...as a force for good in the world, it produced The Trouble with Angels. Released in 1966, I just recently saw it for the first time. Probably run of the mill kid fluff at the time, I was really impressed with its treatment of Catholicism in general and the religious life in particular.
The plot is simple: two rambunctious girls attend four years at an all-girls Catholic school run by an order of religious sisters. Watching this movie struck a chord with Wifey and me, because my wife was the rambunctious redhead at a school just like this one. My wife started laughing when the eldest retired sister was asleep at the dinner table. (I thought maybe she had died, so I didn't get the joke. But her school was, like in TTwA, also the Motherhouse of the order, so she had elderly nuns asleep at the table all the time.)
Haley Mills plays Mary Clancy, the antagonist of every prank in the movie. Rosalind Russell is stunning as Reverend Mother. The Trouble with Angels is a character study. The charm of the movie lies the growth into maturity of Mary Clancy and her friend Rachel Devery, along with the softening process as Mary begins to see Reverend Mother as less the dragon who thwarts her "scathingly brilliant ideas", and more the strong, devoted woman who quietly but passionately loves her Lord and her girls.
It's a fun movie to watch and the kids enjoy it. Unlike its changing-with-the-times hip and vapid sequel, which should be avoided like bells on Good Friday, I highly recommend The Trouble with Angels.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Time management
Last week I was complaining and whining like Luke Skywalker about how I feel like I'm going nowhere. Rob K made a good point that it might be an opportunity to discern if God wants me to do something differently.
It's a point well taken and one that I had been pondering. I was assessing not just blogging, but how I've been spending much of my time. And it hasn't been good lately.
I work for a small company that is pretty casual about guidelines. As long as the work gets done, there's a lot of leeway. So if I get to work at 7:00, great. If I get there at 9:00, fine. If I have errands to run on the way in, even later is acceptable. Nobody hounds me about it. It just means I stay later.
The problem with such permissiveness is that it's ripe for cultivating bad habits. And getting to work later had become a bad habit for me, one that was affecting other areas of life. Especially considering my 45 minute commute, I'd get out of work later, missing the kids, or I'd get out at the normal time to help my wife with something-or-other and end up with a shortened payday. And at a period of time when I'm also keeping an eye out for a part-time job that fits my schedule, this is not helpful. In general, I've been experiencing diminishing returns and general frustration. And there's nobody to blame but me.
I need to set a deadline for myself. Otherwise, the snooze button is my best friend. After all, without a firm time to be somewhere, what's another few minutes of blissful sleep?
God's solution to my problem was obvious.
I've been enjoying a better use of my days. Today I was out of the house before wifey was up, had a full day at work, came home, and made dinner for the kids and me (mom is out tonight). We brushed teeth, got Frac his medicine, read two library books, and sang extra night prayer songs (and a Star Wars theme)--both at the kids' request. And all of that because I had the best start to the day that there is.
7:00 Mass 1/2 mile from work.
It's a point well taken and one that I had been pondering. I was assessing not just blogging, but how I've been spending much of my time. And it hasn't been good lately.
I work for a small company that is pretty casual about guidelines. As long as the work gets done, there's a lot of leeway. So if I get to work at 7:00, great. If I get there at 9:00, fine. If I have errands to run on the way in, even later is acceptable. Nobody hounds me about it. It just means I stay later.
The problem with such permissiveness is that it's ripe for cultivating bad habits. And getting to work later had become a bad habit for me, one that was affecting other areas of life. Especially considering my 45 minute commute, I'd get out of work later, missing the kids, or I'd get out at the normal time to help my wife with something-or-other and end up with a shortened payday. And at a period of time when I'm also keeping an eye out for a part-time job that fits my schedule, this is not helpful. In general, I've been experiencing diminishing returns and general frustration. And there's nobody to blame but me.
I need to set a deadline for myself. Otherwise, the snooze button is my best friend. After all, without a firm time to be somewhere, what's another few minutes of blissful sleep?
God's solution to my problem was obvious.
I've been enjoying a better use of my days. Today I was out of the house before wifey was up, had a full day at work, came home, and made dinner for the kids and me (mom is out tonight). We brushed teeth, got Frac his medicine, read two library books, and sang extra night prayer songs (and a Star Wars theme)--both at the kids' request. And all of that because I had the best start to the day that there is.
7:00 Mass 1/2 mile from work.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Elena's Notes
If you're looking for a Christmas present for anyone and everyone, please consider Notes Left Behind, a book chronicling the story of Elena, a beautiful girl whose story is truly heart-breaking and -warming. Faced with terminal cancer, Elena hid dozens of love notes and drawings for her parents and sister to find when she was gone. Read her story, look at her artwork and support the cause to find a cure for this deadly disease.
(Just so you know, I contacted thecurestartsnow.org, affiliated with the project, and they informed me that they do NOT fund embryonic stem cell research, so buy the book in good conscience.)
H/T CMR.
(Just so you know, I contacted thecurestartsnow.org, affiliated with the project, and they informed me that they do NOT fund embryonic stem cell research, so buy the book in good conscience.)
