I listened to a bit of Bill O’Reilly’s radio show yesterday or Monday, and he talked about Mario Cuomo, Ted Kennedy, and several other liberal politicians who claim to be Catholic yet politically support abortion, which is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Catholic Church. He had on some guy who was also of that same opinion — pro-choice-to-kill and also Catholic — to discuss and defend the point of view of Cuomo, Kennedy, etc.
Basically, the guy said, “As a Catholic, I personally am against abortion — I don’t have abortions, and I don’t participate in abortions — but I don’t want to push my religious views on anyone else, so I think abortion should be legal.” And he said that was how Kennedy as a Senator acted — he was personally opposed to abortion, but would not vote against it, because it was a religious viewpoint.
That’s like Bill Clinton saying, “I smoked, but I didn’t inhale.” Um, yeah. “I’m against the murder of the unborn innocents… but I won’t try to stop you from killing them.”
It’s sort of like the Treasury Secretary who is to be put in charge of making sure WE all pay OUR taxes having dodged paying HIS taxes for years. “I believe that paying taxes is everyone’s duty, I just don’t want to do it myself.”
I’m beginning to see a pattern here.
What next, Ted Bundy as the security guard for a sorority? John Wayne Gacy as a Boys’ Camp Counselor? Jack Kevorkian as a nursing home administrator? Lorena Bobbitt as the head of security of a male sex-offender prison? (Oh, wait, maybe that one is a good idea.)
We’ve already got Hillary No Experience Clinton as Secretary of State; and a tax evader in charge of the Treasury! I’m holding my breath to see what other foxes will be in charge of the various henhouses in this wonderful, hopeful, transparent administration of change that is the Barack Hussein Obama presidency.
I saw a bit of a clip from CNN on Rush Limbaugh’s monologue about Barack Obama in which he said, “I hope he fails.” It was preceeded by Rush’s reasoning behind it — because as a conservative he is politically opposed to practically everything Obama has said he stands for. This shouldn’t be news. Yet somehow it is.
The thing that really got me, though, about this is what Rick Sanchez (who was the CNN talking head in the clip) said: “Isn’t hoping Obama fails equivalent to hoping America fails?” EXCUSE ME???
Now, I’m not much on news, not having a TV, but I do generally keep up with things, especially politics, and I have never once, throughout the entire 8 years of George W. Bush’s presidency, heard anyone but the most right-leaning conservatives (who are instantly brushed aside as unimportant or fatally biased) equate opposing Bush and hoping he failed with opposing our country and hoping it failed. And now we get this idiot blasting Rush for hoping Obama does not succeed in governmentalizing a huge section of the private sector, among other things he mentioned in the clip.
No, Pres. Obama can fail and our country can still succeed, idiot! Being opposed to Obama’s views on abortion, and government intrusion and control, and a host of other things, and hoping that he is not successful in his intentions and desires to bring about those changes which are repugnant to me and a lot of other conservatives, doesn’t mean we hate our country and want our country to fail. In fact, the reverse is true. We see the failures of countries who have gone down the path we’re taking — from capitalism to socialism — and we don’t want to be a part of that. We don’t want our country to fail, which is exactly why we hope that Barack Obama does fail. Because if he is successful in taking America down that path, America will fail. It’s not pesonal; it’s political. We think his politics suck, quite frankly.
I still think that America is the best country on earth. But right now, I feel like I’m on an airplane that’s zooming along in a direction I don’t want to go — it’s headed for Los Angeles when I’m wanting to go to Miami — and I can’t stop it, and I can’t jump off because there’s nowhere else to go, and I’ll get terribly hurt or killed if I try. So, no, I don’t want Obama to successfully steer our airplane to L.A. because I want to end up in Miami. I hope he fails in his attempts to get there, and the airplane veers off-course to Miami. Not because I hate Obama or I hate the airplane (our country), but because it’s going where I don’t want to go.
One of the terribly irritating but somehow charming things about the English language is its overflowing number of homonyms or homophones — words that sound the same but are (usually) spelled differently and mean different things.
I’ve recently been subjected to a great many people that I personally know using the wrong word in this manner. Examples include the title of this post — two, too, and to; but also words like you’re and your; their, they’re and there; it’s and its — and many more, but these are the most common ones.
So, to sum up, “two” means 2, the number between one and three, how many hands, feet, eyes and ears you have; too means “also” or “to an excessive degree”, “I was too tired”, “I was tired too”; and then there is “to” which is a preposition which can be used in a large number of ways. “Their” is a plural possessive — their house; they’re is a contraction of “they are” — “they’re coming this way”; and “there” denominates a location — “put that there” — putting it altogether, “They’re going there to their car.” Your is a singular possessive — your car; you’re is a contraction of you are — “you’re driving me crazy!” And “it’s” is a contraction of the two words “it is” — it’s cold; while “its” is a possessive — the dog lost its way.
