"Have you no shame? Have you no decency?"

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech at the UN General Assembly on Thursday. Another of those truly "presidential" speeches coming out of the UN (despite being the UN):

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland.

I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people.

The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events.

Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth. Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.

Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments. Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is this a lie?

A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler’s deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?

This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie?

And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie? One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife's grandparents, her father’s two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state.

What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations! Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong.

History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries. In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.

Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization.

It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.

The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day. Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially.

It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.

What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come. We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet.

I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances – by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment. These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.

But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after an horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind. That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction.

The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood? Will the international community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging. Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.

For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. We heard nothing – absolutely nothing – from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.

Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded? Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country's civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II. During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians – Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.

That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances. Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas.

We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave. Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy's civilian population from harm's way.

Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel. A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.

By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth. What a perversion of justice.

Delegates of the United Nations,

Will you accept this farce?

Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.

If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity. And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace. Here's why.

When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense. What legitimacy? What self-defense?

The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us –my people, my country - of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty!

Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

All of Israel wants peace.

Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace. We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein. And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel, will make peace. But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace. In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples – a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution. The Arabs rejected it.

We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state. Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the nation state of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel. This is the land of our forefathers.

Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical vision of peace: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. They shall learn war no more." These words were spoken by the Jewish prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city, in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem.

We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland. As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own. We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity.

But we must have security. The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel.

That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarized. We don't want another Gaza, another Iranian backed terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few kilometers from Tel Aviv.

We want peace.

I believe such a peace can be achieved. But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order. The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.

Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the "confirmed unteachability of mankind," the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.

Churchill bemoaned what he called the "want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”

I speak here today in the hope that Churchill's assessment of the "unteachibility of mankind" is for once proven wrong.

I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history -- that we can prevent danger in time.

In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come.

Klaus, not Santa.

Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, delivered this speech at the UN on September 23, 2009.  Really Presidential! PDF here.  What he says about climate change issue (emphasis mine):

It has its territorial or geographic aspects as well. We have to pay attention to the needs and interests of all kinds of countries. Global economic development will benefit from a removal of barriers, not from creating new ones because they would substantially complicate the access of poorer countries to foreign markets and their ability to develop by their own means. Economic recession and large increases of public debt have reduced the possibilities the world can use today in order to meet such ambitions, as the fight against the climate change.

I do not intend to go into details of this issue here now, we should carefully follow the scientific debate and pay attention to the costs and benefits of our decision. I do, however, want to emphasize that the measures proposed to combat climate change represent another heavy burden, for both the developed countries which are falling into deep fiscal deficits now and for developing countries and this is in a situation when the rich countries, often pushing this agenda at international forums, are losing their ability to compensate the poorer countries for the impact of these additional costs.

Hear ye! Hear ye!

Not being truthful or simply ignorant?

Sunstar's editorial of September 21 entitled Church’s use of RH bill issue says:

Surely, a presidentiable’s stand on population control, which is the sore point in the Reproductive Health Bill’s content, does not define his character or ability to lead.
 ...

But by putting too much emphasis on the issue, the Church and pro-life groups have tended to downplay the other important concerns of governance that presidential hopefuls need to have a stand on.

Surely, a president can’t just pay lip-service to the Church’s cause against population control and then commit other objectionable acts like raiding the government coffers or abusing people’s rights.

...

Still, it would be good for the faithful if the Catholic Church hierarchy would come up with holistic and objective criteria to guide them in assessing the qualifications of candidates instead of giving them narrow-minded views.

The Church tries to be very consistent with its teachings.  It will mobilize her faithful against what ills persons and society and will work toward what are true and good.   There is no compromise.  The Church in her pastoral duty will guide the faithful toward their final end -- Heaven -- even as the faithful are still in this world.  Elections and the faithful's participation in the political arena are only two of the many concerns for the Church.  One who says that the Church only looks at a political candidate (who has signed up though, they have just signified their intent to run, right?)  in his support or rejection of the RH bill is not being truthful or simply ignorant.

Why do I say this?  The CBCP has given us pointers in the past.  The CBCP wrote a pastoral letter in 2004 that I reprint in toto below that already gives us the points to consider in choosing a candidate (boldface mine):

NATION-BUILDING THROUGH ELECTIONS
(Pastoral Statement on Elections 2004)

Elections are a crucial moment in our continuing task of nation-building. They are a “timely opportunity to transform society by electing wise, capable and upright leaders.” (Oratio imperata) It is a time when we can institutionalize further People Power through the informed and responsible choice of local and national leaders by millions of Filipinos here and abroad.