H/T CMR.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Flashback
My wife and I were watching this online the other night and couldn't help but think that such a skit today would be lost on the audience, as so many of the predictions of 1984 and Brave New World have come true, that many people wouldn't recognize the irony that made this skit funny when it aired. Note the question at 3:15 and the audience reaction. They could laugh because the Culture of Death hadn't yet progressed from abortion-rights to promotion of outright infanticide.
Obama shows his cards on abortion and health care
Obama's reaction to the House passage of the health care legislation with the Stupak amendment reveals where this is all going.
The Stupak amendment bans federal funding of abortion, which means that those who wish to have an abortion or who think they might need one in the future will either have to pay for one directly or will need to purchase the insurance with abortion coverage at their own expense.
Then Obama expresses concern that the amendment will restrict women's choices and opportunity to get such "health care."
Is he really afraid that purchasing private health care will be an actual restriction on procuring an abortion? That could only be the case if there is no private health insurance. There would only be no private health insurance if we move to the single-payer system, which Senator Obama declared was a goal of his. Many people have criticized the government intervention in health care as paving the way for single-payer health care, a charge that President Obama, Pelosi and Reid have vehemently denied. Who do you believe, them or your own eyes and ears?
The Stupak amendment bans federal funding of abortion, which means that those who wish to have an abortion or who think they might need one in the future will either have to pay for one directly or will need to purchase the insurance with abortion coverage at their own expense.
Then Obama expresses concern that the amendment will restrict women's choices and opportunity to get such "health care."
Is he really afraid that purchasing private health care will be an actual restriction on procuring an abortion? That could only be the case if there is no private health insurance. There would only be no private health insurance if we move to the single-payer system, which Senator Obama declared was a goal of his. Many people have criticized the government intervention in health care as paving the way for single-payer health care, a charge that President Obama, Pelosi and Reid have vehemently denied. Who do you believe, them or your own eyes and ears?
Monday, November 9, 2009
Blogging
...has become a bit of a chore as of late. I'm finding that I do well with the format of online conversation, but I often get saddled with writer's block when I sit down to post my soliloquies. I really liked the older format of the CatholicVote website and that, essentially spurred my activities here. Someone would invariably say something utterly stupid and in need of immediate correction and explanation and that fueled my fire, so to speak. I found an avenue to discuss Catholic teaching and relate it to current events.
Lately, I've been spending too much time reading other blogs. I started out by checking out what other people were doing, getting ideas, and linking to stories that piqued my interest. But now I find that I use up all my blogging time just weeding through what others post. Then I'm overwhelmed by the sheer number of topics to address.
I don't like drive-by posting. On other people's blogs, there have been so many items I'd like to comment on, but the topics are important enough to warrant lengthy conversation, but since I don't have the time lately to do that, I'd rather not leave any comment at all than leave a provocative one-liner that I'm not around to defend.
Lately, I've been spending too much time reading other blogs. I started out by checking out what other people were doing, getting ideas, and linking to stories that piqued my interest. But now I find that I use up all my blogging time just weeding through what others post. Then I'm overwhelmed by the sheer number of topics to address.
I don't like drive-by posting. On other people's blogs, there have been so many items I'd like to comment on, but the topics are important enough to warrant lengthy conversation, but since I don't have the time lately to do that, I'd rather not leave any comment at all than leave a provocative one-liner that I'm not around to defend.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Note to self:
snipped shamelessly from Diogenes:
quote from Cardinal Ratzinger's 1984 address to German seminarians:
quote from Cardinal Ratzinger's 1984 address to German seminarians:
The ability to accept and weather suffering is a fundamental condition for succeeding as a human being. Where it is never learned, existence is doomed to failure. Being up-in-arms about everyone and everything contaminates the ground of the soul, so to speak, and turns it into barren land. The priest must learn how to cope with pain -- formerly one spoke of asceticism in this context. No one likes this word any longer; it becomes more palatable when we translate it from Greek into English -- training. Everyone knows that without training and the will-power that goes with it there is no success. Nowadays one trains for all kinds of skills with enthusiasm and persistence, and in this way record performances in many areas are possible that were once deemed inconceivable. Why does it seem so outlandish to train for real life, for the right life -- to practice the arts of self-denial, of self-control, and of freeing ourselves from our addictions?
As a reminder of this, near my desk is a small copy of an illustration from an old copy of the Imitation of Christ, where Christ is being whipped and mocked by the soldiers in his cell. The caption: "Cease to complain, remembering my Passion."
Man, do I need to be reminded of that often.
Man, do I need to be reminded of that often.
And while I'm redirecting you to other blogs...
I've found Shameless Popery to be very enriching, especially the post today answering the Protestant hang-up on the Eucharist and Mary. It's worth checking out.
The Paschal Mystery
As I'm reading Fulton Sheen's "Life of Christ" and loving every minute of it, Fr. Longenecker's post today about the centrality of the Paschal Mystery to the Catholic's relationship with Christ is knee-deep frosting on the cake.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Sweetie-Pie Baby Girl
Sporting her "I Love My Daddy" bib. Not only is she now crawling, but this week, she cut two teeth.
Oh, yeah, and in other minor news, SHE SAID DADA! (Mom is still moping.)
