To right a wrong always welcome

Ateneo rebukes profs’ stand on RH bill
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 10:43:00 10/25/2008

MANILA, Philippines—The president of the Ateneo de Manila University has dissociated the school from the position of its faculty members expressing support for the Reproductive Health Bill now pending in the House of Representatives.

In a memo to the Ateneo community wherein he quoted his reply to a request for clarification from the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, Ateneo president Fr. Bienvenido Nebres said the faculty members had made it clear that they were speaking for themselves alone.

Nebres, in his memo dated October 23, also made it clear that the Ateneo stands with church leaders in questioning and objecting to the family planning and population management measure.

Nebres indicated that CBCP President Angel Lagdameo asked for a clarification from him in connection with the statement of the Ateneo teachers’ position favoring the RH Bill.

Ateneo faculty members have released a position paper entitled Catholics Can Support the RH Bill in Good Conscience and dated October 25. The position paper was widely reported in the newspapers.

“In reply to a request for clarification from His Excellency Most Rev. Angel N. Lagdameo, D.D., President of the CBCP, I wrote him (on October 22)… the faculty members clearly state that they are not speaking for the Ateneo de Manila and that this is their personal position,” Nebres said in his memo dated October 23.

Nebres said he has also written Archbishop Paciano Aniceto and Bishop Gabriel Reyes as early as October 2 about the Ateneo’s position against the RH Bill.

Nebres said several Jesuits have met with members of the faculty in a dialogue regarding the RH Bill. Norman Bordadora

Freedom of Choice

One of the most dangerous bills ever proposed in US Congress is the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). It's been put on hold so far, but the status could change with a change in party control of the White House. Since it was proposed as a reaction to the US Supreme Court's upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion ban, the FOCA is supposed to repeal all laws, federal or state or local, that are not partial to abortion. Read more here.

If the FOCA is signed into law, pro-life activities could be banned as well. Events like this that happened in Cornell will be much worse for pro-lifers.

the one (no caps intentional)

Got a ton of stuff to finish, not much time to troll around the net, so I direct you to this piece in Hotair.com by Guy Benson, Mary Katharine Ham, and Ed Morrissey who say they are:

... two young conservative journalists—both in our 20s. Unlike many of our peers, we are not swept up in Obamamania and would prefer John McCain to win the election. We’ve teamed up with seasoned blogger extraordinaire, Ed Morrissey, whose careful and thoughtful pursuit of the truth—even when it benefits his political opponents—is respected across the blogosphere. In that spirit, we are not at all interested in perpetuating lies, rumors, and innuendo about Barack Obama. Promoting such information does America a disservice, allows Obama’s supporters to justifiably cry “smear,” and damages our own credibility.

I reiterate of course that even if I do not vote in US Elections, the outcome will affect us in the Philippines, whether we like it or not, and only because we tend to copy what they have over in the US.

See also October 23 post of Dawn.

In the tank?

Here's Colleen at STLtoday.

Critics in media conveniently ignore the angry left
BY COLLEEN CARROLL CAMPBELL
Thursday, Oct. 16 2008

After eight years of treating the radical left's foaming-at-the-mouth fury against President George W. Bush as a respectable political posture, America's media establishment has awakened to the dangers of partisan outrage — on the right.

Recent media reports have bemoaned the "angry" tone of rallies for Republicans Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin at which "rowdy crowds" have staged "surreal scenes" featuring what one Washington Post report described as an "outpouring of raw emotion rare in a presidential race." Apparently, the author of that last phrase never attended a rally for Sen. Barack Obama, where supporters have been known to faint and weep upon glimpsing The One.

Attuned as these reporters are to the wrath of the right, they seem to have overlooked the rageaholic tendencies of the left. In the past week alone, groups of Obama supporters spray-painted "Republican means slavery" on the door of a South Carolina GOP office, used a Molotov cocktail to torch a McCain yard sign in Portland, Ore., and arrived at a Palin rally in Pennsylvania sporting T-shirts that described the governor as a four-letter word unprintable in a  family newspaper.

Such nastiness is dispiriting but unsurprising at the end of a hard-fought race. When it gets this close to Election Day, fringe characters inevitably emerge on both ends of the political spectrum.

Yet only one end of that spectrum is drawing the collective ire of mainstream media reporters and commentators. Obama, who recently exhorted supporters to confront Independents and Republicans and "argue with them and get in their face," gets a pass for the strong-arm tactics of his allies on the angry left.

Meanwhile, McCain is blasted for fomenting partisan wrath, even though he has corrected supporters at his rallies when they made comments that he considered over the top.