Despite disturbing talk of massive frauds and unconstitutional measures being contemplated by various political groupings, we assert once more that the vigilance and concerted action of ordinary citizens would be the best guarantee of maintaining honest, orderly and peaceful elections. Are we ready to defend our democratic way of life through the constitutional process and the rule of law?

It is in this light that we emphasize the importance of safeguarding the election process. We highly endorse citizens’ groups such as PPCRV, NAMFREL, and others to work closely with COMELEC, the military and PNP and public school teachers in maintaining a neutral and non-partisan role in ensuring the electoral process. We also note that the voters’ list in many places has not yet been made available by COMELEC and neither has the supply of indelible ink been assured. Will this problem be solved before election?

The electoral process is also a time when we can state that we cannot be neutral against corruption in its various forms, e.g. vote-buying and vote-selling, taxation by the NPA of political candidates and ordinary citizens, misuse of public funds, etc. This fight against corruption is a gospel imperative.

Even as we focus on election-day itself, we also remind voters of their right and duty before elections to discern and choose candidates based on certain criteria. At least three basic criteria are to be considered:

First, is the candidate a person of competence, i.e. in terms of leadership experience, professional qualifications, and record of governance? Second, is the candidate a person of conscience, i.e. with personal integrity, transparency, accountability, and respect for human rights? And third, is the candidate a person of commitment to a vision and program of action on key issues such as family and life, environment, illegal drugs and gambling, justice, peace and order, poverty alleviation, education, etc.?

Beyond elections, there is the greater challenge for all citizens: to continue monitoring winning candidates in order to ensure transparency, accountability and people empowerment for good governance. We have been praying for clean elections; we continue to pray and work for reconciliation and the solidarity that is essential to nation-building.

“So let us not grow weary in doing what is right, for we will reap at harvest-time, if we do not give up. So then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us work for the good of all.” (Gal 6:9-10).

Obviously enough the Church will not campaign for or against any candidate, although there is nothing wrong that some members of the Church may give their opinions about a candidate well within the sphere of canon law and laws of decency.  It is up to us to determine for ourselves whom we will vote for.

On the editorial's take on a "better approach", the Church may change its way of doing things, but she will never compromise doctrine with people surveys.  It is just not her style. 

To understand some more why the Church is concerned about the RH bill and what it will do to the moral life of the faithful, it would be for good reading this and this.

Stabat Mater

The Church commemorates today the Sorrows of Our Lady. In the Holy Mass, the congregation recites or sings the Stabat Mater. This goes out to all mothers and mothers-to-be who are always heroic for us.

I'd say Mother = Heroic.

Special intentions for those mothers who are suffering at this time:

At the Cross her station keeping,
stood the mournful Mother weeping,
close to Jesus to the last.

Through her heart, His sorrow sharing,
all His bitter anguish bearing,
now at length the sword has passed.

O how sad and sore distressed
was that Mother, highly blest,
of the sole-begotten One.

Christ above in torment hangs,
she beneath beholds the pangs
of her dying glorious Son.

Is there one who would not weep,
whelmed in miseries so deep,
Christ's dear Mother to behold?

By the Cross with thee to stay,
there with thee to weep and pray,
is all I ask of thee to give.

For the sins of His own nation,
She saw Jesus wracked with torment,
All with scourges rent:

She beheld her tender Child,
Saw Him hang in desolation,
Till His spirit forth He sent.

Can the human heart refrain
from partaking in her pain,
in that Mother's pain untold?

O thou Mother! fount of love!
Touch my spirit from above,
make my heart with thine accord:

Make me feel as thou hast felt;
make my soul to glow and melt
with the love of Christ my Lord.

Holy Mother! pierce me through,
in my heart each wound renew
of my Savior crucified:

Let me share with thee His pain,
who for all my sins was slain,
who for me in torments died.

Let me mingle tears with thee,
mourning Him who mourned for me,
all the days that I may live:

Let me, to my latest breath,
in my body bear the death
of that dying Son of thine.

Virgin of all virgins blest!,
Listen to my fond request:
let me share thy grief divine;

Wounded with His every wound,
steep my soul till it hath swooned,
in His very Blood away;

Be to me, O Virgin, nigh,
lest in flames I burn and die,
in His awful Judgment Day.

Christ, when Thou shalt call me hence,
by Thy Mother my defense,
by Thy Cross my victory;

When my body dies,
let my soul be granted
the glory of Paradise. Amen.

Latin text found here.

