stephen’s. Among the Foundations is included the School Sisters of Notre Dame of Ontario and among the Partners and in-kind Supporters is included The Toronto District Catholic School Board.
Ben-Ami told LifeSiteNews the fact that St. Stephen’s management would undertake such an extremely inappropriate project indicates a current serious problem with the overall organization.
“What’s happened”, he stated, “over the last couple of decades is that a lot of these groups, including groups that have very strong religious affiliation, have slowly and surely been taken over and co-opted by left wing, radical groups and their good name is now being used to advance a radical social agenda.”
The Institute for Canadian Values has just advised that the St. Stephen’s House web site version of The Little Black Book has now been removed from public viewing and replaced with a page indicating that the page does not exist. Google cache only brings up a black table of the former page with all content missing. No explanation has been given on the St. Stephen’s web site, although viewers may be misled to believe that the offending material does not exist. Ben-Ami states this development indicates his organization’s campaign has been having an effect
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
John says:
Rosie said: “He doesn’t have to convince you John, he was offering his opinion and then Mike agreed, do you disagree?”
If my presumption is correct — that Joe’s rationale for why one should not read the Chicago Tribune is because of its liberal bias — I do disagree.
[First, as an aside, to speak to Lauren’s comment: “I thought I had heard it all, but the Chicago Tribune has a liberal bias!?!? Where have I been?! The Trib has not endorsed a Democrat for president since 1872.”
It’s quite clear the Tribune’s editorial board tends to be more conservative than the average MSM newspaper. But the editorial board and the news department in any newspaper are two quite different entities.
An editorial board’s leanings are rather easy to pick up on, for obvious reasons. The leanings in news coverage are more difficult to gauge, but I personally think it’s abundantly clear that in the latter regard, the Tribune leans liberal.
Not as liberal, mind you, as, say, the Sun-Times, the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, or the LA Times (another Tribune-owned paper) — but liberal nonetheless.]
A medium’s bias should not determine whether or not one reads it (or listens to it, or watches it). Be aware of a medium’s bias, to be sure, and, consider it when you determine how much credence should be given to information and perspectives a medium presents.
The principle shouly apply to media with conservative and liberal biases alike: If you’re reading the New York Times, it’s helpful to know that it has a reputation for a liberal slant; likewise, if you’re reading the Washington Times, it’s helpful to know it has a reputation for having a conservative slant. (It’s also helpful to know it’s owned by a company founded by the “Rev.” Sun Myung Moon.)
Perhaps my point is really a more general one: There seems to be a school of thought among some conservatives and some pro-lifers (and let me be clear: I’m not saying Joe holds this view; but his comment — to my mind, at least — hinted at this school of thought) that there is nothing to be gained from reading — or listening to, or watching — any news reported by the mainstream media.
The implication is that liberal bias is so ubiquitous that everything the MSM reports is, without exception, tainted by it. It goes without saying that subscribers of this view believe a source with a liberal bias should never be trusted.
As an example: Two months ago, at our “Contraception Is Not the Answer” conference, one of the speakers was Dr. Lionel Tiger, who holds the title of “the Charles Darwin professor of anthropology” at Rutgers University.
Dr. Tiger has no moral objections to contraception nor to abortion (at one point in his talk he said that overturning Roe v. Wade would be a “disaster”), but his sociological and anthropological research has led him to plainly acknowledge that contraception leads to abortion, and that contraception has marginalized men in society (the marginalization of men is a theory he explored in depth in his book The Decline of Males).
Some pro-lifers objected to our allowing him to speak at our conference. Annie, Eric, and I — and, indeed, most other pro-lifers — could not possibly disagree more strongly.
In summary, then: A liberal bias, per se, is nothing to fear. As long as information is presented honestly and objectively, whatever biases the individual presenting the information may have don’t matter to me.
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Pansy Moss says:
I have heard complaints about this IRL-the notion of spending tax dollars to promote abstinence among adults. I actually have no opinion about it as odd as that may seem. I would much rather my tax dollars go to such a program rather than promoting birth control. But it is like shoveling sand against the tide of our sex happy culture. I mean don’t get me wrong-go for it. If it helps one person, then it is worth it.