Mainstream media outlets have given prominent coverage to comments such as those of Democratic Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, who accused McCain of "sowing the seeds of hatred and division" and compared him to segregationist Alabama governor George Wallace. CNN pundit James Carville has clucked that he fears the McCain crowds "could literally cause physical harm." New York Times op-ed columnist Frank Rich has declared that McCain and Palin are playing "the race card." His evidence: People at McCain-Palin rallies — although not the candidates themselves — sometimes use Obama's middle name or shout out angry retorts to speeches.

Ironically, the same critics seeking to concoct a scandal from a few stray hecklers at McCain-Palin rallies howl in protest whenever McCain supporters raise questions about Obama's much more intimate associations with dubious characters. Whether the topic is Obama's 20-year friendship with racist, anti-American pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his political start in the living room of unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers, his business dealings with convicted felon Tony Rezko or his ties to ACORN, the advocacy group that has been implicated in a nationwide voter-fraud scandal, the answer from Obama's journalistic allies is always the same: That's a distraction.

When it comes to media elites in the grip of Obama-mania, it seems, every criticism of their anointed candidate is a distraction. That bias is not lost on voters. Much of the anger journalists bemoan among McCain supporters is directed at them. As one man told the Washington Post, "You are treating [Obama] like he's Britney Spears and covering him like he's Paris Hilton, instead of the next president of the United States, potentially." Instead of
dismissing such criticism as partisan hysteria, media elites would do well to listen and learn. If they truly want voters to take a more detached, clear-eyed view of the candidates, they can begin by modeling that objectivity in themselves and their own work.

Colleen Carroll Campbell is an author, television and radio host and St. Louis-based fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Her website is www.colleen-campbell.com.

Delegating Discipline

I quote in full Dr. Ray at the National Catholic Register.
H/T:  Danielle Bean

Delegating Discipline
BY Dr. Ray Guarendi
October 19-25, 2008 Issue | Posted 10/14/08 at 12:54 PM

I know some parents who give kids a say in what consequences they should pay for their misbehaviors. What is your opinion on this approach?

Some parents believe there’s a time and place for kids to set their own discipline consequences: when they’re 27, and the place is their own apartment, maybe somewhere in Europe. I disagree. In fact, I’m certain that allowing youngsters input into at least some of their discipline is fraught with advantages.

First of all, sometimes kids confront us with such bizarre stunts that we’re too shell-shocked to think clearly. We can’t discern any possible rationale for their behavior, much less decide what to do about it. One source of ideas is the source of the trouble: “Iris, I’m not quite sure what to do about this. I’ve never had someone step on every petunia in my flower box looking for a Nerf ball. You tell me what I should do.” The first response you’re likely to hear is “I don’t know.”

You can help Iris gain some insight by following with “Well, if you don’t decide, I’ll have to. Give me something reasonable, and maybe I’ll go with it.” Iris may take a shot at being reasonable, especially if she thinks it will help her escape your “unreasonable” discipline.

A second advantage to concocting one’s own consequences is that the child may be more cooperative in seeing them through. Armstrong may more quietly shovel the snow by himself next time as the price for hitting his brother in the head with an ice ball this time. After all, he publicly picked that outcome. You have it on record with a copy at your attorney’s office.

Third, delegating discipline gives Buford a chance to ponder. In thinking about fair consequences, he is also thinking about the nature of his act. If he needs time to reflect, he can retreat to his room or a similarly quiet, cluttered place and return later with an answer or two. A few youngsters will actually provide several options. These are the ones destined to be counselor types.

Finally, you have the last word on all joint-venture discipline. Leave the matter completely up to Spike, and you could easily hear the likes of “Okay, I’ll write, ‘I’m sorry’ twice … you got any carbon paper?” If given enough time — anywhere between a minute and six years — most kids will conjure up a legitimate outcome: “I think I should pay for all new petunias with my allowance and not have any TV until I do.”

Then, too, kids can be harder on themselves than we would ever be: “I think I should write, ‘I am very, very, very, very sorry for making our home the ugliest house in the neighborhood.’ I think I should write that a million times. And I think I should pay for the broken petunias by mowing the lawn at a penny an acre with a manual lawn mower.”

You may have to temper Chastity’s self-discipline while adding a little meat to Spike’s. In the end, asking kids for discipline help can spur thoughtful answers, teach a good lesson — and keep you from getting an ulcer from struggling to think up something appropriate.

The doctor is always in
at DrRay.com.