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Dog That Didn't Bark Finally Barks
President Obama said to a joint session of Congress that his plan for health care reform would not use Federal dollars to pay for abortions. Yet we knew even at the time that he was lying.
When he announced in his plan to make the Federal government the biggest health insurance provider in the nation that it wouldn't pay for abortions, do you remember the giant uproar it caused among abortion providers and their supporters? Remember the hand-wringing that went on by those worried that abortions would be underfunded and the abortion industry would be left out in the cold unable to offer their necessary services to women who need them? Oh, wait, that's right. There was no uproar. In fact, they didn't say "boo." No rants by Maureen Dowd, no e-mail campaign by Planned Parenthood, no released statements by Naral. Nothing. Not even a wimper by Pseudo-Catholics for Free Choice.
Apparently, they had reason to think that President Obama either didn't mean what he said or there was a giant loophole in his meaning. Well, Congressman Stupak provided the answer to that riddle. Obama was talking about a bill that didn't exist while the bills that existed in reality did and still do cover abortions with Federal (taxpayer-supplied) dollars, despite numerous attempts to amend the bills otherwise.
But even when pro-life amendments to the House and Senate bills were proposed, there was still no uproar from the abortion industry; that is, until now. Planned Parenthood is attacking the Catholic Church.
It is now perfectly clear that abortion will be covered under the plans that President Obama, Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi are pushing. And the Catholic Church is pushing back. In the last couple of weeks, the USCCB declared that unless abortion is taken out of the federal coverage and meaningful conscience protections are put in place, it will be forced to oppose the single reform that the Catholic bishops have been hoping for since the 1950's.
The only problem is, I don't know if they'll keep pushing or if they'll cave. History is not on our side. The Plan B "contraceptive" debacle that embroiled the State of CT and the CT Catholic Conference a few years back paints a disheartening picture: the bishops loudly declare that they'll fight to the end, then timidly release a statement on page A9 at the last hour admitting that the abortifacient would be allowed in Catholic hospitals.
I believed then that the bishops had a much stronger position than they either imagined or were willing to put on the table. If the Church had threatened to close its hospitals in the state--and I don't mean sell them to another health care company-- I mean, lay off the staff, demolish the buildings and set the land as a nature preserve, the state would have backed off in a heartbeat.
But that's not what happened. Instead, we got a half-hearted hope that the pill which was known to have abortifacient properties might not actually be acting as such. Sigh.
I fear that the bulletin-insert campaign (which, btw, many readers at CMR report didn't happen in their parishes this past weekend) is a little too little, too late.
Maybe I'm being naive, and if someone can help me understand this, please do. Why can't the bishops threaten to close Catholic hospitals if the health care proposal covers abortion with taxpayer dollars? Why can't they threaten it now unless a pro-life amendment is passed? What government body is going to find the funding to rebuild hundreds of hospitals throughout the country? And what politician is going to want that on his resume-- (I forced Catholic hospitals to close)?
When he announced in his plan to make the Federal government the biggest health insurance provider in the nation that it wouldn't pay for abortions, do you remember the giant uproar it caused among abortion providers and their supporters? Remember the hand-wringing that went on by those worried that abortions would be underfunded and the abortion industry would be left out in the cold unable to offer their necessary services to women who need them? Oh, wait, that's right. There was no uproar. In fact, they didn't say "boo." No rants by Maureen Dowd, no e-mail campaign by Planned Parenthood, no released statements by Naral. Nothing. Not even a wimper by Pseudo-Catholics for Free Choice.
Apparently, they had reason to think that President Obama either didn't mean what he said or there was a giant loophole in his meaning. Well, Congressman Stupak provided the answer to that riddle. Obama was talking about a bill that didn't exist while the bills that existed in reality did and still do cover abortions with Federal (taxpayer-supplied) dollars, despite numerous attempts to amend the bills otherwise.
But even when pro-life amendments to the House and Senate bills were proposed, there was still no uproar from the abortion industry; that is, until now. Planned Parenthood is attacking the Catholic Church.
It is now perfectly clear that abortion will be covered under the plans that President Obama, Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi are pushing. And the Catholic Church is pushing back. In the last couple of weeks, the USCCB declared that unless abortion is taken out of the federal coverage and meaningful conscience protections are put in place, it will be forced to oppose the single reform that the Catholic bishops have been hoping for since the 1950's.
The only problem is, I don't know if they'll keep pushing or if they'll cave. History is not on our side. The Plan B "contraceptive" debacle that embroiled the State of CT and the CT Catholic Conference a few years back paints a disheartening picture: the bishops loudly declare that they'll fight to the end, then timidly release a statement on page A9 at the last hour admitting that the abortifacient would be allowed in Catholic hospitals.
I believed then that the bishops had a much stronger position than they either imagined or were willing to put on the table. If the Church had threatened to close its hospitals in the state--and I don't mean sell them to another health care company-- I mean, lay off the staff, demolish the buildings and set the land as a nature preserve, the state would have backed off in a heartbeat.
But that's not what happened. Instead, we got a half-hearted hope that the pill which was known to have abortifacient properties might not actually be acting as such. Sigh.