But like I said, our tax dollars have gone to some ridiculous programs that deserve much more scrutiny from pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike.
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
mary kay says:
My kids just came in from school…in their folder was a promotion for a television show that discusses teen-age despression.
They give the following statistics.
Thought you might find them interesting…
In the past year, almost one third of teens said they felt sad or hopeless for at least two weeks in a row.
80% more teenage girls are hospitalized for fdepression today, compared to just ten years ago.
According to the CDC, one in five tens will consider suicide, and one in ten will make a serious attempt.
It then goes on to descibe 5 teenagers that will be highlighted on the show:
17-year old Sari is depressed, in part because she depends on approval from boys to feel good about herself.
Hmmmmm….
Don’t know what it means, or why they say it is happening, but it got me thinking.
MK
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Annie says:
“I’m 22 years old, and any sort of abstinence education is merely government funding religion and I am really really really really really really really really really really against that.”
Lauren, do you think the government could be concerned about the cost of premarital sex? With all the single parents and the rampant STDs? Wasn’t it in Uganda where the government instituted the ABC (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms) Program and the AIDS rate dropped?
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Rosie says:
“Rosie, I do hold pro-lifers to a higher standard. Just as I hold myself to a higher standard as a Catholic. In other words, we should know better”
That is fine, but you do realize that in turn when you do that some may feel a bit betrayed? I also think that charity starts at home, I know it’s a matter of perspective about what family means. When I read the fourth commandment I also took it to mean the Catholic family and the pro-life family as well as immediate family.
“And thank you Lauren for acutally reading the article! And thank you (and Mary Kay) for actually commenting on it. ”
Passive aggression to me is what sarcasm is to you.
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Pansy Moss says:
There seems to be a school of thought among some conservatives and some pro-lifers (and let me be clear: I’m not saying Joe holds this view; but his comment — to my mind, at least — hinted at this school of thought) that there is nothing to be gained from reading — or listening to, or watching — any news reported by the mainstream media.
John,
I think this where we need to be careful, and allow me to disclaim, I am not saying this is what you are doing in your post, but I do think this is what Rosie is questioning.
First and foremost, there is a general concensus is mainstream media and thought that pro-lifers are somewhat neanderthals. I think Peony nailed the sentiment on the head just few days ago in her post Cause, like, pro-lifers are totally lame and all, about the perception that being pro-choice=being educated and enlightened and being pro-life=hating science, logic, people, freedom and all that good stuff.
I know I see this coming from pro-choicers, but quite often I see this coming from pro-lifers who seem to want to tell the world “yes, I’m pro-life, but I am not the neanderthal variety, but the enlightened kind”. I know the feeling. But the reality of the situation is people are people.
I really like this blog and this one of only two blogs I comment on often (besides my own). But I do get the impression that when pro-lifer expresses a strong opinion then the poster of that comment is held to task while pro-choicer can be as rude as they like. In all fairness, all human who comment should be held to the same standards because what happens is the pro-choicers end up provoking the pro-lifers, and no true conversation can be discerned as people feel the need to defend themselves.
As for Joe’s original remark, I thought it was borderline. Being a NYer, I know from where the frustration from where it came. The NY Times has personally lied about my father (he was the Director of assesment of the NYS Department of Ed) and showed no remorse upon coprrection, simply to promote the “liberal” perspective. So as a rule, I tend to prefer not to read the NYTimes as my main source of information.
On the other hand, it is the article that is being critiqued, not the paper, and I think the remark would be better received in light of that, even in such strong fashion (i.e. “wow, that author was really dumb”). But I think if the same type of breach in etiquette was made by a pro-choicer or pro-lifer, then both should be equally corrected for their tone.
I am not trying to stir up trouble, the fact is I really, really like this blog. It is because of that I hope that commenting here can be comfortable.
