October 31, 2006
A Voter's Choice!
Turns out there is a pro-life candidate running for governor. He is a write-in and his name is Randy Stufflebeam.
October 30, 2006
A Neutral Information Source
Check out Vote Smart to get some comprehensive information on the issues that matter most to you.
Some Dismal Choices to Make
Because this is the issue I care most about and I know some of you do too . . .
The Illinois Citizens for Life publishes General Election Information for the upcoming November election.
I love this group and the information they publish. It makes voting pretty easy for me.
Since neither candidate for governor is pro-life and there is little else redeeming in their political outlooks, I refuse to vote for either Topinka or Blagojevich. I haven't figured out yet whether it is more worthwhile for me to bolster the Green Party numbers or abstain from voting for governor altogether. Does anyone know which would make more of an impact in the stats?
I am also voting quite enthusiastically for Peter Roskam. Ironically, Tammy Duckworth's flyers convinced me to do so. She sent a stream of mailers bemoaning the fact that "Roskam doesn't support abortion!" and "Roskam doesn't support embryonic stem cell research!"
She convinced me. Roskam it shall be. With gusto.
My Purpose
| Your super-secret codename is: AURAL | |||
| Your mission is... Sniper all of the ballons at the Macy's day parade | |||
| 'What is your codename and mission?' | |||
(A last hat tip to Barbara Walker.)
High Flying Adored
You are Amelia Earhart Adventurous and boundary breaking. You believe that you can do anything, and do not hesitate to take risks to achieve a big goal. You like to problem solve, when a problem comes up. Take this quiz |
(Hat tip to Barbara Walker.)
My Campaign Slogan
| Elect Laura! | ||
 | ||
Grape soda gives me special powers | ||
| 'What will your campaign slogan be?' | ||
(Hat tip to Barbara Walker.)
My Obituary
 |
| 'What will your obituary say?' |
(Hat tip to Barbara Walker.)
October 26, 2006
"But We Use a White Sheet!"
A London woman who procured an abortion is shocked . . . shocked . . . to hear how her baby was treated after the procedure.
Addenbrooke's Hospital, in Cambridge, said it was no longer able to afford the dignified disposal at a local crematorium of foetuses from unwanted pregnancies.
Instead, they are being burnt in the hospital's main incinerator - which is normally used for rubbish and clinical waste . . .
One local woman, who asked not to be named, said after the heartache of deciding to have an abortion she was mortified to find the hospital had used the same furnace they burn rubbish in to incinerate her terminated baby.
She said: "I am furious and very hurt. Imagine my horror when I discovered that my baby was incinerated in the same furnace as the hospital rubbish."
The level of her hypocrisy is beyond my ken. Why on earth should she care about the disposal of her unwanted child? And if she does indeed consider the disposal of "her baby" to be so outrageous, how could she possibly justify dismembering it and sucking it out like a tumor? Without being too Godwin about it, her attitude is akin to a Nazi insisting that exterminated Jews be properly dressed after being dragged out of the gas chambers. It's sick.
The hospital has a different policy for miscarriages, of course. Those fetuses are most certainly disposed of with dignity. And the hospital is quick to point out that the incinerator is scheduled especially for these cheap cremations, overseen by two specialists in bereavement care. But why should the hospital care? Do they take such pains with the other "clinical waste" they generate? Must bereavement specialists be present for the disposal of excised cancers?
Could it be that on some level both the woman and the hospital acknowledge that an abortion is the destruction of a human life and that to avoid negative press, they must treat it as such?
(Hat tip to Janice.)
October 11, 2006
Treacherous Waters
Dave Rumoro sent me an article about American faith. Ostensibly, most of us believe in God, which makes sense from a "natural law" standpoint.
The following statistic caught my eye:
Asked whether God favored the United States, only one-fifth of respondents said they agreed. Evangelical Protestants were the most likely to agree, with 26 percent saying they think God favors the country.
I have a fuzzy opinion on this point. From my interaction with fervent Protestants, I know that many hold the United States in the exalted position of being clearly favored by God as evidenced by its militaristic might and overflowing prosperity.
This position presents some difficulties for me. First, as a Catholic, I believe (1) that God's favor is extended to His faithful servants and that (2) those servants are frequently exalted through suffering. At the same time, I believe that (3) all good things are from God and know that (4) His favor was manifested in the militaristic might and overflowing prosperity of the Jewish nation in Old Testament times.