A Conspiracy of Silence (EI News)

A Conspiracy of Silence
Melinda Tankard Reist

In two previous excerpts from her book Giving Sorrow Words: The Unspoken Pain of Abortion, journalist and women's rights advocate Melinda Tankard Reist discussed how inadequate and deceptive pre-abortion counseling contributes to the lack of authentic and fair choice, and many women's experiences of coercion, mistreatment, and the psychological and physical effects of abortion.


In this excerpt, she describes the silence and absence of help that many women face after abortion -- a further injustice that deepens their pain and isolation and can lead to prolonged suffering.

E. Joanne Angelo, Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Tufts University School of Medicine in the U.S., has written about the importance of the mourning process:

Grief following a death in the family is a universally accepted experience. A period of mourning following the loss of a loved one is a normal expectation in every culture. It is also generally understood that if this mourning process is blocked or impacted, there will be negative consequences.1
 
But there is no period of mourning for a woman suffering grief after an abortion. There are no grief teams, no body for her to cuddle and dress, no footprints or photographs to keep in an album, no ceremony, no grave on which to lay flowers; in short, nothing to acknowledge that this baby ever existed.

Peta makes this point in an extract from her story, writing, "The pain and grief continues because there is no acknowledgment of death, except in my heart ... The shadow of my lost little girl or boy will always follow me."

Beatrice, who underwent a second trimester abortion, describes what this lack of acknowledgement feels like:

My grief will be unresolved because you cannot grieve the normal way, you can’t repeat and repeat yourself. My husband and I never talk about the inner feelings ... although I’m sure he must think of it too. It’s just taboo and you put it to the back of your mind ...
 

Katarina, a psychologist, wrote of feeling cheated because she is not free to grieve:
 
My sister has since had two stillbirths—as a family we have grieved and empathized with her and her husband’s dreadful pain. Inside of me I felt cheated as no one had grieved with me for my two lost children—not even me. When my mum says no one in the family has experienced pain like my sister my heart cries out silently, "But I have."

Women are told they’ll get over it, that time heals, but find this is not true. Elizabeth had an abortion in 1973:
 
The aftermath was a numbness I hadn’t anticipated. I was numb, hollow, dead, and so very heavy with sorrow. The feelings didn’t “go with time” as my delighted mother assured me they would. I grew morose, bitter, very sad; so heavy with sadness, I can’t describe it . . .
 
I cried every day, I stayed as drunk as I could for as long as I could, and I hated myself and everyone else. I used to dream about the child I’d lost ... I wanted my child. I loved it, cherished it, yearned for its birth, missed it when it was taken from me, and to this day, 26 years later, feel the tragic heaviness of loss. My only consolation is that one day when I die our souls may reunite.
 
A grieving post-aborted woman faces a conspiracy of silence. She is expected to be full of gratitude and praise that she could access the “right to choose;” to speak badly of her experience makes her seem ungrateful.
 

The Absence of Help
 
Women often spoke of being unable to get satisfactory help for their grief from clinics or organizations connected with abortion. Karleen said that when she sought help at a women’s counseling clinic, she was told it was wrong of her to speak badly of her abortion experience. Kara told of posting her personal abortion story on an Internet discussion of abortion. She was told to “get lost”—her story wasn’t welcome.


Sue also went to a women’s center and tried to share the grief she had carried for 24 years:
 

I took a risk last year at the local women’s center and was very surprised to be confronted by the hostility of one woman present—she had every right to her opinion but I made the mistake of assuming that the women’s center would be a safe place to discuss it without judgment.
 
There are few “safe places” for women to share their grief. Women are made to suppress their pain and invent other reasons to explain what they are going through. A woman who shared her abortion pain in a story in The Age in 1992 described trying to get help from a pro-choice organization:
 
They said the reason (that you are hurting) is that you’ve got stuff in your background that you need to resolve. But I don’t think I’ve got unfinished business.2
 
If a woman is depressed after an abortion, she is made to feel it’s her own inability to deal with sadness which is the problem. The onus is all on the woman. But, as Isabelle wrote, "[P]ost-abortion grief is a very real experience. It goes on and on. Every time abortion is debated it sounds ten times as loud and it hurts ten times as much."
 

The Need for Resolution

Contributors to this book described many ways of trying to understand what happened to them, searching for a place of “healing” or “resolution” or “peace.” They had in common a need to find a way through crushing grief and to give expression to their mourning and sense of bereavement. A few were able to find a pathway to resolution; others still look for it.
 
