Electioneering

It's all politics, all the time around here tonight. TheDad lives for this stuff and is even ignoring an upcoming nor'easter in favor of election returns. Little Brother's school had a mock election today among grades 4 and up, so he's interested in watching the elections as well (though I suspect he wants to stay up late so he can play Minecraft with the news in the background.

And Middle Sister asked what channel would have the elections (pretty much everything but ESPN, kid) because she's taking US History 2 this year and her teacher expects the class to pay attention to this. Along with a real-life civics lesson, she's also getting a geography challenge; her teacher gave the kids unmarked outline maps and wants them to label the states according to the results.

He'll get no argument from me, but my older two kids missed the geography boat in their early educations. I insisted that Big Brother sign up for a geography class in high school and he later conceded that he'd learned a lot of important information.

When Middle Sister complained that she didn't know which states were which, I informed her that she'd be selecting Geography as her first-choice elective next year, and if she didn't, I wouldn't sign her course-selection card. There was loud protesting, but I'm not giving in, even though Grandma stuck up for Middle Sister and said that it's not important to know where the states are. (Thanks for that.)

Big Brother said he'd pass on watching election returns at college, because he figured that watching these in a public place could get tense. Besides, he's got stage crew.

And I've got a couple of interesting books and a bowl of Halloween candy to occupy my attention. I voted, and there's nothing I can do about this now.

Posted with Blogsy

Fat Police

This morning, Little Brother and I went grocery shopping. Everything went well for the first 3/4 of the trip. We got nectarines, cucumbers, melon, bananas, celery, Cheerios, peanut butter, cookies (I had a coupon) and EVOO. Then we got to the dairy aisle, and that's where things got ugly.

I reached for a gallon of milk, the kind with the red top that screams, "Full fat!" at the casual observer, and my skinny 10-year-old took me to task.

It's got to be the propaganda that's behind it. First of all, the kid doesn't even drink milk--hasn't in more than 8 years. I am the main consumer of that weekly gallon of milk, and I like my milk whole, thankyouverymuch. But boy, was I in trouble. "Why don't you buy 2%, Mom?"

"Because I don't like 2%. I like Real Milk." We went along this way for a while, as I wheeled the cart along and picked up a pound of Real Butter and 18 Real Eggs and then headed toward the Coffee Nirvana section, where I once again bemoaned the fact that ShopRite never has quarts of light cream anymore.

"Half-and-half is just as good, Mom," said my young Food Policeman.

"No, believe me, half-and-half is not just as good," I sighed as I placed a quart of half-and-half in the cart sadly.

"Mom, I agree with that governor of New York about this," he commented. (I think he meant "mayor," but whatever. I was arguing for my Real Milk, not accuracy regarding government officials.)

Kid, I'm all for healthy, which is why I bought nectarines, cucumbers, melon, bananas, celery, Cheerios and peanut butter, and also the EVOO. But when it comes to dairy, I'm a full-fat kind of girl. And no one, not any governor or mayor or president or surgeon general or doctor on TV is going to tell me not to have my nice big glass of milk with dinner every night.

Real milk. With the red top. Ice cold. It's the only way. I'm willing to sit down with the Fat Police over a cold one and discuss this, and I will not back down.

Posted with Blogsy

I Do Not Like This, Uncle-Sam-I-Am

There was a blood-donation drive at our parish today, and Middle Sister wanted to donate. She's 16, and that's old enough if she brings along a parent to sign a permission slip. So I took her over there, filled out the form, and sat with her while she read the packet of information and disclaimers that she was handed.

Finally her name was called and we went over to the desk where the nurse was taking medical histories. First Middle Sister had to produce an ID with her date of birth. A school ID wasn't going to do it, and I reminded her that she had her driver's permit in her handbag. Then the nurse told me that I wasn't allowed to be there. Citing "privacy issues," she said that while my daughter gave her medical history, I couldn't be present. I could, however, stand next to the table where they would take the blood out of her arm. That is, if I weren't so squeamish about things like that. (I'll drive you to the ER if you don't make me look at the wound.)