I fear that the bulletin-insert campaign (which, btw, many readers at CMR report didn't happen in their parishes this past weekend) is a little too little, too late.
Maybe I'm being naive, and if someone can help me understand this, please do. Why can't the bishops threaten to close Catholic hospitals if the health care proposal covers abortion with taxpayer dollars? Why can't they threaten it now unless a pro-life amendment is passed? What government body is going to find the funding to rebuild hundreds of hospitals throughout the country? And what politician is going to want that on his resume-- (I forced Catholic hospitals to close)?
Friday, October 30, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Carly Simon and Roberta Flack point to Christ?
Last week for days I couldn't get this song out of my head. Roberta Flack's recording of "Will you still love me tomorrow?" by Carole King. [My apologies, I couldn't find the actual recording, but here is a beautiful cover (of the cover). Now before I get to the point, let me just say, yes Roberta Flack had a low alto voice and this guy can sing as high in the tenor range as I can, but I can't sound soft and sultry like this. It's kind of creepy, but a great recording...]
Anyhoo, I've always found this song to be haunting, but I never put my finger on why. But the more it played over and over again in my head, a clearer understanding began to form. For the same reason that this song has captivated so many people (and been re-recorded by just about everyone who ever sang into a microphone) is that is expresses a longing, fragile tenderness that exists in every human heart. This song, whether the singer knows it or not, is about the search for God.
At first glance, that may not be what you see. In fact, at first glance, you could assume that this song is either about a couple growing serious in their affection for one another and about to make love (out of wedlock, we assume) or it could be about a one-night stand.
Now, let me get something out of the way. A good friend of mine frequently makes the "poop in the brownie" argument, which goes sort of like this: Good stories don't need to engage in gratuitous sin, even if it's just a little bit. After all, just a little bit of dog poop ruins the brownie batter. When she first made that argument it disengaged me, knocking me from my perch, rendering me unable to press for what I believed. Yet that argument, while relevant in many discussions, doesn't enter here. I'm not talking here about a gratuitous sex scene that adds nothing to the plot of a story, but is obligatory in order to reap box office cash, nor am I talking about torture porn (read: "Saw"), no matter how compelling the story may have ended up being. I'm talking about the glimmers of hope and transcendence even in sinful endeavors, the rays of light that may peek into a darkened corner that nonetheless reveal that there is a sun above.
The woman in this song is about to give herself to her lover, opening her body to his, revealing her inmost self. And in a moment frozen in time, she stops to question him. She is suspended in time while he stands before her, oblivious to the torrent of her heart within. Like Tevya, she wrestles with questions that may not have an answer. She looks to her lover to question him, but no answer comes, for the question remains only in her heart. But also like Tevya, it's not the answer that's important for the moment, but the fact that she grapples with the question.
What she is looking for, what we all are looking for, is not a love that is illusory, nor a love that only seeks its own pleasure, for that is not love at all. She seeks a love that lasts, a love that has no bounds. She wants a love that is everlasting. The woman in the song is playing at a dangerous game of trust, and she knows how dangerous it is, yet she can't do anything but trust anyway. She needs to trust, she needs to succumb to a love outside of herself. She needs to fall, hoping that her lover will catch her, though she knows that he may fail her.
Why, then, must she fall anyway? Why do we all run headlong into the abyss seeking after something that in this life seems never to fulfill but always to disappoint?
It is because we are made that way. We are created with one goal in mind: love. God, who is Love itself, created us with the sole intention that we might be one, in love, with Him for all eternity. But God does not force this love upon us. We must choose Him, Who loves us so much that he gave himself up for us, yet still allows us the freedom to love Him in return.
"27The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:
The woman in the song is not looking for sex; she's looking for unending love. Like that quote from Chesterton, every man who walks into a brothel is looking for God.
Btw, if you want to read about other songs in our culture that in their own way point to the reality of Christ, visit Twisted Mystics.
Anyhoo, I've always found this song to be haunting, but I never put my finger on why. But the more it played over and over again in my head, a clearer understanding began to form. For the same reason that this song has captivated so many people (and been re-recorded by just about everyone who ever sang into a microphone) is that is expresses a longing, fragile tenderness that exists in every human heart. This song, whether the singer knows it or not, is about the search for God.
At first glance, that may not be what you see. In fact, at first glance, you could assume that this song is either about a couple growing serious in their affection for one another and about to make love (out of wedlock, we assume) or it could be about a one-night stand.
Now, let me get something out of the way. A good friend of mine frequently makes the "poop in the brownie" argument, which goes sort of like this: Good stories don't need to engage in gratuitous sin, even if it's just a little bit. After all, just a little bit of dog poop ruins the brownie batter. When she first made that argument it disengaged me, knocking me from my perch, rendering me unable to press for what I believed. Yet that argument, while relevant in many discussions, doesn't enter here. I'm not talking here about a gratuitous sex scene that adds nothing to the plot of a story, but is obligatory in order to reap box office cash, nor am I talking about torture porn (read: "Saw"), no matter how compelling the story may have ended up being. I'm talking about the glimmers of hope and transcendence even in sinful endeavors, the rays of light that may peek into a darkened corner that nonetheless reveal that there is a sun above.