OT, or back on the topic of liberal bias, I have an assignment do today where I have to write an essay comparing Fox News and CNN for aspects I think make one more credible that the other…
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Rosie says:
“In summary, then: A liberal bias, per se, is nothing to fear”
I know people who don’t really have opinions on specific things one way or the other. it is my opinion that them reading that is something to fear because that view is a majority of what they will be reading and there will be very little available to them to offer a different perspective.
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Rosie says:
“It is because of that I hope that commenting here can be comfortable.”
Honestly, I do like this blog and I speak my mind because I do feel comfortable to do so.
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Pansy Moss says:
“It is because of that I hope that commenting here can be comfortable.”
Honestly, I do like this blog and I speak my mind because I do feel comfortable to do so.
I apologise if the impression I gave was that I was speaking for you, Rosie. I did not mean to.
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Rosie says:
Pansy,
Not at all, I was just kind of complimenting the blog site. I think it is a good thing that people feel comfortable to speak their minds.
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
mary kay says:
“Rosie, I do hold pro-lifers to a higher standard. Just as I hold myself to a higher standard as a Catholic. In other words, we should know better.”
I think a lot of confusion comes in when people think that we are trying to make the whole world live as Catholics do. We would love that, but even God gave us free will. We do hold ourselves to higher standard and we should. However, we would not force the “Catholic lifestyle” on anyone. We do feel that it is necessary to educate and inform people that there is a different way of doing things. A better way. A proven, better way. And we invite them. We don’t force them.
But I believe we have stated before, that if homosexuals choose to live a homosexual lifestyle, that is their choice. We aren’t out to make it illegal. We only wish that they wouldn’t hijack the sacrament of marriage. If people choose to have sex before marriage, we will speak out against it and offer other choices, but we wouldn’t make it illegal.
But when it comes to abortion, it isn’t about people making choices involving only themselves. Whether you are Catholic, Jewish, Homosexual, Atheist or Pagan, it is the same. Abortion is murder. Murder is illegal. And it should be. Because just like I wouldn’t FORCE my morality on you, you shouldn’t force your lack of it on an innocent baby. In this case we are protecting a group of people that cannot protect themselves. In all the other cases the individuals involved could change their circumstances and choices if they wanted to. But a baby cannot.
Let me repeat. We do NOT wish to make all the behaviors that we believe are immoral, illegal.
We do wish to make abortion illegal because it is murder.
MK
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
mary kay says:
As to conservative vs liberal…
When Cardinal George fist came to Chicago, all the reporters kept asking him if he was going to be conservative…His response?
and I paraphrase:
If you mean by conservative, to conserve the faith, then yes, I will be conservative.
There is wisdom in this. If you are strong in your faith, then you can read and listen to just about anything. If it confuses you there is always a place to get answers to your questions. But reading or listening to other points of veiw is often helpful. There is the “know your enemy” benefit, the “I never thought of it that way” benefit, the “I’m not sure, let me do some research” benefit. But as in all things, we must discern, discern, discern!
I agree with Rosie tho. The problem comes in when people who are NOT strong in their faith or value system read things that are skewed a certain way, and they don’t even realize that they are reading something that is not truthful, or not wholly truthful. They can be decieved without even knowing there was something to be decieved about.
But isn’t that the point of public forums (the newspaper, radio, television) so that ALL points of view can be made.
Contrary to what Lauren might think, I don’t just blindly swallow Catholic teaching. I research and read and question everything. The difference is only that if I don’t understand something or I disagree with something, then I know the fault lies with me and not the church…so I search some more until I am satisfied. I have never come away feeling like I HAD to believe something without understanding it.
That’s the beauty of truth. No matter how far you dig, or how many questions you ask, it always holds up.
MK
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
mary kay says:
Pansy, Rosie, Annie, John, Mike, Joe, Lauren, Young Christian Woman, and Eric (forgive me if I forgot anyone…)
I too love this blog. I have never before joined one. It’s the only one I have ever conversed on more than once or twice. I love all of you guys and think of each one of you as friends. I pray for you at the chapel every week and look so forward to good, healthy, holy, fiesty, funny, exciting, aggravating, challenging adult conversation every day.