So I had to go sit on the other side of the room while my underage daughter gave her medical history. She is not old enough to get an Advil from the school nurse if she has a migraine without parental permission, let alone donate blood or get her ears pierced (or any other body part). I accompany her to medical appointments. But I AM NOT ALLOWED to listen to my minor child give her medical history.

Can you tell I'm not a fan of this policy? My daughter wasn't asking me to please go away. She didn't seem to care one way or the other, which is comforting to me. If the patient doesn't care that a parent is there during the medical history, why is it a problem for the nurse?

I was only able to find a small amount of information regarding confidentiality on the Red Cross website:

The Red Cross maintains the confidentiality of information we obtain about a donor and will release a donor’s confidential information to his or her parents only with the donor’s consent.

Is this all part of HIPAA, or is this something new? Regardless, I don't like it. Not one bit. If she is young enough to require my signature before she can give blood, she is young enough that I can still listen to her medical history.

And after all that, her iron was JUST shy of the benchmark required for blood donation. So this was all for nothing.

Boycott Burnout?

This afternoon I was listening to my favorite radio show, The Catholics Next Door, on Sirius XM (totally worth the price of the subscription just for this show, by the way!)  Hosts Greg and Jennifer Willits were discussing boycotts.  I wish they'd allotted more time to this issue.

That topic has been on my mind quite a bit lately.  For about the past 20 years, my family has participated in the Life Decisions International boycott of companies that support Planned Parenthood.  That means no Levi's, no Johnson's Baby Shampoo, no Texaco gas--among so many other things.

And then there's the Dump Starbucks Campaign, triggered by their announcement that same-sex marriage is core to who they are and what they value as a company.  More recently, Target announced that proceeds from a line of Pride T-shirts would fund the Family Equality Council.

Now, I don't get Starbucks much; I don't like their coffee.  If I want a $4 fancy coffee, I'll go to Panera and get my latte there.  But Target is right around the corner and it's my go-to store for a lot of things, replacing Wal-Mart, which is farther away and which has boycott issues of its own regarding labor issues, Chinese suppliers and more.

Maybe I'm just wimping out because this is hitting too close to home.  But it's starting to feel like I won't have anywhere to shop if I support all these boycotts.

Do they do any good?  Do the companies really care if I (not a big spender anyway) spend what I do spend someplace else?  Does anybody care?  After all, the American Cancer Society has been linked to support of Planned Parenthood, yet my parish still participates in the local Relay for Life.

So, am I lazy?  Tired?  Wimpy?  Is the devil on my back?  Or do I need to find another way to make a difference?

Don't Treat Me Like a Fool

It's necessary to get political sometimes.

Usually that's something I leave to TheDad, because he's all into that sort of thing, and I figure that one politically-obsessed person in the household is enough.  I back off--to balance things out.

But that doesn't mean I don't notice.  And it doesn't mean I don't take action when action is necessary.

This is one of those times.

I listened to President Obama's self-congratulatory tone as he announced an "accommodation" to the HHS policy that would leave Catholic hospitals, universities and other institutions no choice but to offer health plans providing contraception, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization procedures, all of which directly violate Catholic moral teaching.

I listened, and I realized that this "accommodation" makes things worse than it did before.  In the guise of making it LOOK like the Catholic employer would get to opt out, this plan requires that all insurance plans provide these, um, "services."

We all know that there's no free lunch.  We know that somebody's going to have to pay for it.  Ultimately, everybody's going to have to pay for it, because health-care costs will go up in order to pay for it, and that cost will be absorbed by employees.

Who knew that the President of the United States would borrow an argument more age-appropriate for his own children:  "Everybody does it."  99% of American women, he says, have used birth control during their reproductive years.

If that number is even true (and I haven't seen any proof that it is), that doesn't make it any less wrong.

With all due respect, Mr. Obama, would you buy that "everybody does it" line if your daughter used it on you?  Or would you answer, as parents have done for decades, "if everyone was jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you do the same?"