Please, people, this is 4th grade grammar!!! [Unfortunately, some of the mistakes could just be typos, or because someone is tired; but this is happening more and more, and it just looks bad! And, even worse, its rubbeng of on mee.]
One of the blogs I keep up with lists a bunch of “deals” — freebies, coupons for free or nearly free items, Walgreens specials, and also her own personal Walgreens trips, where she proudly announces that she bought $115 worth of stuff and spent $6.
Sounds good, so why not?
First, when I check the things I have or can get coupons for, they’re usually not that great of an item to start with. For instance, our family rarely uses much in the way of medicine, so who cares if I can get 10 bottles of Robitussin for only $5 (after all rebates and refunds and coupons)? I don’t need ten bottles of Robitussin. I’d be surprised if we use even one per year. So, I’d have nine bottles of Robitussin to get me through the next nine years… except it goes out of date in a year or two. So, you’re spending $5 on two or three bottles of Robitussin, when you can get the generic for $1 apiece, any time, without having to crowd my limited space with big bottles of something I’m not going to use.
The same goes for “gadgets” — they take up space, I’m not likely to use them, and even if they’re “good” at what they do, the peripherals end up costing a lot — for instance, I’ve got a coupon for a free food vacuum sealer thing, and I’m considering getting it, but probably won’t. While it might help reduce freezer-burn, I have a method which is already pretty dang good, and it doesn’t cost me a cent. Plus, to use this gadget, you’ll have to purchase the special bags to go with it, and I daresay those are a bit more expensive than freezer bags.
While I kind of drool over her ability to get so much stuff for so little, when I look at the actual items she gets, I just kinda go, “huh?” Because almost without exception, these items are something that I would usually not purchase anyway, or I shouldn’t purchase them because they’re junk food. So, even if it only ends up costing me 50 cents to purchase something, if I don’t need it, shouldn’t eat it, or wouldn’t get it anyway, instead of “saving” me whatever amount of money it is between the usual price and the register price, I actually spend 50 cents that I otherwise would not have spent. And it’s for something I don’t need, shouldn’t eat, or wouldn’t get. Just because it’s “a good deal.”
I watched a bit of Ann Coulter’s appearance on The View, and noticed that they were harrassing her about her comments in her latest book on single motherhood. Of course, they scarcely let her finish her statements, which undoubtedly would have been interesting and made her points. They denigrated the studies she cited, dismissing them out of hand as having been poorly done or whatever. Ok, fine, so they don’t believe them. Since I don’t know which studies, I can’t comment on the validity of them. They didn’t seem to disagree with her (although maybe it was done in the blanket dismissal of all her studies) when she said that 80% of prison inmates were the children of single mothers. Hmm. She also said that blacks and whites have the prison population rate when single motherhood is factored out. Interesting. Of course, Barbara Walters, Joy Behar, Whoopie Goldberg and the other liberal woman (not Starr Jones, right? they’ve replaced her, right?; and not the white chick whatever her name is, because isn’t she conservative? — you can tell I don’t watch The View!) took offense at these thoughts. But what if her statistics are right?
What if choosing to be a single mom has disastrous effects on the lives of the children born to them? Of course, there are extenuating circumstances — men who shouldn’t be fathers, are abusive, cheat on their wives, divorce their wives for no reason, die, etc. — but we have a culture in which single mothers are not merely lauded for doing the difficult task that fell on them through no fault of their own, but are applauded for choosing to raise their children alone when they don’t have to. I have two friends who each had a child many years after a divorce, with the children’s fathers being the boyfriend of the time who they’re no longer with. They both have a child from a previous marriage. Their becoming single mothers may have been an unwelcome occurrence the first time (assuming the divorces were not something they sought after, or were necessitated by the husbands’ bad behavior); but the second time it was freely chosen, though accidental. Another friend of mine became a single mom after her husband of many years left her and their four sons for another woman. It wasn’t her fault. But she recognizes the important role of a father, especially in the lives of boys and young men, and has made sure that she has good male role models for her children to look up to and try to emulate. They have some “adopted fathers” at their church — men with sons the ages of the boys who help them out and do “guy stuff” with them.
But some women while they are single choose to adopt a child, or get artificially inseminated, to purposefully become single mothers. There are numerous examples among the Hollywood elite that could be cited. Then there are still others — the vast majority of average women who become pregnant while unmarried for whom motherhood was accidental, or they purposefully created a child without being married to the child’s father. From what Ann Coulter was saying, I gathered that her thesis on this subject was, “This has gotta stop! We can’t go on praising women for becoming intentional single mothers, and acting as if it is just as good as a two-parent home.”
