What's the point?

Aborted babies in jars...

SICK! What's even worse is that people still defend the so called doctors who do this!

Human Weeds

I'm sure most of you have seen much of this information before, but I thought this video was very well done.



This stuff really strikes close to home now that I actually have "Negros" in my own family. This is utterly despicable. It just makes me so angry and literally sick to my stomach.

I am truly hoping and praying that by sharing this video with my own pro-choice family members, that their love for my sons might help the message sink in and they will reconsider their terribly misguided views.

Thoughts on the Notre Dame Scandal

In short: I don’t care.

To elaborate: This ship has sailed a long time ago. They employ Fr. Richard McBrien, for cryin’ out loud. He teaches heresy daily in the theology department. Isn’t that worse than having the President as a commencement speaker? Their faculty don't even sign an oath of fidelity. Now look, I think the honorary degree is despicable, but it's not out of character for the university. Why are we just now acting outraged, as if this has come out of the blue? Let Notre Dame's reputation suffer among practicing Catholics. Let the bishops decry, that is their job. But why should those of us in faraway states go to great lengths to protect it? I haven't even bothered signing the utterly useless internet petition. Not because it's inconvenient, but because it's pointless and irrelevant, and Fr. Jenkins just doesn't care. So neither do I.

More ramblings on college in general:
Besides, I’m not sure I buy into Catholic (or any religious or private) higher education as it exists today anyway. Maybe I’m too practical. I see college as training for adulthood. As such, the “college experience,” in my opinion, is way overrated. I’m sure it’s fun to go halfway across the country and live alone and “discover yourself,” but I don’t think it reflects real life.

I'm still relatively new at parenting, but I tend to favor a solid high school education, likely home schooling, covering the liberal arts, and then onto college as job training. I once knew a fellow from India who was an M.D. by the age of 24. They choose a field, and study that field (only), and then go and get a job. They don’t waste a lot of time with the “core curriculum.” That’s what high school is for. Or your free time in adulthood. Who says you have to stop learning when you leave school? Who says you should be forced to study “the classics” if they have no relevance to your career? College used to be for mature young men and women with an eye on their future. Today, it’s prolonged adolescence.

We have some time to discern our boys' path, but right now we are leaning towards two years of community college, while living at home, and finishing up at a respectable public university with a solid Catholic student ministry. (Most likely Texas A&M.)

It has been my experience that a degree helps get you the job. From there, it’s all about your work ethic, professional designations, etc. to promote from there on. I went to a “second tier” public university, and I have coworkers with name brand diplomas making the same money as I do. Having said all that, I would be fully supportive of trade school or military service if that is what my sons choose. (Did you know that your local Lexus mechanic makes six figures?) But it’s not about the money. They should be able to support a family, but they can live simply - we will teach them that! We are trying to get them into heaven, not Harvard.

I also believe in a good relationship (and reasonable proximity) between parents and children. I intend to help guide my sons into adulthood, and hope that I have a good enough relationship with them that they will be willing to accept my advice. I expect them to already be mature young adults by the time they get to college. If I’ve done my job well, they can handle the inevitable challenges to their faith and worldview that will come in a reasonably priced public university. We will discuss at the dinner table, and they will hopefully gravitate towards fellow Catholic students and chaplains with whom they can share and learn and retain their faith.

Can I prevent them from going off the reservation? No. My own family shows that some people just make stupid choices in life and have to learn everything the hard way, despite every advantage in their youth. But if my own kids do go nuts, should I be spending tens of thousands of dollars on their education anyway? If they aren’t mature enough for college at age 18, I’d prefer they work for a while until they are ready to move on. I don’t see the point of paying out the nose for a protective environment when it's the child's choices that determine whether they will live a good life and keep their faith. In my opinion, if you are ready for college, then you are ready for public college, and your parents don’t “owe” you $200,000. They gave you life. They taught you practical skills. They taught you to study. It’s up to you to make good choices and work hard.

This is especially true at the undergrad level. For higher degrees, I can see that school choice, special programs, reputations, make a difference. If they think they need a fancy graduate degree, let them work and pay for it. I might even help! But a B.S. is a B.S. is a B.S.

This might sound strange coming from a home schooler. We are often criticized for being too protective of our children. Why should they be "in the world, but not of the world" in college if we worked so hard to shelter them the first 18 years? Well, the answer is simple. They will be ready for the challenge by then, if we have done a good job as parents. We won't just throw them to the wolves, unaware and unprepared. Again, we will help them step gradually into manhood. They will be able to think critically and filter out the nonsense at a public university (just as they would have to at Notre Dame!)