A consequence

Update:
I thought thought this would be a better lede:


Of having a saint for a mother:

Saint's daughter hopes to follow her mother's example of loving life

Laura Molla, daughter of St. Gianna Beretta Molla, is pictured during an interview with Catholic News Service. Her mother, an Italian doctor who sacrificed her own life for the life of her child, was canonized by Pope John Paul II in 2004. (CNS/Nancy Wiechec)

By Carol Zimmermann
Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Many people might say their mothers are saints but very few have an official church declaration to back it up.

Fifty-year-old Laura Molla, daughter of St. Gianna Beretta Molla, is one of those people.

St. Gianna, often called the "pro-life saint," was canonized in 2004 by Pope John Paul II for having put her unborn child's life before her own. In 1962, when she was pregnant with her fourth child, doctors discovered a large ovarian tumor that required surgery. Although surgical procedures at the time called for removal of her entire uterus, Gianna Molla, 39, insisted surgeons only remove what was necessary and allow her baby to live.

She pleaded with family and doctors: "If you must decide between me and the child, do not hesitate. Choose the child, I insist on it, save the baby."

Of legislated reproductive health programs. What else could it be? This did not stop "pregnancy crises" from happening.

Jill Stanek:

Planned Parenthood Naples began aborting today

This morning dawned with security guards and deathscorts ready and willing to usher mother in to the Naples, FL, Planned Parenthood to abort their babies....

After so many days

I was away in Bukidnon when I learned of Ted Kennedy's death. Even as I had wanted to check the Net for stories, the internet access there was at GPRS speed and so I did not.

Coming home from the seminar, I watched some clips of the funeral service and wondered what a great send-off it was for a man who seemed to have been on the wrong side of Catholic teaching most of his life. While I understand that we cannot judge the state of a person's soul (we read that Ted was visited by a priest many times during his last days, and so he may have 'fessed up, and that's that) and so the funeral mass was a most Christian/Catholic thing to do, I felt that perhaps some (even Catholics) would react to that liturgical event, maybe confused. But I left it at that and prayed for his soul.

Today I read Phil Lawler at Catholic Culture and the concerns I had then were given light.

In part, Lawler writes:

The great, unanswered question hanging over the congregation in Mission Church, and in the minds of the millions who watched the funeral Mass on television, was how the Catholic Church could arrange such a highly public tribute to a man who, over the years, was arguably the most powerful political opponent of the Catholic position on the central moral issue of our time: the battle to protect human life.

Read all here. Or here.

What Metallica rock can make me write

She says: 

MY high school classmates and I found a very good reason to support the Reproductive Health Care bill yesterday. Our argument doesn’t need to be articulated in words; we only have to bring those who oppose the passage of the bill to a charity center in Pasil, Cebu City.

At the Missionaries of Charity, we saw how unplanned pregnancy in a poverty-stricken household can bring to a child—poor nourishment and health disease. Those of us who have children knew what to tell them when we got back, and those of us who have none knew what to tell our mothers.

I would in fact come to a different realization:  that a legislated reproductive health and population development program (as the HB 5043 proposes) will only repeat the "bitter harvest of broken homes, shattered lives and a demographic winter that has replaced the old myth of an exploding population with the grim reality of irreversible depopulation."

The babies are brought to the center to be nursed back to health, she says.  But this is the way we treat the sick and elderly, to nurse them back to health, right?.  Why should unhealthy babies require less?   Most of those who get sick do not want to become sick.  They do not plan their illnesses, but they got sick nevertheless.  And when they do, we bring them to hospital to bring them back to health.  I am sure even if the sisters have their hands full, they are happy doing what they do.

How many children there now were born because of the failure of artificial contraception?  A one-night stand that turned "awry"?    How many kids are there because neighbors (and barangay health workers) have pressured the parents that they can no longer care for the additional children?  How many children were placed there because of changes in family circumstances, and not necessarily only because of lack of means?

Is it the sight of the malnourished kids that breaks our hearts (and think of the RH bill)?  But, how many children from rich families sick in hospital now appear similarly to those kids in the sisters' care center, and yet we never think that we could be better off without them, nor think of the RH bill?

Makes me think:  If what I write disgusts people, will the world be better off if my Mom and Dad did not have me, or if they had me, and still what I write disgusts people, would the world be better off if my government shut me up? 

No need to answer.

N.B.:  I don't like Metallica rock either.  But I probably won't think of the RH bill if I hear this noise, err ... music.  80's music rock!

...............................

Barbara Lilley writes why we should have children (from Mercator via IChooseLife):.

