A report has been circulating over the last few days about a Vatican correspondence with Irish bishops about the policy of dealing with priests accused of sexual misconduct.
To paraphrase a famous politician: Let me be extremely clear. In no way am I defending the crimes that happened all to often, most damningly at the hands of those in whom we put so much trust. But the letter in this story is no smoking gun to more wrong-doing or cover-up AT ALL.
Journalists who cover religion need to understand their subject matter before 'splaining to us all what is going on. Jumping to conclusions without understanding process and terminology does not support journalistic credibility.
Please go here to read Jimmy Akin's explanation of what the recently surfaced document actually means.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Wow.
Wow.
That's all I can say about that.
If you read nothing else today, read this.
H/T Mark Shea
Oh, and this video is sure to get your attention.
That's all I can say about that.
If you read nothing else today, read this.
H/T Mark Shea
Oh, and this video is sure to get your attention.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
A parent's responsibility...
...is first and foremost the formation of their children. Not how nice their clothes are, not how nice of a car they drive, not how expensive their toys are. While nice clothes and a nice car and expensive toys are all good things to try and provide, it is disproportionate to treat having those items as the essential mission of a good parent.
The formation of a child's character, the education of their minds, and the sanctity of their souls are the most important things a parent has to be concerned with.
In this vein, please check out this short article by Peter Bauer, which I found via the ever-helpful Catholic Dads online.
The formation of a child's character, the education of their minds, and the sanctity of their souls are the most important things a parent has to be concerned with.
In this vein, please check out this short article by Peter Bauer, which I found via the ever-helpful Catholic Dads online.
I find more and more parents, including those who attend church weekly, introducing their children to contraceptives because they’ve decided it’s an easier battle to teach their kids to sin without consequence then to not sin at all.
Our jobs as parents is to know the faith, live the faith, lead by example and teach that faith to our children. We are tasked, by Jesus himself, to protect our children from sin, to be the guardians of their innocence.
Yes, our kids will have to live in this real, broken world and our job is to do our best to prepare them for it. Yes, we should help them to be successful financially, scholastically and socially. However, our first and primary responsibility is to prepare them spiritually for the battle for their souls that awaits them.
Friday, January 14, 2011
One of the reasons we homeschool...
...is because we don't want our kids to be the guinea pigs for Planned Parenthood's social experiment in order to shepherd in a new era of promiscuity for the sake of more abortions to fill their coffers.
Be warned, resistance to this agenda will only be tolerated for so long. If we as a nation continue along this path, it will come to the point that those who teach that sex is sacred and must be reserved for marriage will be seen as unfit to teach that to their kids. It must be stopped now.
H/T Subvet
and also here.
Be warned, resistance to this agenda will only be tolerated for so long. If we as a nation continue along this path, it will come to the point that those who teach that sex is sacred and must be reserved for marriage will be seen as unfit to teach that to their kids. It must be stopped now.
H/T Subvet
and also here.
Ah, technology!
This one is for my dad, whose VCR still blinks 12:00, and who will probably never read my blog.
Snow day itinerary
Some of you may have read about our snow day here. Unfortunately, we did not get to everything on Fric's itinerary, which you can see below. Patty and I woke up to this drawing on the table. (Well, actually, this is the second drawing. Fric graciously redrew it when Sweetie-Pie-Baby-Girl drew, er, scribbled all over the first one.)
1. Build a snowman as tall as Dad
2. Dig up a T-Rex
3. Make Power Balls
4. Build a full-sized igloo in the yard
5. Drink hot cocoa
6. Make snow ice cream
7. Empty daybed
7a. Our family (note the baby stick figure being held by the mommy stick figure)
7b. Our family all snuggling on the daybed/couchbed...
7c. ...watching a movie.
2, 4, 5, 6, 7 all done.
Pretty good day!
1. Build a snowman as tall as Dad
2. Dig up a T-Rex
3. Make Power Balls
4. Build a full-sized igloo in the yard
5. Drink hot cocoa
6. Make snow ice cream
7. Empty daybed
7a. Our family (note the baby stick figure being held by the mommy stick figure)
7b. Our family all snuggling on the daybed/couchbed...
7c. ...watching a movie.
2, 4, 5, 6, 7 all done.
Pretty good day!
Let's call it Godwin's Law of Abortion...
Invariably, in any discussion of the ethics of abortion, the pro-life person will affirm the humanity of the "fetus" and the pro-choice person will say that it is only a clump of cells.