If "everybody" decided to stop paying income taxes, you wouldn't think that "everybody does it" is a very good argument, now would you?

Don't treat me like a fool, Mr. President.  I can see what you're up to, and frankly, it terrifies me.

Jimmy Akin has an excellent analysis at the National Catholic Register.  Read the whole thing, and follow the "take action" link at the bottom.

Rocco Palmo has more on the American bishops' take on this "accommodation."

EVEN MORE:  Here's what the economists think.

To Obama, it seems pregnancy = prison

So our President has taken the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade to affirm his commitment to "choice," which was supposed to prevent the type of horror that happened for years in Philadelphia. "Safe and legal," that's what it was all about, right? Yeah, that worked well in Philly.

Here's part of his statement (read the whole thing here):

On this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.

Nice. Basically, our President believes that men and women should have equal opportunity to walk away from the responsibility of the life that results from the choices they make. He seems to view unplanned pregnancies as nothing but inconveniences that rob women of their dreams. Note that he's not bothering to challenge "baby daddies" to step up and take care of their progeny. Why do that, when it's easier to walk away from your responsibility and make abortion easy to come by, presenting it as the only solution to a crisis pregnancy--or even just an "inconvenient" one.

The Ironic Environmentalists

Little Brother and I spent most of yesterday at the Philadelphia Zoo with a bunch of friends. In total, 6 kids (4 of them 6 and under), 4 moms, 2 vehicles, 1 wagon, and lots of head-counting. Ask me how many animals I saw. I could probably count them on one hand.

It seemed, for a while, that the zoo has toned down its "animals good, humans bad" take on things. I remember taking the Big Kids there when they were younger, long before Little Brother came along, and seeing a sign that stated "This animal is endangered due to human overpopulation."

Yesterday, though, we went to the move on display in the bird exhibit. It was a cute combo of animation and real photography that taught about migratory birds. And there was a lot of very good information in there. The main "character" was an oriole who came from the Philadelphia area, so you had the local link; other featured birds were certain shore birds that frequent Cape May in the middle of their 10,000-mile migration pattern.

However, this lesson in geography, navigation, endurance and instinct didn't come without its own environmentally-correct message. A crane teaching the little oriole about what he'd need to do and where he'd need to go was telling him about these shore birds and how their commute was so much worse than his would be. She mentioned that the birds stopped in Cape May, NJ to "fuel up" on the eggs laid by horseshoe crabs. Unfortunately, she told him, there are fewer horseshoe crabs to lay eggs to feed these migrating shore birds. So she was going to head to Washington, D.C. to protest. Exactly what she'd protest was unclear, but the point was made. If humans can fix it, it must have been humans' fault to begin with.

(Does it not occur to the maker of this movie that maybe all these birds are eating so many horseshoe-crab eggs that there are not enough eggs to hatch into new horseshoe crabs?)

When the short movie was finally over, these directions appeared on the movie screen: "Please migrate to the left as you leave the theater."

"Nice double entendre," I commented to my neighbor.

Here's the thing: animals and plants have been going extinct for as long as there are animals and plants. If they can't adapt to changes in their environment, they don't survive. It's as simple as that. (Yes, I've read Darwin.) Why do environmentalists who decry human intervention in other environmental matters (such as they do in the whole "global warming" thing) insist that humans intervene to "save" a species that is clearly not adapting to the world around it?

"Please migrate to the left as you leave the theater."

We Don't Want Any

...nanny state, that is.

I'm getting tired of the government's efforts to protect people from their own stupidity.

Michelle discusses a California law that removes toys from the Happy Meals. Because the TOY is what causes child obesity. Uh huh. Who knew toys had that many calories?

And here in New Jersey, they've passed a law that few people want--one that makes young drivers a target for police profiling as well as criminals who prey on young people--in a misguided effort to keep inexperienced drivers from hurting too many people.