If there was an excellent Catholic university close to home and affordable, I'd consider it, obviously. But the "college experience" is overrated and stupid. And to try and return to my original point, that's why I just don't care about the "Notre Dame Scandal". I have no use for a school like that, and I don't mind that they are being exposed as a waste of money.

Ice Caps

Okay, I'm not sure why this has never occurred to me, but I found it hilarious. Read this post at Michelle Malkin. It's about a meteorologist who is challenging MSNBC's documentary on climate change. First he points out that we really don't contribute to melting ice caps. Also, that the Antarctic ice cap is actually growing, not shrinking. And finally, the part that made me go, DUH...

"Keep in mind that if the Polar icecap (without Greenland) melted…it would hardly cause sea level to rise, because the icecap is currently displacing water in the Arctic Ocean."

Remember that from elementary school? Frozen water (ice) takes up MORE volume than liquid water. Water lines burst in the winter because ice EXPANDS. If the polar ice caps melted, the sea levels would DROP, not rise. So why are they always trying to scare us about rising sea levels?

Maybe I'm missing something here, please fill me in...

Hope

So, I have been trying to stay calm and rational lately. A lot of people making dire predictions with Obama and the tanking economy. I tell myself that every generation has its challenges, and this is only the kingdom of man. I can maintain hope in the face of political turmoil and societal breakdown. If we face tough economic times, job loss, hyperinflation, etc. we will be alright. I expect to be persecuted for my faith at some point. Socialism, communism, etc. Take your best shot.

But when evil acts are carried out on innocent children, I just have to wonder how long it can be until God is provoked into action. Check out Erin Manning's recent post on the latest in artificial embryology and parenting for lesbians.

How do you remain hopeful in these times?

And just now, Nicole C Mullen's "Redeemer" played on my iPod.

Who taught the sun where to stand in the morning?
Who told the ocean, "You can only come this far"?
Who showed the moon where to hide 'til evening?
Whose words alone can catch a falling star?

Well I know my Redeemer lives
I know my Redeemer lives
All of creation testify
This life within me cries
I know my Redeemer lives

I suppose the answer, as always, is to remember Easter Sunday.

Charity

Dr. Alice von Hildebrand was a guest 0n Catholic Answers Live a couple weeks ago, and had this to say:

"Personal charity has infinitely more value than social agreements which simply… eliminate the question of gratitude. Charity … this is something which is individual and is never accomplished by the state."

Something for our elected officials to keep in mind these days...

Don't. But if you do...

I heard a great analogy on Catholic Answer Live the other day. A caller asked why we opposed "comprehensive" sex education programs, that teach abstinence first, but also stress condoms to prevent disease and teen pregnancy just in case some kids are unable to abstain. Fr. John explained that it was like a teacher telling a student that cheating on exams was not allowed. Just flat wrong, don't ever do it. But, if you are going to cheat, here is a website with all the answers, and be very discreet when you text your friends during class, so that you will at least get a good grade and not have any consequences from your cheating.

Don't cheat, but if you do, here's how you should do it. But don't. We really mean it. Wink, wink.

Don't have extramarital sex. But if you do, at least protect yourself from consequences.

It's the whole idea of consequences that used to keep people from sinning. The more modern society tries to spare us the consequences of sin (and excessive debt), the more people will continue to pursue pleasure first and expect a "bail-out" when the logical and natural and inevitable consequences of their actions catch up with them.

Rubber ducky, you're the one...

Creative Minority Report has a commentary that had me laughing... in the funny and sad way!

Here are a few of my favorite quotes...

Condoms are the liberal ShamWOW! It'll clean up any mess.

Truly, what is it with liberals and condoms? The solution to global warming? Condoms. Solution to HIV? Condoms. Poverty? Condoms. The deficit? Condoms. Solution to abortion? Condoms.

While the notion that condoms are the answer to the whole world and all its problems is ridiculous... they (the liberals) keep hangin' on to the mantra... broken record anyone? In all my years, nearly 30 now, I haven't seen condoms produce anywhere near the 'results' that everyone claims they should.

And as CMR pointed out... we've given away so many of these little fellas that they could build little rubber rafts and paddle their way here! Oh wait, that damn failure rate... that will getcha every time!