Such, of course, happened in this conversation I was in recently. Of course, it's a well-based scientific fact that human life begins at conception, and here is a compendium of quotes from different biology texts that state exactly that. Please note that many of the quotes originate from abortion supporters, notably included: Alan Guttmacher.
Such, of course, happened in this conversation I was in recently. Of course, it's a well-based scientific fact that human life begins at conception, and here is a compendium of quotes from different biology texts that state exactly that. Please note that many of the quotes originate from abortion supporters, notably included: Alan Guttmacher.
Some things are too horrible not to be shared.
I give you this beauty to behold. If you claw your eyes out and scratch at your ears, don't say I didn't warn you.
H/T CMR
H/T CMR
Helper in Childbirth
Our Lady, the Life-Giving Spring, in the face of evil, will conquer with peace.
1. Hail, bright star of ocean,
God's own Mother blest,
Ever sinless Virgin,
Gate of heavenly rest.
2. Taking that sweet Ave
Which from Gabriel came,
Peace confirm within us,
Changing Eva's name.
3. Break the captives' fetters,
Light on blindness pour,
All our ills expelling,
Every bliss implore.
4. Show thyself a Mother;
May the Word Divine,
Born for us thy Infant,
Hear our prayers through thine.
5. Virgin all excelling,
Mildest of the mild,
Freed from guilt, preserve us,
Pure and undefiled.
6. Keep our life all spotless,
Make our way secure,
Till we find in Jesus,
Joy forevermore.
7. Through the highest heaven
To the Almighty Three,
Father, Son and Spirit,
One same glory be. Amen.
God's own Mother blest,
Ever sinless Virgin,
Gate of heavenly rest.
2. Taking that sweet Ave
Which from Gabriel came,
Peace confirm within us,
Changing Eva's name.
3. Break the captives' fetters,
Light on blindness pour,
All our ills expelling,
Every bliss implore.
4. Show thyself a Mother;
May the Word Divine,
Born for us thy Infant,
Hear our prayers through thine.
5. Virgin all excelling,
Mildest of the mild,
Freed from guilt, preserve us,
Pure and undefiled.
6. Keep our life all spotless,
Make our way secure,
Till we find in Jesus,
Joy forevermore.
7. Through the highest heaven
To the Almighty Three,
Father, Son and Spirit,
One same glory be. Amen.
Courage, man!
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
-Winston Churchill
-Winston Churchill
I forgot the rules of blogging...
Never email drunk and never blog overtired.
My favorite atheist (MFA) wishes to remain anonymous, so I will honor shis wishes.
First of all, I'm glad you commented, as it gives me a chance to clarify. I've found that my struggle in the whole blogging enterprise is hampered by the fact that 1. I never have a good first draft and 2. I write better when I'm challenged. Back-and-forth is a better method for me.
I'll ask MFA a series of rhetorical questions and I think you'll know both what I meant by that phrase and whether or not you fit into that category.
Militant
Do you actively seek to remove all notions of God from the public square? Do you complain to the town hall if the fire station puts up a sign that says Merry Christmas? Do you take offense to public displays of the manger scene? Do you lobby for schools not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because it mentions God? Do you ridicule any family members or friends for their religious faith? If applicable, do you undermine attempts your spouse may make to teach religion to your children? Do you openly mock those whose beliefs differ from yours at every turn? Do you reject any ethical standards that are Judeo-Christian in nature simply because they are Judeo-Christian? Do you see all people that hold religious beliefs as de facto idiots, and reject everything else they may say, do, think, or believe as therefore tainted or invalid?
Frothing-at-the-Mouth
Are you unable to read any story of good things that religious people may do without commenting about rubes, myths, and superstition? Can you bring yourself to admit that despite all the bad circumstances of history, religion has had some positive influence on the world? Are you able to refer to the leader of the Catholic Church without calling him the "poop"? Are you capable of having a rational discussion with a person of faith on matters of faith or morals and at least consider what they say without telling them to STFU?
Common
Here I have to diverge from the format a bit to explain myself. Common vs. uncommon are a bit vague, but in this context I intend them to relate to being reflective vs. unreflective.
The common person is unreflective, unexamined. His [un]beliefs are fixed without thought. He has no humility before the truth and has not, no, cannot conceive that the world is not as he sees it. He is not interested in a search for truth, and should he recognize the truth, he must deny it to save face.
The reflective man is uncommon. He seeks the truth and is humble before it. He questions assumptions about the world, his neighbors, himself. He recognizes that his knowledge is limited. He tests the validity of ideas against fact, history, logic. He recognizes that some things are known with certainty, some with probability, some with faith. He follows the truth and is willing to be changed by it.