The woman in this song is about to give herself to her lover, opening her body to his, revealing her inmost self. And in a moment frozen in time, she stops to question him. She is suspended in time while he stands before her, oblivious to the torrent of her heart within. Like Tevya, she wrestles with questions that may not have an answer. She looks to her lover to question him, but no answer comes, for the question remains only in her heart. But also like Tevya, it's not the answer that's important for the moment, but the fact that she grapples with the question.
Tonight you're mine completely,
You give your love so sweetly,
Tonight the light of love is in your eyes,
But will you love me tomorrow?
Is this a lasting treasure,
Or just a moment's pleasure,
Can I believe the magic of your sighs,
Will you still love me tomorrow?
Tonight with words unspoken,
You said that I'm the only one,
But will my heart be broken,
When the night (When the night)
Meets the morning sun.
I'd like to know that your love,
Is love I can be sure of,
So tell me now and I won't ask again,
Will you still love me tomorrow?
Will you still love me tomorrow?
-Carole King
What she is looking for, what we all are looking for, is not a love that is illusory, nor a love that only seeks its own pleasure, for that is not love at all. She seeks a love that lasts, a love that has no bounds. She wants a love that is everlasting. The woman in the song is playing at a dangerous game of trust, and she knows how dangerous it is, yet she can't do anything but trust anyway. She needs to trust, she needs to succumb to a love outside of herself. She needs to fall, hoping that her lover will catch her, though she knows that he may fail her.
Why, then, must she fall anyway? Why do we all run headlong into the abyss seeking after something that in this life seems never to fulfill but always to disappoint?
It is because we are made that way. We are created with one goal in mind: love. God, who is Love itself, created us with the sole intention that we might be one, in love, with Him for all eternity. But God does not force this love upon us. We must choose Him, Who loves us so much that he gave himself up for us, yet still allows us the freedom to love Him in return.
"27The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:
- The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists, it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator."
- Psalm 63:2-8
- O God, you are my God-- for you I long! For you my body yearns; for you my soul thirsts, Like a land parched, lifeless, and without water.
- So I look to you in the sanctuary to see your power and glory.
- For your love is better than life; my lips offer you worship!
- I will bless you as long as I live; I will lift up my hands, calling on your name.
- My soul shall savor the rich banquet of praise, with joyous lips my mouth shall honor you!
- When I think of you upon my bed, through the night watches I will recall
- That you indeed are my help, and in the shadow of your wings I shout for joy.
The woman in the song is not looking for sex; she's looking for unending love. Like that quote from Chesterton, every man who walks into a brothel is looking for God.
Btw, if you want to read about other songs in our culture that in their own way point to the reality of Christ, visit Twisted Mystics.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Completely Random Movie Quotes #3
"No! The world must be peopled."
[Quote noticeably absent from the movie: "Whoa."]
[Quote noticeably absent from the movie: "Whoa."]
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
If you like logic
...and enjoy tearing apart the ridiculous arguments made by people who clearly don't understand it, then I think you'll enjoy this read at American Papist.
Monday, September 14, 2009
There's a new sherrif in town...
We were at the house of a family this weekend with which we are very close friends, as are our children, who are about the same age. We were having a great time, the adults inside kabitzing, making dinner, oogling over the baby, when the inevitable happened. You know.
One of the kids came in crying with the extra sound of injustice in his voice. Our friend's son, we'll call him Thomas, claimed that his sister, we'll call her Sandra, and my oldest son, here known as Fric, hit him and knocked him to the ground. Oh, boy, here we go.
Thomas' dad, mom and I summoned all the appropriate witnesses to the bailiff's quarters (the porch) and commenced the interrogations in the judge's chambers.
One by one the involved parties were questioned, with Thomas' story distinctly different from Sandra's and Fric's, neither of whom had a moment together to corroborate their stories. To get to the point, Thomas started by hitting Sandra with (I believe) a wiffle ball bat when she retreived the frisbee before he did. And what did my son do? Why, he knocked Thomas over by hitting him in the chest, because, hey!, you don't. hit. girls.
That's my boy.
One of the kids came in crying with the extra sound of injustice in his voice. Our friend's son, we'll call him Thomas, claimed that his sister, we'll call her Sandra, and my oldest son, here known as Fric, hit him and knocked him to the ground. Oh, boy, here we go.
Thomas' dad, mom and I summoned all the appropriate witnesses to the bailiff's quarters (the porch) and commenced the interrogations in the judge's chambers.
One by one the involved parties were questioned, with Thomas' story distinctly different from Sandra's and Fric's, neither of whom had a moment together to corroborate their stories. To get to the point, Thomas started by hitting Sandra with (I believe) a wiffle ball bat when she retreived the frisbee before he did. And what did my son do? Why, he knocked Thomas over by hitting him in the chest, because, hey!, you don't. hit. girls.
That's my boy.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
I'll need you, Dad
Thanks to Rick at Catholic Dads for posting this earlier.