I too, feel free to express myself without fear of recrimination. And I am so grateful to all of you and for the privelege of signing on everyday to yet another round…
God bless you all,
MK
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
Rosie says:
John writes, “If that is in fact your rationale, that in itself doesn’t convince me why reading it is a waste of time.”
John, If you were to scrutinize the trib with the same ferocity that you do Ann Coulter, then you would be agreeing with me.
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
Joe says:
FYI - The last comment to John was from me (Joe), not Rosie…
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
Joe says:
Annie writes, “tone was a little rude…”
Annie, Taking responsibility for the feelings of others interferes with my apostolate. In the future, just assume I don’t mean to be rude, instead of assuming that I do.
Joe
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Joe says:
Apparently when Joe posted the comment my name was on his Name(required) line, what happened?
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
Rosie says:
See? #32 was my comment not Joe’s, is someone messing around?
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Joe says:
Test Post - From Joe
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
mary kay says:
How funny that the name of this blog is “Get a Clue”.
Seems like we might need Nancy Drew to solve the mystery of who is writing what and why is it messed up.?…
Comment posted November 16th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Sunnyday says:
Wow, I have trouble with my modem for 2 days, thereby unable to go online and then when I get back online, there’s so much to read already — and I’m only talking about THIS blog!! I, too, love this blog and am comfortable stating my ideas here. Um, those of you who said this is the only place you visit and participate in (or the only other place you comment on besides your own blogs), you are very very welcome to drop by my blog! I’ve been posting almost daily since going freelance, but I hardly get any comments. But then the counter keeps moving so I know I’m not the only one checking it out, hehe.
Strangely, I see all sides to the matter being discussed here. I do subscribe to “Charity begins at home” and “We take care of our own” and really try to live those words. At the same time, I personally hold some people to a higher standard (sometimes unconsciously) simply because they presumably know better. But I make it a point not to make this a reason to put them down or to have critical thoughts in the event that they don’t live up to that standard of mine. As my good friend advised me, “demand more from yourself but give allowances for others.”
At this point I am officially reminding MK about me so that she will pray for me, too (I didn’t see my name there…*sniff). Heehee, but I really would appreciate a prayer or two when you visit the Blessed Sacrament =)
Another point: I refrain from reading newspapers and magazines that are heavily and obviously biased (specifically leaning toward the liberal side) because I always end up annoyed, sometimes even before I get to read the whole article! I need to be more in control of my feelings there…
I assumed the “Joe” who has been commenting here was Joe Scheidler. I guess I’m mistaken.
In case another poster’s name appears here, this comment was posted by Sunnyday.
Comment posted November 17th, 2006 at 5:22 am
mary kay says:
Sunnyday,
I have a little book where I write down everybodies names so that I DONT forget when I go to the chapel…You are in it. I love you too.
Sorry. See what happens when you leave for two days…I think of you often, actually, because my father’s caretaker is from the philippines. Not to mention your name is too cute. Our caretaker, Ruel, has two daughters (who still live in the Philippines - heartbreaking) and their names are Sweet and joy. and Sunnyday.
I realize that this is probably just a nickname, (I believe the girls’ are nicknames too) but it still makes me smile when I think of your country!
MK
Comment posted November 17th, 2006 at 6:26 am
Young Christian Woman says:
Re #21:
Pansy, I think that part of the reason everyone ignores Lauren is that telling her she is rude or taking her to task on anything doesn’t seem to have an effect. I’m sure we all recognize that she is rude, but commenting on it is about as obvious as pointing out the NYT’s liberal bias….
Re #26:
One thing that I have thought for a long time is, why is government in the marriage business at all? The best way to solve this whole thing is to not let the government decide who can get married, which is a silly idea anyway. Let them do civil unions if they want; those are not religious. And let people who want a marriage to find a church to marry them. The reason this would not work, of course, is mostly nonreligious people who have not thought this through and want to be able to be “married.”
Re #28:
Mary Kay, thank you for praying for me.
I agree with practically everything that was said on liberal news sources. Yes, sometimes they are worth reading. Yes, sometimes they are not. Yes, sometimes they are frustrating and angering.