• Children keep you honest
• Children don't care if you're the perfect height or weight, just as long as you love them 
• Children keep you young 
• A hug from a child can warm your heart 
• Children show you your own negative qualities that need to be changed 
• A child's laugh makes you smile too (and sometimes even join in) 
• Children remind you how much fun colouring can be 
• One day, your child will be toilet-trained, your dog will forever need you to pick up after it 
• Children don't leave wet furballs lying around for you to step in 
• Breastfeeding brings you closer to your baby-it is not slavery. Scratch that-feeding your baby brings you closer to your baby-whether breast or bottle-fed 
• Children only kill desire in a marriage if you let them – get creative 
• Riding the merry-go-round with your children reminds you how to be a kid again 
• Little faces that light up when you walk through the door-whether you've been gone for five hours or five minutes 
• Snuggling in bed reading together 
• Crayon drawings on the refrigerator door 
• Swelling with pride at your child's accomplishments-whether it's learning to ride a bike or graduating from high school 
• Having someone to pass on family traditions to – or creating new ones 
• Mother's Day cards that say, “You're the best Mom in the whole world!” 
• Father's Day cards that read, “To the world's greatest Dad!” 
• Hugs and kisses, just because
  

"Social control"

Update: The second part involves the right-to-reply bill pending in Congress. The thesis being that RTR could impact on internet usage similarly to proposed cyberspace regulation. I commented on RTR in a previous blogpost.

Alexander Villafania writes part one of his "‘Social control’ better than legislation" in the PDI on September 6. If not for the heading Internet in the Philippines, and that the piece falls under technology, I would have thought it was about the Reproductive Health Bill. Well, it isn't, but it talks about the moves by Congress to regulate cyberspace in the Philippines through legislation.

An issue he writes of:

More than anything else, the said bill by Senator Madrigal also opens a can of worms, according to Winthrop Yu, a director for the Philippine Internet Commerce Society (PICS) who also spoke at the DLSU forum.

He stressed that if passed with the specific section on ISPs unrevised, the Anti-Child Pornography Bill could become a control mechanism for governments to look into private records of ISP clients, with the premise that the government is merely looking into alleged child pornography.

“That makes ISPs liable for alleged child pornography, which could stifle their business,” Yu said.

Privacy is a concern indeed. But this is pretty much one of the points raised by groups that oppose the proposed RHB in its present form. The choice of parents in many aspects cannot be too different from the privacy argument of those who oppose one way or the other proposed cyberspace regulations.

Congress does not want to be inconsistent. If it wants government to dictate choices of parents and families with respect to "reproductive health", why should it desire the opposite with regard to individual's choices in cyberspace?

Let's see what part two says.

Carbon footprint: still at it?

A news report says that the Cebu subsidiary of Ayala is pushing a "green" management system. Well and good. Then comes the part that says:

Carbon footprint

As part of its sustainability program, CHI will start calculating this year the carbon footprint—or the amount of carbon dioxide one generates, measured by the amount of electricity consumed, distance traveled on a motorized vehicle (car or plane)—of each employee. The activity is meant to raise the awareness of CHI employees on how their activities contribute to climate change.

Monera said CHI will eventually require employees to reduce their carbon footprint. But the company has to educate employees before establishing benchmarks and setting targets, he added.

What? They are still at it.

I have no problem with the protection of the environement, but as Steven Milloy says, despite "lack of evidence, the solitary term "man's carbon footprint" manages to concretize the notion of mankind producing indelible damage upon the Earth while in the process of stampeding its flora and fauna."

Milloy says:

CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas in the atmosphere that is measured in parts per million, or ppm. The vast majority of CO2 emissions, about 97 percent, comes from Mother Nature.

CO2 is nowhere near the most important greenhouse gas; water vapor holds that distinction. An astounding 99.9 percent of Earth's greenhouse gas effect has nothing to do with manmade CO2 emissions.

If that's not enough, we can look at graphs of the historical relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature. Ice core data going back 650,000 years show that global temperatures increase before CO2 levels. Data from the 20th century indicate no particular relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperature.

Finally, there is no scientific proof that the current level of atmospheric CO2 or that levels projected by the United Nations -- about 700 ppm by 2095 if no greenhouse gas regulations are put in place -- has or will cause any harm to the environment.

Alarmist gloom-and-doom forecasts also are based on nothing more than the rankest speculation dressed up as computer models that remain wholly unverifiable.

Yet, despite all this lack of evidence, the solitary term "man's carbon footprint" manages to concretize the notion of mankind producing indelible damage upon the Earth while in the process of stampeding its flora and fauna.