My son already has a "Cinderella" license, as a first-year driver. He has to be in by midnight. Now, Kyleigh's Law will require him, until he's had his license for one year or turns 21 (whichever comes first), to be in by 11. He will also be allowed ONE passenger in the car, unless a parent is present, at which point he can have as many people as he has seat belts in the car. This means he can't have both his siblings in the car at once. So much for his ability to pick them up at school if I'd need him to! Sorry, not allowed! He's got to show that he's a new driver by displaying a special sticker on his license plates, stickers that we have to pay extra for AND make a special trip to get. These same stickers will identify him as a new driver to police, and as a teenager to criminals and predators. This is especially disturbing to any parents with daughters!

This law is supposed to help discourage behind-the-wheel cell-phone use as well. Now I realize that teens are heavy phone users, but sit near a traffic light sometime and see just how many adults are on their phones while they're driving. Check those soccer moms leaving the athletic fields and texting dinner plans behind the wheel. Bet there's no limit to how many kids they can have in the car while they use their phones. After all, they're over 21.

What's next? No listening to the radio while driving? No refereeing squabbling kids? No eating McDonald's french fries? (Wait, I forgot, that's probably already against the law.)

I Have to Think of These Things Now

Two of my kids have "well-child visits" scheduled with their doctor this afternoon. Middle Sister's visit will include the doctor's signing of athletic participation forms for the spring track season. Since she has already received medical forms for high-school sports, I called the school nurse to ask if the doctor could fill those out today as well.

My sister said that the sports physical for next year has to be after July 1, but our school nurse said that today's physical will take her right through the end of next school year (that's right, including spring sports in 2011!)

That's great news as far as I'm concerned, not only because I save the fee our doctor charges for filling out these forms outside of an appointment, but because, well, I'm just not certain that at this time next year, health care will be as accessible as it is today.

Middle Sister glanced at the newspaper headlines today and asked me what the health-care reform bill meant. I explained a little bit about what rationed care means. I told her that if someone got sick, the decision about whether that person should receive certain treatments, medications, or surgeries would become less and less the decision of that person's doctor and more and more the decision of the health-care system (ultimately, the U.S. government.) I gave the example of a woman we know who recently passed away after her third bout of cancer in ten years--all after the age of 75. Would she have received chemo that second and third time around?

She thought about that for a minute and decided that it's in her best interests to stay healthy.

I have friends in Canada who can't call their primary-care doctor or child's pediatrician and get a "sick visit" on the same day. And I am grateful to live here in the U.S. where I can schedule a same-day "sick visit" if one is needed. Access to health care is not something I take for granted. And now that the government is going to be in charge of it, I'm not sure it's even something I can count on.

Bumper sticker pictured above available at zazzle.com.

Dear Congressman Stupak,

Looking out for the greater good never involves giving in to a provision that will lead to the death of millions of innocent unborn babies. That executive order is worthless.

Bishops Urge Catholics to Write to Congress Re: Health-Care Plan

There's no time to lose!

The Bishops have urged Catholics in the USA to email their Congress members this weekend.

Pat Gohn has the scoop:

When you attend Sunday Mass this weekend, you may see a bulletin insert from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.... you can read the insert in this pdf file.

The Bishops are calling on all Americans to contact Congress to oppose health care reform that does not respect the dignity of human life, and which support abortion with tax dollars.

The bishops have made an easy-to-use one-stop fill-in-the-blank form to send your comments to Congress. Pass this link on to others!

The main page from the Bishops about healthcare is here. There is lots of good information there.

Image credit

Shaking My Head in Disbelief

The President of the United States has won the Nobel Peace Prize, due, apparently, to his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." (emphasis mine)

All you have to do to win a Nobel Prize is make an effort? You have to do more than that to become an Eagle Scout.

Nobel-Prize nominations are due February 1, only a few short days after the U.S. Presidential Inauguration. He couldn't possibly have done that much worthy of such an honor in that short a time span.

Why not wait until he has been in office a few years and then see if his accomplishments, rather than his efforts, merit this award?