Certainly it is important to point out similarities in the conclusions that pro-babykilling and anti-abortion people come to, where relevant. This just goes to show that the facts are on our side.
Comment posted November 17th, 2006 at 7:14 am
Young Christian Woman says:
As for the article:
It was just stupid and sarcastic and I probably wouldn’t have read the whole thing if I found it myself.
Among its problems is the assumption that abstinence is promoted for everyone, not just that abstinence until marriage is promoted. Huh? Perhaps we should start calling it abstinence-until-marriage education, because some people have some pretty silly ideas.
Comment posted November 17th, 2006 at 7:26 am
Young Christian Woman says:
PS
If it’s nonabortive, I’m glad this guy is using birth control.
Comment posted November 17th, 2006 at 7:28 am
Sunnyday says:
MK,
“Maraming salamat” for your prayers!! (That’s “thank you very much” in Tagalog, but I guess you knew that already from Ruel)
Getting a US visa can be quite difficult for a lot of people but I do hope Sweet and Joy (what charming names) will soon be in the States so they can all be together. Btw, my real name is Diana but you can call me Sunny =)
Comment posted November 17th, 2006 at 8:19 am
John says:
To all who noted that they appreciate this blog:
A sincere Thank you on behalf of Eric, Annie, and myself.
Comment posted November 17th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
John says:
Pansy said: First and foremost, there is a general concensus is mainstream media and thought that pro-lifers are somewhat neanderthals. I think Peony nailed the sentiment on the head just few days ago in her post Cause, like, pro-lifers are totally lame and all, about the perception that being pro-choice=being educated and enlightened and being pro-life=hating science, logic, people, freedom and all that good stuff.
I know I see this coming from pro-choicers, but quite often I see this coming from pro-lifers who seem to want to tell the world “yes, I’m pro-life, but I am not the neanderthal variety, but the enlightened kind”.
Pansy,
You (and Peony) make some very good points here. To be sure, the MSM, nearly without exception, tends to portray us pro-lifers as a gaggle of out-of-touch, unsophisticated, slack-jawed bumpkins. Most pro-lifers, it seems to me, acknowledge that this is how we are generally perceived in the MSM.
Faced with this reality, though, I’m concerned by what I in turn perceive as a tendency among some pro-life conservatives to want to “ghettoize” themselves. By this, I mean the tendency to swear off all forms of MSM, and to subsist solely on a diet of conservative talk radio, websites like Worldnetdaily, certain right-wing blogs, and a handful of other religious and pro-life sites. In such an existence, one’s interactions soon come to constantly resemble an echo chamber.
Even more troubling about this tendency is a desire to become insular, and to more or less cut off contact with individuals who aren’t strongly committed pro-life Christians.
The problem with this ghetto mentality is that it makes evangelization a near impossibility, and effectively consigns us to oblivion. This aloofness from the world also, rather unfortunately, serves to reinforce the MSM’s portrayal of pro-lifers.
How can we spread the Gospel of Life to the world if we don’t have contact with the world and understand where most individuals in the world are coming from?
Comment posted November 17th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Nikolia says:
This is quite the post…but I’m only going to comment on the article. I wrote to the author and received a reply. Would anyone be interested in reading them? (i.e., would it be alright for me to post them in a comment here?) What he said in his reply and what he said in his article seemed to be two different things, especially when he seemed to ridicule those who have chosen to abstain from sex until marriage in the article.
Comment posted November 17th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Annie says:
Nikolia,
Thanks for writing to Ross. I wrote as well, but have not heard back from him as of yet. Yes, please do post what he had to say. Thanks.
Comment posted November 17th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
lauren says:
“Lauren, do you think the government could be concerned about the cost of premarital sex? With all the single parents and the rampant STDs? Wasn’t it in Uganda where the government instituted the ABC (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms) Program and the AIDS rate dropped?”