The rest of the story...

From Lifesite News:

New Octuplets Were Leftover IVF Embryos, Mom Faces Anger for not Aborting
By Kathleen Gilbert

LOS ANGELES, February 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - According to the grandmother of octuplets born in California last week, rather than allow her leftover frozen embryos to be destroyed, dissected in a laboratory, or frozen indefinitely,
their mother chose to give them a chance at life by implanting them in her womb.
Little did she expect to give birth to eight relatively healthy babies, or to be deluged first by congratulations, then by scorn, as critics questioned her choice not to selectively abort as a single mother of reportedly little means.

Suleman, anonymous at the time, made headlines last Monday when she gave birth to the longest-living set of octuplets on record at Kaiser Permanente Hospital in West Los Angeles. The babies, six boys and two girls, are reported to continue growing in strength. "My family and I are ecstatic about all of their arrivals," said the mother in a statement following the births. The octuplets' grandmother described the babies as "so tiny and so beautiful." Later it was revealed that Suleman, who is divorced and according to her mother unable to have children naturally, had already had six children via previous fertility treatments. Media attention turned sour as headlines changed to challenge the ethics of the situation.

"Suleman's story transformed from a dream to a nightmare," wrote a New York Daily News columnist. The story was called a "freak show," "a tawdry nightmare," and "a seedy story of self-indulgence." Some accused Suleman of giving bith as a means to fame and wealth. "If you want to find a way to be famous and to be, in your mind, a celebrity, there's lots of ways to go about it," says Cooper Lawrence, author of "The Cult of Celebrity." "If you're not a good singer and you can't write
books," said Lawrence, "go have babies."

Some questioned the ethics of allowing Suleman to undergo treatment again after already having six children, which was billed as the climax of an alleged obsession with children. Yet her mother said Suleman had merely implanted the children already conceived as excess products from her previous treatments. "She doesn't have any more (frozen embryos), so it's over now," she said.

Another controversy erupted from ethicists who criticized Suleman's anonymous doctor for implanting eight embryos at a time. However, according to her parents, Suleman was expecting one more child to result from her remaining embryos, which they say numbered far fewer than eight. The eight would have resulted from some of the embryos splitting into twins or triplets.

Typical IVF treatments implant as many as four embryos at a time, with the expectation that some will naturally miscarry or, if they continue to grow, will be killed in a standard procedure known as "selective reduction of pregnancy."

Many criticized the mother for deviating from the norm of IVF treatment by refusing to abort some of the babies despite the risk to her health on top of her apparent money troubles. In an ABC interview, endocrinology expert Dr. Richard Paulson said that so many children at once are a problem to be avoided at all costs. "Patients who conceive octuplets would routinely be offered - even advised - selective reduction," said Paulson. "I have to assume that in this case, the patients decided to try and
carry to viability, and they were lucky, plus they got some really good doctors."

Angela Suleman said that was not an option for Nadya. "What do you suggest she should have done? She refused to have them killed," the grandmother said. "That is a very painful thing." Judge Andrew Napolitano, FOX News' Senior Judicial Analyst, confirmed it was quite possible that the octuplets were an unexpected multiplication of fewer embryos, and praised Nadya for choosing not to abort the unexpected lives.

"Notwithstanding all of the above, the mother has done a positive good by bringing these children into the world," wrote Napolitano yesterday. "Life is superior to non-life. Human souls are eternal. Every human life is of potentially infinite value. The God who gave us life reflects His glory through each one of us."

===
Not quite sure what to make of this. I couldn't find anything in the document I referred to in my previous post. Not sure whether people who have already created the embryos for IVF should go ahead and use them all to at least give them a chance at life. Using them all doesn't make IVF okay, but is it better than letting some perish? At any rate, I think the rest of the world should mind their own business and leave this family alone now that their curiousity has been satisfied.

Snowflakes

There is a group or program called "Snowflakes" that promotes adoption of frozen embryos (usually left over and abandoned after being created for the purpose of in vitro fertilization). Many pro-life people supporte the idea of embryo adoptions. Embryos are human persons deserving of dignity and therefore a chance to live. But it's not that simple.

Recently, the Vatican came out with a statement (Dignitatis Personae) addressing this and other modern medical/ethical questions. Here is the pertinent excerpt for embryo adoption:

"The proposal that [frozen] embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood; this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature.