Both words, common and uncommon, may apply to atheists, agnostics, or those of a creed.
Please re-read that last sentence.
MFA, I do not know what is in your heart. As a Catholic, I believe in the eternity of the soul, I believe in Heaven, I believe in Hell. And I don't want to see anyone headed for Hell. As a Catholic, I hope for the conversion of the whole world, starting with my own daily conversion. I hope for all to receive the mercy of God, for all need it.
Now, I cannot bring that about. I have to do my best, live my life as holy as possible, witness to those around me by example. As St. Francis said, preach always, when necessary use words. The header of my blog is my daily reminder of my own aptitude to get in the way of the Gospel, and I pray that God will break me of that failing, for my sake and the sake of others.
Yet [far] short of the conversion of the world, I have to, as much as possible, live in peace with others. I am responsible to do my part in building a kingdom of peace and justice. I aim to live peacefully with all those of good will, no matter their creed. With the cooperation of all people of goodwill, we can live in harmony.
If you or any other atheist, or anyone, for that matter, wishes to live in peace and freedom, they find a willing partner in me. If they wish to help those in need, respect the rights of all to live freely, and recognize the same self-evident rights that the Founding Fathers of our country enshrined in our Declaration and Constitution, then I am an ally. True freedom, as Pope John Paul II reminded us, is not the freedom to do whatever we want, but the freedom to live as we ought.
Those who seek to squelch faith are on a fruitless task. Man is created with a desire for that which is good. We seek happiness and recognize the possibility of happiness which does not fail, which does not end. Universally, we desire freedom and righteousness, though we often seem them only dimly, and realize them dimly.
I believe, as the Church teaches, that this desire is intended to guide us toward the God who created us. This desire can only be fulfilled in Him. His love for us is the source of all life and is the source of true happiness. As St. Augustine said, "You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in You."
Peace.
My favorite atheist (MFA) wishes to remain anonymous, so I will honor shis wishes.
First of all, I'm glad you commented, as it gives me a chance to clarify. I've found that my struggle in the whole blogging enterprise is hampered by the fact that 1. I never have a good first draft and 2. I write better when I'm challenged. Back-and-forth is a better method for me.
I'll ask MFA a series of rhetorical questions and I think you'll know both what I meant by that phrase and whether or not you fit into that category.
Militant
Do you actively seek to remove all notions of God from the public square? Do you complain to the town hall if the fire station puts up a sign that says Merry Christmas? Do you take offense to public displays of the manger scene? Do you lobby for schools not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because it mentions God? Do you ridicule any family members or friends for their religious faith? If applicable, do you undermine attempts your spouse may make to teach religion to your children? Do you openly mock those whose beliefs differ from yours at every turn? Do you reject any ethical standards that are Judeo-Christian in nature simply because they are Judeo-Christian? Do you see all people that hold religious beliefs as de facto idiots, and reject everything else they may say, do, think, or believe as therefore tainted or invalid?
Frothing-at-the-Mouth
Are you unable to read any story of good things that religious people may do without commenting about rubes, myths, and superstition? Can you bring yourself to admit that despite all the bad circumstances of history, religion has had some positive influence on the world? Are you able to refer to the leader of the Catholic Church without calling him the "poop"? Are you capable of having a rational discussion with a person of faith on matters of faith or morals and at least consider what they say without telling them to STFU?
Common
Here I have to diverge from the format a bit to explain myself. Common vs. uncommon are a bit vague, but in this context I intend them to relate to being reflective vs. unreflective.
The common person is unreflective, unexamined. His [un]beliefs are fixed without thought. He has no humility before the truth and has not, no, cannot conceive that the world is not as he sees it. He is not interested in a search for truth, and should he recognize the truth, he must deny it to save face.
The reflective man is uncommon. He seeks the truth and is humble before it. He questions assumptions about the world, his neighbors, himself. He recognizes that his knowledge is limited. He tests the validity of ideas against fact, history, logic. He recognizes that some things are known with certainty, some with probability, some with faith. He follows the truth and is willing to be changed by it.
Both words, common and uncommon, may apply to atheists, agnostics, or those of a creed.
Please re-read that last sentence.
MFA, I do not know what is in your heart. As a Catholic, I believe in the eternity of the soul, I believe in Heaven, I believe in Hell. And I don't want to see anyone headed for Hell. As a Catholic, I hope for the conversion of the whole world, starting with my own daily conversion. I hope for all to receive the mercy of God, for all need it.