Yes I do think they should be concerned about the cost of sex, marital or premarital. I was raised in my later years by a single parent. In fact, my mom did a much better job on her own than with my dad. I don’t like the fact that somehow the nuclear family does a better job at raising kids than other families. That’s a notion from my own personal experience I can reject outright. I think everything is relative. If you have love and guidance in a home it doesnt matter how many parents you have or whether they’re male of female. I think we should be concerned about the children that are being abused and neglected and less worried about what their parents do in the privacy of the bedroom.
I dont know too much about Uganda, but I think any AIDs program where condoms are distributed is a good program. There are a lot of programs we’re currently pouring billions of dollars into that we’re forbidding condoms. That’s wrong and very dangerous.
I never said I was anti-abstinence education. In fact I’m all about it. I think it should be taught first in terms of science (not in terms of yu’re going to hell if you have pre-marital sex). Abstinence is after all the only 100% method. No one is denying that. But reality is reality. People around our age are having sex. Let’s talk about sex and contraception with allllll of the facts and then let people decide for themselves based upon religious, moral, and practical values that they hold.
Comment posted November 17th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
lauren says:
Pansy— you shoudl watch outfoxed for your paper.. You may not agree, but it would helpw ith your research
Comment posted November 17th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
mary kay says:
Lauren,
Uganda preaches abstinence and it is the only country in Africa where AIDS has dropped. No condoms. Just no sex. It works. But of course, we knew that.
MK
Comment posted November 17th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
mary kay says:
I apologize, condoms are suggested…but as a last resort.
MK
Comment posted November 17th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Nikolia says:
Mr. Werland,
I was annoyed with your article in the Chicago Tribune on Sunday. Perhaps you are not aware of the consequences of baking cookies with multiple chefs in the kitchen. Allow me to enlighten you. Certain chefs have less than hygienic habits. Would you want a chef with unwashed hands in your kitchen? Are you aware of the variety of STDs and STIs that result from having multiple sexual partners? Choosing a chaste lifestyle protects better than any type of birth control, not only from unwanted pregnancy, but also from a host of disgusting diseases. These can leave both men and women in great pain, and even infertile. Perhaps you are not aware the HPV can cause cervical cancer or that HIV can be sexually transmitted. Perhaps you missed when Chlamydia became the fastest growing cause of infertility in women.
Perhaps you have never met someone who regretted their last sexual partner. Allow me to enlighten you. Of my friends who have chosen to be sexually active before marriage, 90% of them have regretted their sexual activity. The easy way to avoid regret? Avoid the situation all together. Many of these friends now hop from bed to bed trying to find something to fulfill them. In reality, they are miserable and have personally told me so. I would encourage you to find some of these twenty year olds and frankly talk with them. Diversify a little.
As for “the days before birth control” to which you refer, must I bring up the cave paintings of people using condoms in France as early as 1,000 BC?
In response to your “And I’m no freak” comment, I thought we were all supposed to be tolerant people. Is tolerance preserved only for those who decide to have premarital sex and who use birth control in marriage? I’d like to know what happened to tolerance and acceptance of those people who have decided to remain chaste until marriage and have large families. If “sibling” means “part of a large crowd,” count me in. Some of my closest friends come from families of 6, 9, and 12. Not only do they have food on the table, they have loving relationships with their parents and siblings, and have entered or graduated from college.
Finally, Mr. Werland, you write, “I don’t want to speak for the twentysomethings out there.” Mr. Werland, if you do not want to speak for us, then why do you? I would suggest you first get your scientific facts straight before promoting unhealthy lifestyles, and secondly get to know some twentysomethings. Just as I assume not all men named Ross have the same opinions as you do, not all twentysomethings think the same things, either. You say that 90% of youth engage in premarital sex, but I would suggest you check other sources besides the one you quote. A quick google search will show vastly different results, none of which even resemble the 90% statistic you quote. Obviously, a google search can not be seen as a final word, but I would suggest that you look at other studies as well.
I truly hope you can learn to tolerate those “freaks” who choose to abstain from sex before marriage as well as those who have large families, Mr. Werland.
Sincerely,
Nikolia
The Reply:
Dear Nikolia,
You obviously are quite thoughtful on this subject, and I appreciate that.
But nowhere did I suggest that people have multiple sex partners. That is a terrible idea.