If you want to know...

what the Catholic Bishops have listed as their priorities in health-care reform, look no further: Denise Hunnell has spelled it all out for you in her column at the Catholic Examiner.

Particularly of interest was the mention of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's proposed strategy for health-care reform, ideas that

"would not bankrupt our nation or increase taxes in the midst of a recession. They are achievable reforms with bipartisan consensus and public support."

Check Denise's blog for more on the subject.

The Last ND Roundup

There are many links I want to follow, articles and speeches I want to read in their entirety. Here are the most important of those:

National Catholic Register Online links to Obama's speech as well as Father Jenkins' speech.

From Our Sunday Visitor: Obama at ND: Three Lessons

From National Catholic Register: Epiphany at Notre Dame

Archbishop Chaput's comments on Obama at Notre Dame

In the Wall Street Journal: Obama Scored Big at Notre Dame

Yesterday on Lino Rulli's radio show ("The Catholic Guy") he observed that the real losers here are the Catholics.

To expand on that point a little, this is because this whole issue has served to widen the divide between Catholics. As Lincoln said (paraphrasing Matthew's gospel), "A house divided against itself cannot stand." We lose when we forget that the Church is not a democracy.

We lose when we fail to respect those in authority, when we believe that our agendas are more important than the larger picture.

We lose when we consider it our Church--it's Jesus' Church, and we are blessed to be part of it.

We lose when we expect that everyone in Church, especially those in authority, will be perfect. The Church on earth is made up of humans, and none of us is perfect. In truth, we are all hypocrites, and that's true no matter what church we belong to. If we abandon a church because there is hypocrisy within, then we will never find the perfect replacement.

Finally, we lose when we think that this is all about us. Because it's not. We're here to know, love, and serve the Lord, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. If we truly do that, we won't need to worry about the rest of this.

The Cap and Gown Controversy

The American Papist shares photos of the traditional academic attire to be worn at the University of Notre Dame.

Let me tell you, there's a lot of hoopla about the gown, which has words from a prayer to the Blessed Mother on it (Vita, Dulcedo, Spes) as well as a cross. This morning as I ran a ton of errands, most Cub-Scout-related, I had ample opportunity to listen to the hosts and listeners at the Catholic Channel as "what the President will wear when he addresses Notre Dame graduates" was discussed.

I was in the car so I couldn't call in. (Use of cell phones in cars is a primary offense in this state.) So here's my opinion, in case you're interested. It's my blog, so I get to sound off here.

Graduation speakers traditionally wear academic attire, especially when they are awarded honorary degrees. As Obama is receiving an honorary ND degree it is only appropriate that he wear the ND gown. You wear the academic garb of the institution that awarded you the most recent degree, so it would not be appropriate for him to wear the gown he received with his bachelor's degree.

Maybe it's a good thing that he is wearing it. Maybe bearing those images on his person will make him think, even for a second, about what he has done via all those anti-life policies he has enacted.

But if I were in charge of wardrobe for this event, I'd see to it that a green scapular was sewn inside there somewhere.

In the meantime, I believe we should pray for the intercession of St. Gianna Beretta Molla, whose feast we celebrate this week. Who better to intercede on behalf of the conversion of an anti-life president than a woman--a medical doctor--who refused any treatments that would harm the life of her unborn child? Pray also for Father Jenkins, that he may see the damage he has done to the Catholic character of the University and the scandal he has created far beyond South Bend, Indiana. And pray that the University of Notre Dame will once again be a Catholic university from the top down!

Call Your US Senators!

The National Service Act (also known as the GIVE Act) is on the Senate calendar today. It's known as HR 1388 and S277.

It's not getting a lot of time in the national media spotlight. But this act would require volunteer service of our young people, while at the same time placing severe limits on the type of service that can be done and participation in religious/political activities during the service period.

Volunteering is good. I encourage my children to volunteer as they are able; Big Brother has worked with Habitat for Humanity in Philadelphia, PA and spent a week in Mississippi doing Habitat work, and he looks forward to participating in this in the future. Middle Sister has begun volunteering at church events. I am proud of my children's work in the service of others, and do not want their volunteer work restricted to what is "politically correct." Rather, I want them to learn to, as a line in the movie Robots says, "See a need, fill a need."