Oh, but the rest of the panel (except the one conservative) pitched a hissy-fit about it. As if Coulter’s saying that children should have two parents was akin to saying that single moms should be burned at the stake for adultery. Then they pulled out the “big guns” — asking her, “Are you married? do you have children? Well, then, you don’t really know what you’re talking about!” As if one has to be killed to say that murder is wrong. Or that one has to die of lung cancer to be able to spread the word that smoking causes cancer. Or that one has to be a single mother in order to say that children need two parents.
If what Ann Coulter said in her book is accurate (which I rather suspect that it is), and if children raised by single mothers have a statistical disadvantage when growing up, being more likely to become juvenile delinquents and prison inmates, among other things, then it does not matter that it hurts the feelings of single moms to say that. Which is more cruel: to let women ignorantly assume that “I don’t need a man, and my child doesn’t either,” so they have one-night stands, get knocked up, don’t know who the daddy is, and the daddy don’t care who his children are; or to let girls know before they get pregnant that if they were to have a baby, and the father doesn’t stick around to help raise the baby, that the baby will suffer. Yeah, it will be “cruel” to the women for whom “the shoe fits”; but it will be kindness to the millions of children who will be born into stable homes with both parents, rather than the unstable lifestyle of far too many unwed mothers — especially those whose children all have different fathers.
We as a society used to frown on unwed motherhood. It was a horrible stigma to be pregnant out of wedlock. Now, it’s almost promoted — with the innocent babies being the victims of such activity. (Also, babies born to unwed mothers are far more likely to be born premature, and to die in the first year of life than babies born to married women.) So, yeah, it’s gonna hurt some people’s feelings, but may save some babies’ lives!
This was too funny — a woman took photographs of some artwork her 22 month old daughter did (finger-painting or something like that), and showed them to an art director (without telling him who had done it. The art director was entranced, and put them in his show or gallery or whatever, as abstract art. Kinda reminds me of the time somebody framed (as an accident or for a joke) either the blueprints of the building, or the schematic of the building’s plumbing system, and put it up in the art gallery, where it was hailed as a great work of art. And some people wonder why people like me want to cut funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
Don’t really have that much to say, and little time to say it, but I just saw that I had 199 posts, so thought I’d make it an even 200.
When I hear from abortion advocates who say that only white newborns are the only adoptable babies, I want to scream and laugh. From my small circle of friends and acquaintances, I know numerous white couples who have adopted many children who were not newborns at adoption and/or are not Caucasian. I’m going to write them here, so that next time I come across someone who seems to think abortion is okay because nobody adopts non-white children or older children, I can just direct them here, rather than writing it out again and again. When I say “older children” I’m meaning anyone over about a few months old, typically a child of about a couple years of age. Most of these people adopted because one spouse or the other is infertile, but some of them do have biological children. All couples are American, and all are white (except one person who is half-white, half-Vietnamese).
I’ll start with the only ones I know who adopted only white infants — my uncle and aunt who are both of pure Dutch ancestry, and wanted to adopt a baby who was at least half-Dutch; their two children both have full-blooded Dutch birth-mothers.
- Anna and her husband adopted two children from Ethiopia (their ages at the times of the adoptions were 13 and 7 months old)
- a couple who are friends with Anna adopted one child from Ethiopia and a black child from America (neither were newborns)
- Laura and her husband adopted a white child of about the age of 4, after his mother’s parental rights were terminated
- Curt and Fancy adopted a Hispanic newborn; they wanted to adopt their two (white) foster children (ages 3 & 5 at the start of their foster care), whom they cared for for 3 years, but the children’s mother cleaned up her act and got them back
- Curt’s brother also adopted a Hispanic newborn
- one couple I know is a white man and a half-Vietnamese woman; they unsuccessfully tried to adopt a Vietnamese child, then decided to adopt from Russia; recently, they adopted two Vietnamese children (all of whom were several months old at the time of the adoptions)
- another couple adopted three Korean children some 30 years ago, a girl and identical twin boys
- one couple in Alabama adopted three children, all in early infancy, a girl and two boys; all of the children are mixed-race
- another couple in Ohio has “his, hers, ours… and theirs“, as the mother likes to say — they each have at least one child from a previous relationship in addition to at least one child together, plus numerous children by adoption. At least one of the adopted children is mixed-race, and most if not all of them were adopted when they were older — I’ve known them since before the adoption of the last two, who are full brother and sister, and are about 2 & 4 years of age
- one couple who attended our church for a few years — they already had two white children by adoption — I believe the oldest was gotten as an infant; I’m not sure about the second. This younger child, a boy, has learning disabilities (and possibly some other kinds of disabilities), but I don’t know if the parents know this when they adopted him — I never knew he had any disabilities at the time I knew him, but it became more apparent as he grew older — he’s now about 16 and has minimal reading skills, as an example. Then while they were members of our church, they adopted three siblings who were of Hispanic descent, approximately aged 2-5 at the time of the adoption.
Most of these people may yet try to adopt again (although the older couples are probably done), since most of them have adopted their youngest children only recently — the last year or so.