It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of 'prenatal adoption'. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above."

All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons”.

When you read closely, it's not really a closed case, is it? Some people much smarter than me seem to believe it may be possible. The question seems to be: Is it a fertility treatment? Or, is it only done out of love of the abandoned child?

My question is this: How could an infertile couple (like us) claim that we were only doing it out of love? But, would it be fair to exclude infertile couples? (I don't know even know if it would work in our case, just making a point.) The Snowflakes website indicates that their purpose is two-fold: life for the babies, and treating infertility. That seems to be a disqualifier from the Catholic perspective.

Looking back in the document, what are those "reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood"?:

With regard to the treatment of infertility, new medical techniques must respect three fundamental goods:

• a) the right to life and to physical integrity of every human being from conception to natural death
• b) the unity of marriage, which means reciprocal respect for the right within marriage to become a father or mother only together with the other spouse
• c) the specifically human values of sexuality which require “that the procreation of a human person be brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act specific to the love between spouses”.

It seems to be that points b and c apply to us.

Again, what is the motivation? Should these embryos be punished for the sins of their parents? The damage has already been done, shouldn't they be saved? Our boys were not brought about as "the fruit of the conjugal act specific to the love between spouses". Their birth parents were unmarried. Obviously the Church supports adoption of children in need of families. Such hopeless phrases, "cannot be resolved", and "no morally licit solution"? Isn't that the Church's job??? To resolve moral questions? Surely there will be more on this.

I have struggled with the idea that we as an infertile couple are not as fully united as regular couples who become pregnant and have babies. There's so much talk in the Catholic world about marital love being both unitive and procreative. That's the basic argument against artificial contraception. It's also the basic argument against homosexual activity. A sad and frustrated infertile couple can't help but feel inferior, maybe even cursed.

Point B above makes it more clear. Your womb, whether it works or not, is not for anyone else to use. She shouldn't use a sperm donor if our infertility was male factor. I should not use a donor egg and surrogate mother to become a father without my wife involved. We can only become parents together.

The fact that our children are adopted does not make us any less united in our love as husband and wife. Our sacramental marriage gave us the graces to raise children together, and as far as I know that applies equally to adopted children. But Snowflakes is more than adoption - it's surrogate motherhood, and as such it violates our marriage covenant.

Michael Steele

Praise God. I hope Michael Steele does well, and I hope he speaks often about the targeted, concerted, and not-so-subtly racist efforts of the abortion industry to decimate the black population.

Will there be accolades from prominent Democrats and the MSM for the first black RNC Chair? Were there for the first black Supreme Court Justice 20 years ago? How about the first black Secretary of State more recently?

Or, as Clarence Thomas would say, are these all the "wrong kind" of black people? Will they still be punished for not falling into line where they belong?

Don't you think it would be fitting for President Obama himself to issue a congratulatory statement? Shouldn't he applaud the Right for being as colorblind as the Left? Doesn't he, and Sharpton and Jackson while we're at it, owe it to Mr. Steele and to the entire black community to at least acknowledge this accomplishment? Aren't they all about integration, after all?

I predict that if Obama doesn't congratulate Steele, the first white conservative who criticizes him for it will be branded a fool and a racist.

(I will soon comment further on Thomas' book which I recently finished reading.)

family planning

Darwin Catholic has an interesting post up about family planning. A couple of them, actually.

We have been unable to conceive, so we obviously enjoy complete control over the size of our family. But we still get the same questions as other people with more than two children.

Q: Are you having any more?
A: Maybe. Probably. Eventually.

Q: Oh, you want girls, right?
A: That would be great, but we wouldn't love boys any less. I'd feel like a eugenicist Nazi by "custom ordering" a girl and refusing to accept a boy. Adoption is not shopping - at least, it shouldn't be.

Q: Your boys have been through so much. Don't they deserve all of your time and attention?
A: Why do you assume they will be neglected if we adopt another? Are our hearts two sizes too small? (Yes, we're grinchy, but we still like babies.) Is our house too small? Would that be a good enough reason to shut God out of our love life, if we were fertile? If not, then how can it be a good enough reason to never adopt again?

Q: Okay, so you're basically amazingly generous freaks who wantsto save all the orphans. Bless your hearts. I know I could never do it. There's a special place in heaven for you, etc., etc., etc.
A: *BARF* Not really. We're not saints. We just wanted a family like everyone else.