But many more have not been permitted expression of their pain, nor been allowed to seek a way through it. They remain locked in, shut up, shut out of the discussion. Surely the time is long due that they too be encouraged to speak, to give their sorrow words and so help resolve their grief.

~~~

Excerpted from the book Giving Sorrow Words: Women's Stories of Grief After Abortion, by Melinda Tankard Reist. This book is available from the Elliot Institute under our Acorn Books publishing imprint. For more information, visit www.theunchoice.com or call 1-888-412-2676.

Double bladed

Dawn Eden's post entitled "I saw some things I can’t get out of my head: Med student 'incredibly freaked out' after a day at Planned Parenthood" made Sam to comment:

The most disturbing was the one with the head severed from the body. I guess that some people who look down upon an Islamic fascist who would sever the head of an infidel never considered that in the United States of God Bless America we do that every day of the week to thousands of unborn humans.

Definitely true. How much outrage have events like this, or this, or this, or this angered us, and get MSM to put in much coverage?

Will they?

Will Media Report ACORN Voter Registration Fraud and Obama Ties?

Of why most US main stream media have not and will not put more emphasis.
H/T Newsbusters.

To be sure, complaining about media's absurd double standard this election cycle seems almost like beating a dead horse.

However, as press members have focused great attention on voting fraud since the Florida recount debacle in 2000, it seems impossible to believe they're ignoring the glaring abuses ACORN is alleged to be committing this year, and the fact that despite his protestations to the contrary, Obama has been involved with this organization for decades.

Well...maybe not.

Marketing the Novus Ordo

From the Creative Minority Report.

Who is really pro-life . . .

I am quoting from Jill's blog the Johnstown, PA speech by Sarah Palin. I could not find the text of the speech in the link that Jill put in her post.

In this same spirit, as defenders of the culture of life, John McCain and I believe in the goodness and potential of every innocent life. I believe the truest measure of any society is how it treats those who are least able to defend and speak for themselves. And who is more vulnerable, or more innocent, than a child?

When I learned that my son Trig would have special needs, I had to prepare my heart for the challenges to come. At first I was scared, and Todd and I had to ask for strength and understanding. But I can tell you a few things I've learned already.

Yes, every innocent life matters. Everyone belongs in the circle of protection. Every child has something to contribute to the world, if we give them that chance. There are the world's standards of perfection... and then there are God's, and these are the final measure. Every child is beautiful before God, and dear to Him for their own sake....

As for our beautiful baby boy, for Todd and me, he is only more precious because he is vulnerable. In some ways, I think we stand to learn more from him than he does from us. When we hold Trig and care for him, we don't feel scared anymore. We feel blessed.

It's hard to think of many issues that could possibly be more important than who is protected in law and who isn't - who is granted life and who is denied it. So when our opponent, Senator Obama, speaks about questions of life, I listen very carefully.

I listened when he defended his unconditional support for unlimited abortions. He said that a woman shouldn't have to be - quote - "punished with a baby." He said that right here in Johnstown - "punished with a baby" - and it's about time we called him on it. The more I hear from Senator Obama, the more I understand why he is so vague and evasive on the subject. Americans need to see his record for what it is. It's not negative or mean-spirited to talk to about his record. Whatever party you belong to, there are facts you need to know.

Senator Obama has voted against bills to end partial-birth abortion. In the IL Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation against that practice. Senator Obama opposed that bill. He voted against it in committee, and voted "present" on the Senate floor. In that legislature, "present" is how you vote when you're against something, but don't want to be held to account.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, described partial-birth abortion as "too close to infanticide." Barack Obama thinks it's a constitutional right, but he is wrong.

Most troubling, as a state senator, Barack Obama wouldn't even stand up for the rights of infants born alive during an abortion. These infants - often babies with special needs - are simply left to die.

In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for those babies who survive an abortion. They're living, breathing babies, but Senator Obama describes them as "pre-viable." This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. IL had a version of the same law. Obama voted against it.

Asked about this vote, Senator Obama assured a reporter that he'd have voted "yes" on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Act. There's just one little problem with that story: the language of both the state and federal bills was identical.

In short, Senator Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life. He has sided with those who won't even protect a child born alive. And this exposes the emptiness of his promises to move beyond the "old politics."

In both parties, Americans have many concerns to be weighed in the votes they cast on November fourth. In times like these, with wars and a financial crisis, it's easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life. And it seems our opponent hopes that you will forget. Like so much else in his agenda, he hopes you won't notice how radical his ideas and record are until it's too late.