Now, I cannot bring that about. I have to do my best, live my life as holy as possible, witness to those around me by example. As St. Francis said, preach always, when necessary use words. The header of my blog is my daily reminder of my own aptitude to get in the way of the Gospel, and I pray that God will break me of that failing, for my sake and the sake of others.
Yet [far] short of the conversion of the world, I have to, as much as possible, live in peace with others. I am responsible to do my part in building a kingdom of peace and justice. I aim to live peacefully with all those of good will, no matter their creed. With the cooperation of all people of goodwill, we can live in harmony.
If you or any other atheist, or anyone, for that matter, wishes to live in peace and freedom, they find a willing partner in me. If they wish to help those in need, respect the rights of all to live freely, and recognize the same self-evident rights that the Founding Fathers of our country enshrined in our Declaration and Constitution, then I am an ally. True freedom, as Pope John Paul II reminded us, is not the freedom to do whatever we want, but the freedom to live as we ought.
Those who seek to squelch faith are on a fruitless task. Man is created with a desire for that which is good. We seek happiness and recognize the possibility of happiness which does not fail, which does not end. Universally, we desire freedom and righteousness, though we often seem them only dimly, and realize them dimly.
I believe, as the Church teaches, that this desire is intended to guide us toward the God who created us. This desire can only be fulfilled in Him. His love for us is the source of all life and is the source of true happiness. As St. Augustine said, "You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in You."
Peace.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Less of Me
Those of you who read my posts on my blog itself instead of through a feed will notice a new widget in the sidebar. This widget, entitled "Less of Me" will be chronicling my attempt at this year's New Year's Resolution. I need to lose weight. Really. My job is rather sedentary and I don't find the time or money for a gym membership, so I've put on some pounds over the last few years.
I like food. I like cooking. I like being warm and comfortable. Put it together, and you get a guy who's uncomfortable in any weather over 60 degrees, likes elastic waistbands and starts twitching when the fridge has run out of cheese. Not good.
But mostly, I have come to the realization that my weight is now preventing me from being all the father that God calls me to be. I'm too out of shape to do a lot of activities with my boys; I can't chase them around in the yard without wheezing after only a few minutes. A few weeks ago, I played paintball with some friends. After the first couple of rounds, the host looked at me and asked if I was going to have a heart attack. This guy has a flair for the dramatic, so I laughed it off, but what a wake-up.
I want to be here for my kids as they grow up and I want to be able to enjoy them. I can't do that if I'm too tired to do anything but sit down.
Please keep me in your prayers. Temptation lurks. The spirit is willing, but the flabby flesh is weak. Thankfully, I have an accomplice.
I like food. I like cooking. I like being warm and comfortable. Put it together, and you get a guy who's uncomfortable in any weather over 60 degrees, likes elastic waistbands and starts twitching when the fridge has run out of cheese. Not good.
But mostly, I have come to the realization that my weight is now preventing me from being all the father that God calls me to be. I'm too out of shape to do a lot of activities with my boys; I can't chase them around in the yard without wheezing after only a few minutes. A few weeks ago, I played paintball with some friends. After the first couple of rounds, the host looked at me and asked if I was going to have a heart attack. This guy has a flair for the dramatic, so I laughed it off, but what a wake-up.
I want to be here for my kids as they grow up and I want to be able to enjoy them. I can't do that if I'm too tired to do anything but sit down.
Please keep me in your prayers. Temptation lurks. The spirit is willing, but the flabby flesh is weak. Thankfully, I have an accomplice.
A searching atheist...
...wrote to Mark Shea asking for advice on her investigations into the Catholic faith. Leah is, as Mark points out, not the common frothing-at-the-mouth militant atheist, but is humbly searching for the truth and is willing to consider what she does not yet understand. Please pray for her.
The post and comments are worth reading there, too, especially if you or someone you know is questioning the possibility of faith.
The post and comments are worth reading there, too, especially if you or someone you know is questioning the possibility of faith.
Friday, January 7, 2011
The case for objective morality
If you haven't yet read the Holy Father's Christmas speech to the Roman Curia, please do.
Making the rounds have been the pope's assessment of the future of Western civilization should the common interest of a consensus on fundamental morals be abandoned: "The future of the world is at stake."
More striking to me is this passage, pertinent news to a world steeped in moral relativism:
This reminds me that we are the guardians of truth, not the dictators of it. We do not have the authority to determine what is right and wrong by our own decisions. By our opinion we cannot make good into bad and bad into good, though the world still tries to. Truth must dictate our understanding of reality, and principle, not emotion, must guide our moral action.