So while I acknowledge that God's favor is frequently expressed in earthly blessings, I still lean quite heavily on the fact that His "good and faithful servants" must (almost universally) endure some extremely harsh life trials. (As St. Teresa of Avila said to Christ: "No wonder you have so few friends!") Sacrifice is necessary for our own perfection and (I think) it's foolish to read the blessings of this life as a sign of our "favor status" with God. America is a blessed nation, to be sure, but why would we count on those blessings as any level of salvific assurance?
Any thoughts?
Veritatis Splendor
I didn't think the Tridentine Mass was all that controversial. St. John Cantius celebrates it in Chicago.
The priests of England and Wales are among those sometimes given permission to celebrate the Old Mass according to the 1962 Missal. Tridentine Masses are said regularly at the Oratory and St James’s Spanish Place in London, but are harder to find outside the capital.
The new indult would permit any priest to introduce the Tridentine Mass to his church, anywhere in the world, unless his bishop has explicitly forbidden it in writing.
I suppose this seems landmark or something, but - from my perspective - this new indult simply reinforces that it is as it always was: namely that those who wished to celebrate the Latin Tridentine Mass were given the means to do so.
It seems to me that the traditional form of liturgy is simply receiving a healthy, vigorous groundswell of support. But it's not a radical departure.
Ah, well. Maybe it will help reconcile the Lefebvrists. Who knows?
A Frightful Experience
I wouldn't intentionally eat a whole cockroach, not to mention a hissing one.
Better Than Daytime TV
Mark Foley's personal ickiness certainly takes precedence, but I didn't want Harry Reid's shifty land deals to slip through the cracks:
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show.
In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews . . .
The complex dealings allowed Reid to transfer ownership, legal liability and some tax consequences to Brown's company without public knowledge, but still collect a seven-figure payoff nearly three years later . . .
Kent Cooper, who oversaw government disclosure reports for federal candidates for two decades in the Federal Election Commission, said Reid's failure to report the 2001 sale and his ties to Brown's company violated Senate rules . . .
"It is especially disconcerting when you have a member of the leadership, of either party, not putting in the effort to make sure this is a complete and accurate report," said Cooper. "That says something to other members. It says something to the Ethics Committee."
It seems that this shady land deal came to light when the casino lawyer who brokered the deal was connected to an investigation of political bribery and organized crime. Intriguing, no?
It's all quite provocative and I just wanted to make sure it didn't get lost in the Foley hullabaloo which, incidentally, isn't working out quite as the Democrats hoped:
An ABC News/Washington Post survey taken Oct. 5 to 8 found that three of every four respondents did not think Democrats would have handled the Foley matter any better, and roughly two in three thought Democrats were pursuing the matter for political gain, not to raise legitimate concerns . . .
Job approval of Republican leaders, 33 percent before Foley quit, went up 1 percentage point afterward.
Apparently, even Chappaquiddick was cited. Pretty dirty dealings, all around.
An Explosive Situation
Moderate darling John McCain has actually given credit where credit is due:
"I would remind Senator (Hillary) Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration's policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure," McCain said at a news conference after a campaign appearance for Republican Senate candidate Mike Bouchard.
"The Koreans received millions and millions in energy assistance. They've diverted millions of dollars of food assistance to their military," he said.
Ms. Clinton, in response, has the rampant audacity to remark that:
"Now is not the time to play politics of the most dangerous kind - with our policy on North Korea," Philippe Reines, spokesman for Clinton, said in a statement.
She can flounder all she might. When Clinton garnered that "deal" in 1994, feathering the nest of North Korea's military programs in exchange for their "gentleman's agreement" to freeze their nuclear weapons development, he ignored precedent, history and common sense. And now his wife, of course, hopes to deflect a situation that has (literally) blown up in his face.
Fat chance. I'm not a huge McCain fan, but - by golly! - I'm glad he called her on the carpet.
One Bead At a Time
Lapped Catholic has a contest for "create your own" Catholic-themed Motivational Posters.
Some a quite clever. So far, my favorites include:
Faith & Reason
Heterodoxy
Sacrifice
Reformation (probably my favorite!)
Omniscience
Swiss Guards
Live
(Hat tip to Brian Preston.)
October 09, 2006
A Plea for Help
With spam being a constant annoyance, I don't always have time to figure out how and where and why a new attack is occurring, so I'll ask . . .
Does anyone reading this blog know how someone would be sending spam (ostensibly) from my email address, so that I am bombarded with "Mail Delivery Failure" notifications from firewalls? Is it really easy to spoof? Is there anything I can do to stop it?