But let there be no misunderstanding about the stakes.

A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that will continue to smother the open and democratic debate we need on this issue, at both the state and federal level. A vote for Barack Obama would give the ultimate power over the issue of life to a politician who has never once done anything to protect the unborn. As Senator Obama told Pastor Rick Warren, it's above his pay grade.

For a candidate who talks so often about "hope," he offers no hope at all in meeting this great challenge to the conscience of America. There is a growing consensus in our country that we can overcome narrow partisanship on this issue, and bring all the resources of a generous country to the aid of both women in need and the child waiting to be born. We need more of the compassion and idealism that our opponent's own party, at its best, once stood for. We need the clarity and conviction of leaders like the late Governor Bob Casey.

He represented a humanity that speaks to all of us - no matter what our party, our background, our faith, or our gender. And no matter your position on this sensitive subject, I hope that spirit will guide you on Election Day. I ask you to vote for McCain-Palin on the November 4th, and help us to bring this country together in the rational discussion of compassion and life.

Spread the wealth around

We know to where this "spreading the wealth around" usually leads. Here. Or here.

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

You guessed right who said it. Read MM and ST.

Eight Bailout Questions from Laura

Laura's E-Blast
http://www.LauraIngraham.com
October 1, 2008

Eight Bailout Questions

How many times over the last few days have we heard politicians, talking heads and other self-proclaimed "experts" tell us the reason the $700 billion bailout is so wildly unpopular is that we just don't understand it. The economy is complicated. Just trust Congress, President Bush and his royal highness, Hank Paulson. They'll fix it. Don't worry about that $700 billion number. It only sounds high.

Well. If that's the case - if we're really too dumb to understand what's happening - perhaps Congress can show us how much they know. To start, here are some questions I'd like answered.

1) Since the White House introduced the bailout last week, a number of alternative ideas have been proposed. For one, Michigan Republican Thaddeus McCotter wrote a 10-point plan that carries no cost to taxpayers. Others, like George Soros', are significantly less expensive and, in his estimation, likelier to be effective. Can you explain why this bill is the best option, despite being the most expensive?

2) We're told the bailout could actually turn a profit for taxpayers. Assuming that's true, how can we be sure the money actually ends up back in taxpayers' hands? For years the Social Security system took in more money than it paid out, yet instead of putting the surplus revenue toward future benefits, Congress snatched that extra cash for general expenditures. Likewise, Fannie and Freddie's "profits," were used for congressional pet projects. With this track record, how can we trust that this program will be any different?

3) The McCain campaign yesterday pointed out that the most recent housing bill gave the government nearly $1 trillion to purchase mortgages. If this is true, why exactly does Congress need to pass this monstrous legislation?

4) Does the latest version of this bill still "allow the government to purchase troubled assets from pension plans, local governments, and small banks that serve low- and middle-income families"? Americans are having a hard enough time swallowing the idea of a bailout for irresponsible home, car, and student lending. The notion that we'll be on the hook for insolvent pension plans administered by awful, union-controlled lawmakers in cities like Detroit and New York is simply insane.

5) Does the bill's preamble still proclaim that the law "provides authority to the treasury secretary to ... ensure the economic well-being of Americans?" Does anyone know if there are limitations to this seemingly unbridled authority? Otherwise, what prevents the Treasury secretary from becoming a de-facto dictator? This strikes me as especially worth discussion.

6) Are there still no meaningful curtailments of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Does the bill contain anything even hinting at accountability?

7) What concrete assurances do taxpayers have that the turmoil's provenance - Carter and Clinton-era social-engineering dictums that upended safe-lending practices in favor of higher minority home ownership - will forever be outlawed? How do we know taxpayers won't be asked to finance another $700 billion bailout in 10 years? What has Congress learned from its past mistakes?

8) After Enron's collapse, former CEO Jeffrey Skilling, then-CEO Ken Lay, and then-CFO Andrew Fastow, were called to testify before Congress. According to the Business and Media Institute, Fannie's and Freddie's overstated earnings were 19 times larger than Enron's fake numbers. So when can we expect Congress to call Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the rest of Fannie's and Freddie's enablers to testify before Congress?

At the end of the day, we're not being asked to bailout Wall St. so much as we are the Democratic Party. For $700 billion, answers to the questions above are the least Congress can do in return.

Dura Realidad

Here's a link to a video made by "Popular and Influential Latino actor Eduardo Verastegui" on the evils of abortion, why the Hispanics are being targetted, and what he believes is O's stand.

This video was posted in YouTube but it was edited so as not to show the graphic abortion video.

Caution: Very graphic.