Making the rounds have been the pope's assessment of the future of Western civilization should the common interest of a consensus on fundamental morals be abandoned: "The future of the world is at stake."
More striking to me is this passage, pertinent news to a world steeped in moral relativism:
To the objective realm belong things that can be calculated and verified by experiment. Religion and morals fall outside the scope of these methods and are therefore considered to lie within the subjective realm. Here, it is said, there are in the final analysis no objective criteria. The ultimate instance that can decide here is therefore the subject alone, and precisely this is what the word “conscience” expresses: in this realm only the individual, with his intuitions and experiences, can decide. [Blessed Cardinal John Henry] Newman’s understanding of conscience is diametrically opposed to this. For him, “conscience” means man’s capacity for truth: the capacity to recognize precisely in the decision-making areas of his life – religion and morals – a truth, the truth. At the same time, conscience – man’s capacity to recognize truth – thereby imposes on him the obligation to set out along the path towards truth, to seek it and to submit to it wherever he finds it.
This reminds me that we are the guardians of truth, not the dictators of it. We do not have the authority to determine what is right and wrong by our own decisions. By our opinion we cannot make good into bad and bad into good, though the world still tries to. Truth must dictate our understanding of reality, and principle, not emotion, must guide our moral action.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
On the sixth day of Christmas, Mike in CT said to you...
Like LarryD said elsewhere, one of the great things about being Catholic is that you can say "Merry Christmas" up to a week after December 25th, and you're still on time.
Hope you all have a wonderful and blessed feast of the birth of Our Lord. May His coming to us bring us all to the peace of His kingdom, if not in this world, then in the next.
Pax.
Hope you all have a wonderful and blessed feast of the birth of Our Lord. May His coming to us bring us all to the peace of His kingdom, if not in this world, then in the next.
Pax.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Clarifying the condom controversy
Sorry the blog lately has been more of a link service with the occasional "Hi, I'm here," but life with 5 is a little hectic. Anyhoo, I do want to point attention to this article from
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Dude, who do you say that I am?
Lewis' argument from Mere Christianity keeps coming back to me lately. Jesus can not be relegated to being categorized as a moral teacher, nor a sandal-wearing hippie, nor a counter-cultural philosopher who was just ahead of his time.
If the Jesus whom is depicted in the gospels is at all accurate, then we are faced with three main conclusions about Him, which lead to two choices about ourselves. Either Jesus is a liar, or a lunatic, or He is who He says He is, the Son of God.
A man who claims to one with the Eternal creator of Heaven and Earth, performs miracles in His name, and offers forgiveness of sins on His behalf must be correct. Otherwise He is a lunatic, and we have no business following him, or worse, a pathological liar and egomaniac, and we must oppose him. We cannot follow Him half-heartedly. If Jesus is who He says He is, we are then faced with the choice of whether to accept all that He is, or none of Him, for in relation to Him, we have no basis to make any limitations.
I've heard people make the road-up-the-mountain argument: there are many roads that lead up the mountain to enlightenment, holiness, whatever you'd like to call it, God. But this is specious at best, for the only way to know if a road leads to the top of the mountain is to trace the road from the top downward. We, being at the bottom of the mount, cannot do this on our own. But One has come down from the top of the mountain to us, and so connected was He with the road He traveled that He called Himself the Way. Only through this door can we enter into eternal life.
This week we finalize our preparations for celebrating not only the day He came down to us in flesh, but also to look forward to the day when He comes again in glory. From Evening Prayer, Fourth Sunday of Advent: "He comes, the desire of all human hearts; his dwelling place shall be resplendent with glory, alleluia."
If the Jesus whom is depicted in the gospels is at all accurate, then we are faced with three main conclusions about Him, which lead to two choices about ourselves. Either Jesus is a liar, or a lunatic, or He is who He says He is, the Son of God.
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the son of God: or else a madman or something worse.
Then Lewis adds:
You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
A man who claims to one with the Eternal creator of Heaven and Earth, performs miracles in His name, and offers forgiveness of sins on His behalf must be correct. Otherwise He is a lunatic, and we have no business following him, or worse, a pathological liar and egomaniac, and we must oppose him. We cannot follow Him half-heartedly. If Jesus is who He says He is, we are then faced with the choice of whether to accept all that He is, or none of Him, for in relation to Him, we have no basis to make any limitations.