These questions can be challenging because while we want to be real and honest about the challenges of parenthood, particularly adoptive parenthood, we feel that performance anxiety that Darwin referred to. If people see your kids climbing over the pews in church and bowling with frozen turkeys in the grocery store and destroying every room of your home, they won't exactly be drawn to consider a more generous and open union.

But for us, these questions are doubly painful because, while fertile people are insulted by the family planning questions, infertile people are both insulted and reminded of their infertility.

Ironic isn't it, that we have the control that the world wants? They take pills and patches and mutilate their bodies to avoid the gift of life. Meanwhile, we are supposed to be totally over it, right? How dare you secretly wish for a pregnancy! I know that for a fertile couple, discerning how many and how often is a challenge, and I'm not saying that we'd throw caution to the wind and have a dozen kids. But we'd like to have the option of being "out of control".

And I assure you that "freedom" is not all it's cracked up to be. Consequences are a big part of what makes the marital act so unifying and satisfying. That is a big challenge for infertile couples. It's something I'm still learning about after eight years of marriage. Early in our marriage, we were told that pregnancy was possible. So we watched, waited, got our hopes up... Hey, maybe that temperature drop was significant! We'd embrace, and then wait and hope. And invariably be disappointed. That hurts both spouses, but especially the wife. Without getting too graphic, it eventually occurred to me (common knowledge to most of you, yet sheer brilliance to me) that there is a reason why women are more receptive at certain times. I had actually developed a sort of "contraceptive mentality". I felt that because there is no danger or consequence to our marital act, there is no reason why I should be denied my marital right. We didn't have the deliberate barrier that contraception puts up. We were giving ourselves as fully as we could. But at the same time, that sensitivity and communication was lacking, especially on my part. I didn't understand what the big deal was. It wasn't her fault, after all. You're not a "failure", don't take it so personally. We'll have a family eventually. Why should I be frustrated and denied?

That is a dangerous path, and I can see how, taken to an extreme, a husband's selfishness and frustration, coupled with a woman's obsessive single-mindedness, leads to divorce. Sex without consequences is never good, especially if you have chosen to construct the barrier yourself.

I love it

I love this story:

Big Three CEOs Flew Private Jets to Plead for Public Funds

The CEOs of GM, Ford and Chrysler may have told Congress that they will likely go out of business without a bailout yet that has not stopped them from traveling in style, not even First Class is good enough.

All three CEOs - Rick Wagoner of GM, Alan Mulally of Ford, and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler - exercised their perks Tuesday by flying in corporate jets to DC. Wagoner flew in GM's $36 million luxury aircraft to tell members of Congress that the company is burning through cash, asking for $10-12 billion for GM alone.

"This is a slap in the face of taxpayers," said Tom Schatz, President of Citizens Against Government Waste. "To come to Washington on a corporate jet, and asking for a hand out is outrageous."

Way to lead by example, guys. Next time take a page from the Palin playbook and start putting the jets on eBay. I wonder if they parked next to Al Gore's jet, maybe on his way to the latest global warming conference?

By the way, those planes measure fuel in gallons per minute rather than miles per gallon. One trip to collect a Nobel prize uses enough fuel to drive our SUV for seven years. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it, hybrid weenies.

The tally

I was listening to HMS Radio podcast this morning and there was some discussion about faith versus science. Dr. Popcak quoted St. Thomas who said that we as Catholics are open to two revelations. Both the revelation of nature and the revelation of scripture. I thought that was a pretty cool way to think of it. Nature reveals God's design. Scripture does not have to contradict what we see in the natural world. All science does is reveal God's glory.

And then, perusing the news online with my coffee this morning, I came across this story:

Breakthrough Windpipe Transplant Uses Stem Cells

And, you guessed it, they are talking about adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. Isn't it interesting how the scientific research that respects human life also yields the greatest results? It's almost as if God planned it that way...

I believe that would put the current tally at:
Adult Stem Cell Research - Dozens and counting
Embryonic Stem Cell Research - BIG FAT GOOSE EGG

Color me unsophisticated.

I thought this story was funny.

Two famous modern works by American artist Mark Rothko have been displayed incorrectly on their sides for years in a British museum, art historians say.

"The pieces from Rothko's Black and Maroon series, like many of his popular and valuable works from the 1950s and 1960s, consist solely of colored stripes."

Seriously? If you don't even know which way it's supposed to hang, is it really art? I had to look this guy up on Wikipedia and here is my favorite quote.