And if you read this, say a prayer for me to be a better Catholic dad. Thanks.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
The shell game of health care reform
Well, I promised Leticia last week that I would get my own post up here about the town hall meeting with my Congressman, Democrat Joe Courtney, on September 2nd.
I was fortunate enough to get in, arriving at about 5:40 for the 6:30 meeting, one of the last people allowed into the 519-capacity auditorium. The place was packed, and as they wouldn't allow standees, I found an empty seat near a man formerly of my parish, whom I was happy to sit next to.
I had a copy of the House bill on my laptop for reference if necessary, but I quickly realized that this would be impractical and jotted down my questions for Rep. Courtney. Unfortunately, the mic at the podium wasn't working properly, so the moderators would hold the clip-on mic for questioners then race down to the front so Joe could answer.
There were loud protests when the first announcement was made that the school needed us to be done by 8:30, so we were on a limited time frame. (I wonder what other event was planned there that evening?)
Anyway, the crowd, from my estimation was a little more evenly spread pro/con than was evident from the people milling about outside. Yes, it was a bit raucous at times, but most people at least tried to be respectful to let others ask their question, and when emotion did overtake, many cries of "Let him speak" did carry sway. (I'll note that the only person who did have to be escorted out was a heckler in support of the bill who continually yelled over others' criticism of the bill and the congressman.)
Not surprisingly, I wasn't satisfied with the answers that Joe gave. He continually found ways to make general statements that didn't address people's particular critiques or questions (especially regarding how this can be paid for). He stated about four times that he himself does not participate in the Congressional health care plan, a principled stance he plans to continue until everyone has access to the same care. (Hey, for all my disagreements with Mr. Courtney, I can respect that. However, that answer only goes so far, especially when people wanted to know how other members of Congress could vote for this legislation without being held to its consequences.)
I did not get to ask my questions, though not for lack of holding up my hand the entire time.
So here are a few of my questions and concerns:
1. President Obama has gone on a crusade to quash myths about the health care plan in Congress. He claims that one such fabrication is that abortion would not be covered by tax payer dollars. Mr. Courtney also made that claim on his local radio appearance two weeks ago delineating a system of payment credits and sequestering of funds, citing the Capps Amendment, which passed on July 30th. However, the Capps Amendment only makes those delineations in the section on the private Health Insurance Exchange, whereas the section on the public option only states that the public option shall provide abortions for which public funds are allowed and shall not be prevented or prohibited from covering abortions for which federal funds are not allowed. Nope, no disconnect here.
2. As I read through the text of the bill (I had 16 hours to kill when I missed my flight at O'Hare) I was struck by the amount of authority that the Congress would essentially be ceding--in our name-- to the Administration. By this plan, the rules that govern the health care of every man, woman and child in the United States would be determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. That means that the decisions that most intimately affect everyone would henceforth be political. Every presidential election from now until the end of the Republic would be about what's in "my health care." Not the economy, not national security, not education. Don't like your health care plan? Wait four years and elect a new president.
For all those in support of this legislation, I can't help but wonder if they would have given this much authority to President Bush?
3. My congressman has very clearly read the bill (another point for which I have to give him at least that credit). However, many members of Congress had not until recently, and it's not certain that they all have read it yet. This bill would restructure one sixth of the American economy, and if President Obama and Speaker Pelosi had their way, this bill would have been passed a month ago before Congress went on August recess, before the American people could have read the bill. Is this responsible?
4. Courtney side-stepped another question about the path to single-payer health care by stating that this bill is not single payer health care and that such a plan would have zero chance of passing now. Yet that is not the concern here, Joe. We can see that it doesn't yet create a single-payer mandate, but Barney Franks is on record admitting that if we are to get to a single-payer structure, the public option is the best way to get there.
Then, after hearing President Obama's campaign speech before both houses tonight, another thought crossed my mind. He said that the public option would have to be self-sufficient, operating only on the premiums it collects. And then I got to thinking, if the public option is for those who cannot get health care because they either have pre-existing conditions or they cannot afford it, how will they be able to afford the premiums on the public option unless it is taxpayer subsidized? (Let that sink in, then, and see question 1 above.)
And if the Health Insurance Exchange will impose rules on private companies that forbid them from denying coverage or dropping people, why would the public option be necessary at all? A cheaper alternative? How then, will it stay viable as a system if it is collecting lower premiums?
Obama made it clear that everyone will have to purchase (or in the case of employers, provide) health insurance or they will be taxed. Two questions: 1. If an individual decides not to buy health insurance and is fined/taxed, does that tax automatically enroll him in the public option or does he still have to buy insurance now on top of that? 2. If a company drops insurance benefits for employees and is fined/taxed, will the fine be much greater than the premiums it currently pays? Otherwise, any business owner will be calculating the premium amount and administrative costs; suffering the tax and letting all the employees get dumped into the public option might be a wise business decision. (Is this the ultimate goal? Is the public option the mechanism for eventually getting everyone into a single infrastructure of health care?)
Keep watching the shell. This game isn't over yet.
I was fortunate enough to get in, arriving at about 5:40 for the 6:30 meeting, one of the last people allowed into the 519-capacity auditorium. The place was packed, and as they wouldn't allow standees, I found an empty seat near a man formerly of my parish, whom I was happy to sit next to.