I've heard people make the road-up-the-mountain argument: there are many roads that lead up the mountain to enlightenment, holiness, whatever you'd like to call it, God. But this is specious at best, for the only way to know if a road leads to the top of the mountain is to trace the road from the top downward. We, being at the bottom of the mount, cannot do this on our own. But One has come down from the top of the mountain to us, and so connected was He with the road He traveled that He called Himself the Way. Only through this door can we enter into eternal life.
This week we finalize our preparations for celebrating not only the day He came down to us in flesh, but also to look forward to the day when He comes again in glory. From Evening Prayer, Fourth Sunday of Advent: "He comes, the desire of all human hearts; his dwelling place shall be resplendent with glory, alleluia."
Friday, December 17, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Wanna gain ten pounds fast?
...then try this recipe with no one to share them with. Dangerous. You've been warned. Make sure you are not alone when they are done.
Relatives always request that I make these at Christmas and New Year's. But. Only. Then.
Peanut butter cups.
base:
2 cups graham cracker crumbs
1 lb confectioners sugar
18 oz creamy peanut butter
1/2 lb butter (2 sticks)
topping:
12 oz. chocolate chips
4 tablespoons butter (1/2 stick)
corn syrup (just a little to thin chocolate out)
optional: candy wax, 1/3-1/2 bar to solidify chocolate
optional: 1/4 cup coffee grounds
Melt 2 sticks butter and mix with graham cracker crumbs, sugar and peanut butter. It will form a moist, shiny dough. If it's drippy or crumbly, add more peanut butter or sugar. Pat into a 10 x 15 pan, about 1/2" thick all around.
Over low flame, melt chocolate and 1/2 stick butter. Optional: melt candy wax over a double boiler and add to chocoloate. Add corn syrup and coffee grounds. Pour over peanut butter base and chill.
Hint: I put the pan in the fridge, then take it out after 5-10 minutes. I score just a little into the chocolate in 1" squares. Then put back in the fridge until chocolate is hardened. It's easier to cut them the whole way this way.
Unfortunately, there are always stray bits that aren't square, especially around the edges. You can't put these on a plate for display, so they must be eaten immediately. And sometimes I don't cut the squares straight, so some of the pieces are just too small to include, and well, make sure you have people lined up or you won't be eating dinner. For a week.
Relatives always request that I make these at Christmas and New Year's. But. Only. Then.
Peanut butter cups.
base:
2 cups graham cracker crumbs
1 lb confectioners sugar
18 oz creamy peanut butter
1/2 lb butter (2 sticks)
topping:
12 oz. chocolate chips
4 tablespoons butter (1/2 stick)
corn syrup (just a little to thin chocolate out)
optional: candy wax, 1/3-1/2 bar to solidify chocolate
optional: 1/4 cup coffee grounds
Melt 2 sticks butter and mix with graham cracker crumbs, sugar and peanut butter. It will form a moist, shiny dough. If it's drippy or crumbly, add more peanut butter or sugar. Pat into a 10 x 15 pan, about 1/2" thick all around.
Over low flame, melt chocolate and 1/2 stick butter. Optional: melt candy wax over a double boiler and add to chocoloate. Add corn syrup and coffee grounds. Pour over peanut butter base and chill.
Hint: I put the pan in the fridge, then take it out after 5-10 minutes. I score just a little into the chocolate in 1" squares. Then put back in the fridge until chocolate is hardened. It's easier to cut them the whole way this way.
Unfortunately, there are always stray bits that aren't square, especially around the edges. You can't put these on a plate for display, so they must be eaten immediately. And sometimes I don't cut the squares straight, so some of the pieces are just too small to include, and well, make sure you have people lined up or you won't be eating dinner. For a week.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
In their blind obedience...
...to the overtly patriarchal, heretical, materialistic, and inherently corrupt worldwide organization known to its followers as "The Roman Catholic Church," whose sham attempts at posing itself as pro-life, while "sincerely" caring for the poor, only as a ruse to fill its pews and therefore, its coffers, MikeinCT and PattyinCT fulfill their obligations of adding one more soldier/propogandist to the Pope's Army and Auxiliary.
Welcome Agent #98746243837, Gabriella Sophia Victoire [inCT], born on the feast of the Church Triumphalist, All Saints' Day.
Cheers, Comrade PattyinCT!
Welcome Agent #98746243837, Gabriella Sophia Victoire [inCT], born on the feast of the Church Triumphalist, All Saints' Day.
Cheers, Comrade PattyinCT!