And if someone chooses to abstain, that is a wonderful and absolutely valid choice. My point is that once someone is in his or her 20s, it’s better for him or her to decide than for our government to spend money on lectures.
In short, they are now adults. Let’s let them be adults and make their own decisions. What’s next, targeting people in their 30s, 40s, 50s? Now, if the government wants to say, “Fine, go ahead, but if you have kids, YOU have to pay for them,” that might be a far more effective deterrent.
Thanks for your note.
Ross
Comment posted November 18th, 2006 at 1:29 am
mary kay says:
Nickolia,
You GO GIRL!!!!!
Okay, we could reallllllllly use someone as articulate and passionate as you are out at the clinic. I hope that the next time I come to this site, you and I will already have spent 4 hours together passing out roses. I’m getting ready to hop in the shower as we speak. Look VERY forward to meeting you.
MK
Comment posted November 18th, 2006 at 6:25 am
mary kay says:
#
Mary kay says:
Nikolia,
It is at River Rd and Rand. Just over the tracks toward Golf on River off of Rand…
We would LOVE to have you join us. But be warned, it’s a mess.
And each week is a soap opera story unto itself. We get there around 7:30 or 8:00 (The guy keeps changing the times that he’s open, but it hasn’t deterred us. For a while we had to get there at 5:30 AM.) But come, park in the forest preserve across the street. Never stand out there alone. If nobody is there yet, stay in your car and wait. The other two girls come from Waukegan or somewhere and they can’t control how long it takes them to get there. My e-mail is mkhastings_at_ameritech_dot_net.
MK
(In case you missed this on the other post…I don’t have your e-mail address)
MK
Comment posted November 18th, 2006 at 6:30 am
lauren says:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4195968.stm
FOr you mK
Comment posted November 18th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
mary kay says:
#
Lauren says:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4195968.stm
FOr you mK
This is a perfect example of NOT reading EVERYTHING…
The UN is complaining…Uganda is not.
Sorry, nice try tho…
MK
Comment posted November 18th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Mary says:
Let them do civil unions if they want; those are not religious.
And next thing you know, ten women show up at the Social Security office, all of them wanting survivor’s benefits because they all had civil unions with the dead man.
The government either is or is not in the business of deciding who gets to get married, and all its decision will necessary discriminate — that is to say, distinguish one relationship from another.
Comment posted November 19th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
mary kay says:
And then of course, there is this:
Woman marries dolphin
Jerusalem
January 2, 2006
AdvertisementAdvertisement
Sharon Tendler met Cindy 15 years ago. She said it was love at first sight. This week she finally took the plunge and proposed. The lucky “guy” plunged right back.
In a modest ceremony at Dolphin Reef in the southern Israeli port of Eilat, Tendler, a 41-year-old British citizen, apparently became the world’s first person to “marry” a dolphin.
Dressed in a white dress, a veil and pink flowers in her hair, Tendler got down on one knee on the dock and gave Cindy a kiss. And a piece of herring.
“It’s not a perverted thing. I do love this dolphin. He’s the love of my life,” she said Saturday, upon her return to London.
Tendler, who said she imports clothes and promotes rock bands in England, has visited Israel several times a year since first meeting the dolphin.
When asked in the past if she had a boyfriend, she would always reply, “No. I’m going to end up with Cindy.” On Wednesday, she made it official, sort of. While she acknowledged the “wedding” had no legal bearing she did say it reflected her deep feelings toward the bottlenosed, 35-year-old object of her affection.
“It’s not a bad thing. It just something that we did because I love him, but not in the way that you love a man. It’s just a pure love that I have for this animal,” she said.
While she still kept open the option of “marrying human” at some stage, she said for now she was strictly a “one-dolphin woman”.
She’s hardly the jealous type, though.
“He will still play with all the other girls there,” she said, of their prenuptial agreement. “I hope he has a lot of baby dolphins with the other dolphins. The more dolphins the better.”
- AP
MK
Comment posted November 20th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Rosie says:
Um..Yuck!
Comment posted November 20th, 2006 at 5:32 pm