Call your Senator and let them know that a bill that requires volunteer activity flies in the face of what volunteering is all about, and a bill that further restricts volunteer activity to exclude religious and political service restricts our freedom of religion. In short, it's unconstitutional.

A Strange Phone Call. What country are we in, again?

A little while ago I answered a phone call. The caller ID said "Ottawa ON." As I have a Canadian friend who lives in Ontario and calls me occasionally, I took the call expecting to hear her voice.

Was I surprised to instead get a taped-telemarketer call informing me that President Obama was encouraging mortgage lenders to work with mortgage holders....at that point I hung up. I'm fine with my mortgage the way it is. (Property taxes are another story.)

So why is it that these mortgage lenders need to go outside the country to hire telemarketers to play taped messages to American mortgage holders? Do we have a shortage of telemarketing companies in the USA that could do such a job? Judging by the number of calls I receive despite being on the Do Not Call list, I'm guessing that this job could have been taken on by Americans, thus employing Americans and ultimately stimulating our economy. I doubt we handle such calls for Canadian banks, urged by their government.

It just bugs me--something about this just doesn't sit right.

Stuff That Happens When They Think You're Not Looking

You know how kids try to sneak stuff by you when you're not looking? Like, for example, eating a handful of chocolate chips from the pantry, or meeting some (ahem) extra friends at the mall who "just happened" to be there....

Well, the government isn't immune to tactics such as these. The fanfare happens when it's all done and too late to change.

Tomorrow the President will enable innocent unborn lives to be ended so that their stem cells can be used for scientific experiments. EVEN THOUGH adult stem cells are proven to be more useful and more effective treatments. And oh yeah, they're morally LICIT. Because nobody is KILLED to get them.

And in Connecticut, there's a measure on the table that would allow the state government to put Catholic pastors out of their jobs. (H/T to Paul Kravitz on facebook)

We wouldn't let our kids get away with sneaking things by us. We shouldn't let the government do it either.

Careful What You Say--and How You Say It

Last night I attended Back to School Night at Big Brother's school. They started a whole new set of classes at the end of January, so it was time to meet the teachers for these classes.

This semester Big Brother is taking Geography, among other things. This was chosen at my urging, because I believe that students today are not taught enough about geography, and I think that knowledge would serve him well.

And then the teacher launched into his list of what they would cover during the semester: map skills, physical geography, weather and climate, global warming (!) and "the dangers of overpopulation." And Big Brother attends a Catholic high school!

Glancing around the room quickly, I noticed that I wasn't the only parent surprised by this last topic. The teacher did backpedal a bit and stammer that China isn't dealing with overpopulation in a "morally licit" manner.

Well, that part was at least partly right. China is not dealing with its perceived population issues in a morally licit manner.

When I came home, I talked with Big Brother a little bit about what his teacher had said. He disagrees with the teacher on the global warming issue. I'm sure of that. But I think we'll be doing some researching and talking about the population issue before the teacher gets to that part of the lesson plan.

And I'll be doing some thinking and praying about how Big Brother can approach this issue in class, and how I can approach this topic with the teacher as well. The comments contained here will help, as will this essay.

And it is time to pray my favorite Franciscan prayer for guidance:

Most high, all-glorious, all-good God,
Bring light to the darkness of my heart.
Give me right faith, firm hope, and perfect charity,
With wisdom and insight, O Lord,
That I might always discern Your holy and true will.

Mother Teresa once observed, "How can there be too many children? That is like saying there are too many flowers."

Call Your Senators!

If you have concerns about the economic "stimulus" package, now is the time to CALL YOUR SENATORS at 202-224-3121.

Be patient. The Senate switchboard is REALLY busy right now.

If you don't have concerns about this "stimulus" package, read this. It very well might change your mind.

We DO have some say in how our money is spent. Take the time to call your senators and let them know your opinion.