"The fact that people break down and cry when confronted with my pictures shows that I can communicate those basic human emotions.. the people who weep before my pictures are having the same religious experience I had when painting them. And if you say you are moved only by their color relationships then you miss the point."

I took Art Appreciation in college, and I did enjoy it. But come on. You just can't take this so seriously.

Get over it.

The gay marriage supporters in California are protesting the passage of Proposition 8 (some not so peacefully).

Creative Minority Report shows that the Governator wants the courts to overturn it. Could someone please explain to me how they will manage to declare a constitutional ammendment "unconstitutional"?

What do you think they would be saying if it had failed and a bunch of Christians were protesting? Do you think they'd be arrested for hate speech?

Is this guy for real?

Another minister has been accused of impropriety with a minor.


I decided to look him up. No, "Tony Alamo" is not his real name. Yes, his church is in Arkansas. He denies all charges, of course. Mostly, I was taken aback by some of his other writings. Just, wow... I had no idea there were still people like this.

In support of polygamy:
"The main benefactors from plurality will be women. Scripture denies that the practice gives rise to jealousy. That vice thrives most luxuriantly when ‘the other woman’ is loved in secret. Open, godly polygamy destroys the evil at the root. Godly polygamy is not degrading for women. ... According to many reports, true godly women will always prefer a tenth share of a first-rate, scriptural, godly, Christian man, and be assured of getting to Heaven, than the exclusive possession of a second or third-rate ungodly one and wind up in hell."



Regarding Catholics:
-Lincoln was assassinated by a Jesuit.
-So was JFK (because he said he wouldn't take orders from the Pope).
-WWII was a secret Vatican Inquisition.
-Monks who make fine wine in monasteries are actually being forced into slave labor.
-The Pope is the head of all world governments.
-You will have to put a mark on your hand or forehead which can be read by laser beams, so the Pope can keep track of your purchases.
-John Paul II, as a young man, sold cyanide to the Nazis for use in gas chambers.


I won't link to the guy's site, you can google it yourself if you're interested. It's almost funny, but mostly it's pretty sad.

Quote of the day

You have to read one of the latest by Creative Minority Report. Freakin' hi-larious. And wrong. But funny.

Little Pink Condoms

More anti-Catholic nonsense

See if you can spot the logical disconnect here...

Massachusetts High School Facing Pregnancy Boom

It begins with the following:
Officials at Gloucester High School in Gloucester, Mass., are investigating whether half of the teens made a pact to get pregnant during the school year, Time.com reported... "Some girls seemed more upset when they weren't pregnant than when they were," principal Joseph Sullivan told Time.com.

Further down:
The Gloucester baby boom is forcing this city of 30,000 to grapple with the question of providing easier access to birth control, something this largely Catholic enclave is slow to embrace...

SERIOUSLY?? These girls allegedly wanted to get pregnant, and Time magazine thinks the answer is easier access to contraception for minors!!! Someone please explain to me how that makes any sense at all. Seems to me it's just one more ill-considered shot at Catholicism.

Only in California...

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco (where else?) is the most overturned court in the nation, by the US Supreme Court. This court is jokingly referred to as the 9th Circus, and is well known for being the role model of "judicial activism." Decisions include allowing the censorship of the words "natural family," "marriage" and "family values" as hate speech, threatening public display of the Ten Commandments, allowing liberal usage of "medical marijuana" (no solid medical evidence supporting this) in defiance of Federal authority, banning the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, allowing sexually explicity surveys of elementary school children, allowing assisted suicide in Oregon, outlawing homeschooling, and upholding all sorts of gay "rights."

And now an interesting story has come out about the chief justice of that court:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365701,00.html

While overseeing a case against a pornography distributor, it was discovered that the judge's own website contained obscene material. Well, "obscene" is relative, of course. You be the judge...

"Kozinski, 57, told the Times he thought the material, which included a video of a man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal and a picture of nude women on all fours painted to look like cows, couldn't be seen by the public. The judge said he didn't believe any of the images were obscene, the Times reported.
"Is it prurient? I don't know what to tell you," he told the newspaper. "I think it's odd and interesting. It's part of life."
The Times also described a wide range of other types of sexual imagery."

Wow. Just... wow. I know that relativism is in, but COME ON, PEOPLE! Bestiality is a perversion, it is NOT "odd and interesting". Can you say slippery slope?