I had a copy of the House bill on my laptop for reference if necessary, but I quickly realized that this would be impractical and jotted down my questions for Rep. Courtney. Unfortunately, the mic at the podium wasn't working properly, so the moderators would hold the clip-on mic for questioners then race down to the front so Joe could answer.
There were loud protests when the first announcement was made that the school needed us to be done by 8:30, so we were on a limited time frame. (I wonder what other event was planned there that evening?)
Anyway, the crowd, from my estimation was a little more evenly spread pro/con than was evident from the people milling about outside. Yes, it was a bit raucous at times, but most people at least tried to be respectful to let others ask their question, and when emotion did overtake, many cries of "Let him speak" did carry sway. (I'll note that the only person who did have to be escorted out was a heckler in support of the bill who continually yelled over others' criticism of the bill and the congressman.)
Not surprisingly, I wasn't satisfied with the answers that Joe gave. He continually found ways to make general statements that didn't address people's particular critiques or questions (especially regarding how this can be paid for). He stated about four times that he himself does not participate in the Congressional health care plan, a principled stance he plans to continue until everyone has access to the same care. (Hey, for all my disagreements with Mr. Courtney, I can respect that. However, that answer only goes so far, especially when people wanted to know how other members of Congress could vote for this legislation without being held to its consequences.)
I did not get to ask my questions, though not for lack of holding up my hand the entire time.
So here are a few of my questions and concerns:
1. President Obama has gone on a crusade to quash myths about the health care plan in Congress. He claims that one such fabrication is that abortion would not be covered by tax payer dollars. Mr. Courtney also made that claim on his local radio appearance two weeks ago delineating a system of payment credits and sequestering of funds, citing the Capps Amendment, which passed on July 30th. However, the Capps Amendment only makes those delineations in the section on the private Health Insurance Exchange, whereas the section on the public option only states that the public option shall provide abortions for which public funds are allowed and shall not be prevented or prohibited from covering abortions for which federal funds are not allowed. Nope, no disconnect here.
2. As I read through the text of the bill (I had 16 hours to kill when I missed my flight at O'Hare) I was struck by the amount of authority that the Congress would essentially be ceding--in our name-- to the Administration. By this plan, the rules that govern the health care of every man, woman and child in the United States would be determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. That means that the decisions that most intimately affect everyone would henceforth be political. Every presidential election from now until the end of the Republic would be about what's in "my health care." Not the economy, not national security, not education. Don't like your health care plan? Wait four years and elect a new president.
For all those in support of this legislation, I can't help but wonder if they would have given this much authority to President Bush?
3. My congressman has very clearly read the bill (another point for which I have to give him at least that credit). However, many members of Congress had not until recently, and it's not certain that they all have read it yet. This bill would restructure one sixth of the American economy, and if President Obama and Speaker Pelosi had their way, this bill would have been passed a month ago before Congress went on August recess, before the American people could have read the bill. Is this responsible?
4. Courtney side-stepped another question about the path to single-payer health care by stating that this bill is not single payer health care and that such a plan would have zero chance of passing now. Yet that is not the concern here, Joe. We can see that it doesn't yet create a single-payer mandate, but Barney Franks is on record admitting that if we are to get to a single-payer structure, the public option is the best way to get there.
Then, after hearing President Obama's campaign speech before both houses tonight, another thought crossed my mind. He said that the public option would have to be self-sufficient, operating only on the premiums it collects. And then I got to thinking, if the public option is for those who cannot get health care because they either have pre-existing conditions or they cannot afford it, how will they be able to afford the premiums on the public option unless it is taxpayer subsidized? (Let that sink in, then, and see question 1 above.)
And if the Health Insurance Exchange will impose rules on private companies that forbid them from denying coverage or dropping people, why would the public option be necessary at all? A cheaper alternative? How then, will it stay viable as a system if it is collecting lower premiums?
Obama made it clear that everyone will have to purchase (or in the case of employers, provide) health insurance or they will be taxed. Two questions: 1. If an individual decides not to buy health insurance and is fined/taxed, does that tax automatically enroll him in the public option or does he still have to buy insurance now on top of that? 2. If a company drops insurance benefits for employees and is fined/taxed, will the fine be much greater than the premiums it currently pays? Otherwise, any business owner will be calculating the premium amount and administrative costs; suffering the tax and letting all the employees get dumped into the public option might be a wise business decision. (Is this the ultimate goal? Is the public option the mechanism for eventually getting everyone into a single infrastructure of health care?)
Keep watching the shell. This game isn't over yet.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
A great resource for the teens in your life
I follow a lot of blogs through the dashboard. Some of them, I read every post. Some, occasionally. They are all great, but I believe it's important to give young people encouragement when they are stepping out and doing something difficult and worthwhile.
Therefore, I'd like to point your attention to No Question Left Behind, a blog written by teens to answer questions by other teens on matters relating to living the Catholic faith. They discuss Church teaching, Scripture, practical decisions, and teen issues all with an eye towards helping others towards a full life in Christ. Check 'em out and see for yourself.