Friday, October 22, 2010
All Hypocrisy Considered...
I was asked about the significance of my post yesterday linking to the Anchoress' assessment of the firing of NPR's Juan Williams.
For those not familiar with the story, Juan Williams, a news analyst for NPR, was fired this week for comments he made in a conversation with Bill O'Reilly on FOX. He described his own apprehension when on an airplane with people dressed in Muslim garb, in order to make his broader point of overcoming one's own prejudices. NPR stated that Williams' comments were not in keeping with their expectations that their news analysts don't divulge their personal opinions on controversial topics and that Williams has long been pushing the envelope, so to speak.
It sounds innocuous enough, but the story quickly unraveled to show that there is a much more cynical back story going on. In my opinion, and I am not alone, as the overwhelming majority of the 8000+ comments on the NPR website can attest, NPR has lost its veneer of credibility as an objective media outlet, a credibility which was already on shaky grounds.
NPR has long been criticized for its left-leaning bias in its reporting and staffing. Myself, I used to listen to NPR daily at work (metal building=bad radio reception) and appreciated its in-depth coverage of a wide variety of issues, but after beginning to listen on occasion to conservative radio, I began to hear admittedly conservative viewpoints that were either never given airtime on NPR shows, or given short shrift with sneering contempt. Growing up in CT, I had been immersed in liberal think all through my education, and this was a turning point in my own political thought and understanding. I started to recognize the bias inherent in NPR, and as I started investigating, recognized it in other mainstream media outlets as well, especially in the networks ABC. CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. I began to see that the veneer of objectivity was just that- a veneer, a thin layer to cover up one material to make it look like something else.
In full disclosure, I don't have cable, and so I don't watch FOX. I have no vested interest in defending FOX, but it's clear to me that the reason FOX was able to gain the audience it has is because the public had been yearning for quite some time for a news outlet that wasn't blatantly left-leaning. (So don't fill the combox with "FOX isn't fair and balanced! They're not objective either, they're conservative!!!" I'm not making the case that they are, just that they obviously fill a void to provide counter-balance to the main-stream-media.)
That being said, Juan Williams was fired because of his relationship with FOX. It's interesting that he was fired the day after NPR announced it received a donation for $1.8 million dollars from George Soros, a multi- billionaire who not only has stated as his hopes the collapse of the U.S. dollar, but also a one-world government, who is also supporting organizations that are targeting FOX in general, and personalities on FOX in particular. It on the face of it smacks of blacklisting, and therefore, the suppression of free thought.
Speaking of free thought, aren't news analysts paid to voice their opinions? If you take NPR's stated reasons for firing Williams at face value, why is Nina Totenberg, whose comments about Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Jesse Helms were far more scathing, personal and controversial, still employed by NPR?
No, NPR showed its true colors here. The CEO of NPR made some pretty outrageous comments yesterday about the firing, suggesting that Williams should have kept his opinions between him and his psychiatrist, implying that such thoughts are only appropriate for psychological analysis, and not appropriate for a discussion about race and religion in the public square. And that's where it shows that NPR is not interested in free speech, free thought, or rational discussion, only groupthink that passes the Politically Correct Police. Criticism of muslims is: Simply. Not. Tolerated. That's what Williams' true crime was. Speaking about his gut reaction to riding on an airplane next to people of the same religion as some other people who, in the name of their religion, hijacked airplanes and crashed them into tall buildings.
The politically correct transgression in this case is in parallel to Shirley Sherod's firing from the Department of Agriculture this year. In her case, Sherod, a black lady employed by the Agric. Dept., was shown on video talking about her inital hesitation in helping white farmers. She was quickly fired, and rightly so, for she did, in fact, admit that she didn't help white farmers as much as she could have because they were white, but in the course of that video, she was trying to explain how she overcame her initial hesitation in helping white farmers, to realize that the struggles she ought to help overcome had nothing to do with race. Juan Williams did not act on his apprehensions, he did not discriminate or express hatred, he did not suggest that all or even most are Bad People (TM), but merely that he had a gut reaction to sitting on a plane next to Muslims, given the history of 9/11.
But NPR shows that not transgressing PC boundaries is far more important than expressing honest emotions in a rational debate about race and religion. But given the Soros connection, I wonder if there is something more going on here. Soros, I think, has bought and paid for this institution of the media in his attempts to achieve his goals.
Oh, and since the NPR CEO belittled the tax money that goes to support NPR, then I agree that maybe it's time to pull the funds since she doesn't think it's that big of a deal anyway?
For those not familiar with the story, Juan Williams, a news analyst for NPR, was fired this week for comments he made in a conversation with Bill O'Reilly on FOX. He described his own apprehension when on an airplane with people dressed in Muslim garb, in order to make his broader point of overcoming one's own prejudices. NPR stated that Williams' comments were not in keeping with their expectations that their news analysts don't divulge their personal opinions on controversial topics and that Williams has long been pushing the envelope, so to speak.
It sounds innocuous enough, but the story quickly unraveled to show that there is a much more cynical back story going on. In my opinion, and I am not alone, as the overwhelming majority of the 8000+ comments on the NPR website can attest, NPR has lost its veneer of credibility as an objective media outlet, a credibility which was already on shaky grounds.
NPR has long been criticized for its left-leaning bias in its reporting and staffing. Myself, I used to listen to NPR daily at work (metal building=bad radio reception) and appreciated its in-depth coverage of a wide variety of issues, but after beginning to listen on occasion to conservative radio, I began to hear admittedly conservative viewpoints that were either never given airtime on NPR shows, or given short shrift with sneering contempt. Growing up in CT, I had been immersed in liberal think all through my education, and this was a turning point in my own political thought and understanding. I started to recognize the bias inherent in NPR, and as I started investigating, recognized it in other mainstream media outlets as well, especially in the networks ABC. CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. I began to see that the veneer of objectivity was just that- a veneer, a thin layer to cover up one material to make it look like something else.
In full disclosure, I don't have cable, and so I don't watch FOX. I have no vested interest in defending FOX, but it's clear to me that the reason FOX was able to gain the audience it has is because the public had been yearning for quite some time for a news outlet that wasn't blatantly left-leaning. (So don't fill the combox with "FOX isn't fair and balanced! They're not objective either, they're conservative!!!" I'm not making the case that they are, just that they obviously fill a void to provide counter-balance to the main-stream-media.)
That being said, Juan Williams was fired because of his relationship with FOX. It's interesting that he was fired the day after NPR announced it received a donation for $1.8 million dollars from George Soros, a multi- billionaire who not only has stated as his hopes the collapse of the U.S. dollar, but also a one-world government, who is also supporting organizations that are targeting FOX in general, and personalities on FOX in particular. It on the face of it smacks of blacklisting, and therefore, the suppression of free thought.
Speaking of free thought, aren't news analysts paid to voice their opinions? If you take NPR's stated reasons for firing Williams at face value, why is Nina Totenberg, whose comments about Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Jesse Helms were far more scathing, personal and controversial, still employed by NPR?
No, NPR showed its true colors here. The CEO of NPR made some pretty outrageous comments yesterday about the firing, suggesting that Williams should have kept his opinions between him and his psychiatrist, implying that such thoughts are only appropriate for psychological analysis, and not appropriate for a discussion about race and religion in the public square. And that's where it shows that NPR is not interested in free speech, free thought, or rational discussion, only groupthink that passes the Politically Correct Police. Criticism of muslims is: Simply. Not. Tolerated. That's what Williams' true crime was. Speaking about his gut reaction to riding on an airplane next to people of the same religion as some other people who, in the name of their religion, hijacked airplanes and crashed them into tall buildings.
The politically correct transgression in this case is in parallel to Shirley Sherod's firing from the Department of Agriculture this year. In her case, Sherod, a black lady employed by the Agric. Dept., was shown on video talking about her inital hesitation in helping white farmers. She was quickly fired, and rightly so, for she did, in fact, admit that she didn't help white farmers as much as she could have because they were white, but in the course of that video, she was trying to explain how she overcame her initial hesitation in helping white farmers, to realize that the struggles she ought to help overcome had nothing to do with race. Juan Williams did not act on his apprehensions, he did not discriminate or express hatred, he did not suggest that all or even most are Bad People (TM), but merely that he had a gut reaction to sitting on a plane next to Muslims, given the history of 9/11.
But NPR shows that not transgressing PC boundaries is far more important than expressing honest emotions in a rational debate about race and religion. But given the Soros connection, I wonder if there is something more going on here. Soros, I think, has bought and paid for this institution of the media in his attempts to achieve his goals.
Oh, and since the NPR CEO belittled the tax money that goes to support NPR, then I agree that maybe it's time to pull the funds since she doesn't think it's that big of a deal anyway?
Thursday, October 21, 2010
NPR, your epidermis is showing.
The Anchoress hits NPR square on the jaw, with about a thousand links to back up the punch!
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