Therefore, I'd like to point your attention to No Question Left Behind, a blog written by teens to answer questions by other teens on matters relating to living the Catholic faith. They discuss Church teaching, Scripture, practical decisions, and teen issues all with an eye towards helping others towards a full life in Christ. Check 'em out and see for yourself.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
bloodmoney
The same people who can't say the word "Halliburton" without cringing and ranting about corporate greed, conspiracy theories and the evil Dick Cheney will suddenly light up with praise for the completely altruistic Planned Parenthood. But the truth will eventually come to light.
h/t: DM
h/t: DM
A friend sent me this
Response to the Washington Post
Homeschoolers Say No to Mandatory State Testing
Ian Slatter
Director of Media Relations
Director of Media Relations
August 25, 2009
“Homeschooling is the sleeping giant of the American education system,” is the opening line of a recent article by Washington Post education columnist Jay Mathews.
He’s right.
He’s also right when he says, “All surveys of home-schooled students so far indicate they have higher achievement rates on average than regular students,” and when he dismisses the claim that homeschoolers might not be properly socialized by saying, “Homeschoolers go outside often and get just as big a dose of pain and joy and ignorance and wisdom as regular school kids.”
Where Mathews goes wrong is his support for a recommendation by Robert Kunzman, an associate professor at the Indiana University School of Education whose new book Write These Laws On Your Children: Inside the World of Conservative Christian Homeschooling, calls for all homeschoolers to be subjected to regular, compulsory, standardized state testing.
To be fair to Mathews, it seems that his desire is to defuse what he sees as a gathering movement within the public school establishment to regulate homeschoolers.
He reports that his contacts are becoming nervous about the fact that homeschoolers are nearing 4% of the school-aged population and growing at 9% per year.
“Some public school educators I know are uneasy about this. They don’t know home-schooling families well. They worry those kids are being ill-served by well-meaning but inexperienced parents. There is potential for more battles over regulating home-schooling.”
In effect, Mathews gives homeschoolers a gentle and timely reminder that we must be ever vigilant to defend our right to homeschool.
As Mathews correctly notes, HSLDA has been at the forefront of reducing regulations on homeschoolers, but he fails to mention why so many state legislatures have agreed with our view.
The crucial missing detail from Mathew’s article is that the homeschool academic surveys he alludes to show that the level of state regulation has no impact on the results of homeschooled students. Consider the most recent study of homeschool students’ test scores conducted by the National Home Education Research Institute, and commissioned by HSLDA. Homeschoolers in low regulation states scored on average in the 87th percentile and those from high regulation states (which require some form of testing) also scored in the 87th percentile.
The question HSLDA regularly puts before state legislatures is, “If government regulation does not improve the results of homeschoolers, why is it necessary?” The obvious conclusion based on the research is that government regulation of homeschoolers is a waste of taxpayers’ money and parents’ time.
Regrettably, many homeschoolers have known for some time that the success of the movement might provoke greater scrutiny. And the success of homeschooling cannot be denied. We continue to grow in numbers, and homeschooled children continue to significantly out-perform public school students—by 37 percentile points in the latest homeschool academic achievement study. This academic success is achieved at a fraction of the cost (average public school student—$10,000 per child per year—average homeschooler—$500 per child per year). No wonder we’ve drawn the attention of the education establishment.
Public school officials are accountable to taxpayers, and taxpayers may begin to ask, especially in an economy that’s struggling, questions like, “Why are my property taxes so high when homeschoolers are getting much better results for a fraction of the cost?”
The response brewing within the education establishment appears to be to try to make homeschoolers more like public school students by subjecting them to state-mandated testing. It’s not a strategy that will work.
Today, homeschoolers can be found in all walks of life and all political persuasions. We are a diverse movement with a variety of opinions. There’s one issue, however, that unites almost all homeschoolers—opposition to mandated state tests.
The reason is simple—once the state chooses the test, you have to “teach to the test”, and consequently your curriculum will have been chosen for you by the government. This is an intolerable intrusion and one that would radically alter homeschooling.
Freedom and flexibility are the hallmarks of homeschooling. Once they are removed and the state is allowed to regulate the curriculum through testing, then homeschooling will be changed beyond all recognition.
One of the main reasons homeschooling is so successful is because parents are able to design an education program for the individual child. Homeschooling parents can allow their children to advance rapidly in areas where they are strong and spend more time on areas where a child may be weak. Trying to advance at a state-mandated even pace through all subjects just isn’t feasible for homeschoolers.
There’s also the nagging question of what the state will do if a child fails one of its tests. Does that mean the child would be forced into public school?
The state has a legitimate interest in the upbringing and education of children by parents only when the state has evidence that the children are being harmed. It has no right to impose its education views on parents who choose to educate their children outside the state system.
HSLDA hopes that state legislatures will continue on their path of lifting restrictions on homeschooling and that the homeschool movement will continue to grow and thrive without state interference. But Jay Mathews has done the homeschool community a service by reminding us that people within the public education establishment are thinking about ways to regulate our education choices.
Every homeschooler should be ready and willing to actively oppose any attempt to impose a state mandated testing regime.
We have been warned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