For any effective critique of global warming hysteria, we have to move beyond these powerful yet baseless buzz words that undermine any rational case in which they are found.

For another protest about carbon footprint, see Wendell Krossa.

In part:

CO2 does not cause dangerous global warming. Rising levels of CO2 follow warming periods and do not precede or cause warming periods. See the Vostok Ice Core research at http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php) . Oceans, which hold 90 times the CO2 that is in the atmosphere, release CO2 as they warm and this increases atmospheric CO2 levels. The CO2 increases tend to lag behind warming periods by about 800 years.

CO2 is a tiny part of the greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect ( http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html (http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html) ). The warming effect of CO2 gets lost among other much larger natural climate drivers. Human emissions of CO2 are even tinier (1 part per 100,000 parts of the atmosphere) and a human fingerprint causing warming is even more lost among natural influences. The human contribution to climate warming, if it were statistically detectable, would amount to nothing more than “a fart in a hurricane”. Natural climate drivers with strong, clear correlations to warming/cooling periods include cosmic rays ( see Henrik Svensmark’s The Chilling Stars ), solar flare cycles, related cloud cover, ocean current decadal oscillations ( changing current patterns ), earth’s 100,000 year wobble, and others.

CO2 levels have been as high as 7,000 ppm in the past and no dangerous global warming occurred. During the Late Ordovician Period ( some 400 million years ago ) CO2 levels were 4,400 ppm and Earth was as cold as it is now.

There is no scientific reason for us to worry about contributing to increasing CO2 levels. We do not need to reduce our carbon footprint. We do not need to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere or decarbonize our economies. As the 31,000 plus scientists who signed the Protest Petition have stated, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth” ( http://www.petitionproject.org/ (http://www.petitionproject.org/) ).

To demonize carbon/CO2, as environmentalists have done, is to demonize life itself. This is ridiculous hysteria and entirely unscientific. The only way to fully understand this movement is to recognize that it is ideologically-driven extremism gone utterly mad. The real goal of green activism is to slow, halt, and even reverse economic growth and development. The anti-carbon movement uses carbon as a proxy to fight growth and the human enterprise. But the Green movement in demonizing carbon has become anti-green, anti-life, and anti-nature.

Way too much time in their hands

Or should it be: Way too much time WITH their hands.

UNESCO produced a 98-page report entitled "International Guidelines on Sexuality Education: An evidence informed approach to effective sex, relationships and HIV/STI education."

And as Foxnews reports:

U.N. Report Advocates Teaching Masturbation to 5-Year-Olds

Wednesday, August 26, 2009
By Joseph Abrams

NEW YORK — The United Nations is recommending that children as young as five receive mandatory sexual education that would teach even pre-kindergarteners about masturbation and topics like gender violence.

The U.N.'s Economic, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) released a 98-page report in June offering a universal lesson plan for kids ranging in age from 5-18, an "informed approach to effective sex, relationships" and HIV education that they say is essential for "all young people."

The U.N. insists the program is "age appropriate," but critics say it's exposing kids to sex far too early, and offers up abstract ideas — like "transphobia" — they might not even understand.

"At that age they should be learning about ... the proper name of certain parts of their bodies," said Michelle Turner, president of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, "certainly not about masturbation."

Turner was disturbed by UNESCO's plans to explain to children as young as nine about the safety of legal abortions, and to advocate and "promote the right to and access to safe abortion" for everyone over the age of 15.

"This is absurd," she told FOXNews.com.

Sister Toldjah wrote about this too and I link to her comment about what is also happening in the US.

I wish I could say that I was shocked by that report on the UN, but I’m not – because it’s the very same thing advocated by SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States) – an organization which boasts they they “provide countless resources to help educators, advocates, and parents secure supportive public policies, provide high quality education, and help our youth become sexually healthy” – in their “Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education (pages 51-52).”

And SIECUS aren’t the only “sex ed” organization out there that promotes the sexualization of our children at very young ages. I’ve written about others here.

While I’m deeply concerned about what the UN is pushing for, I’m even more concerned about what’s being taught on the sex ed front here in America. If you have a child who is enrolled in the public school system, it goes without saying that you should keep a close eye on what they’re studying and learning – especially as it relates to sex education. It’s unfortunate, but these days you simply can’t just trust that a school system will have the best interests of your child at heart. Stay alert, stay informed, and most importantly, stay in tune with your child’s course load. Sometimes the only thing standing between them and certain “progressive” educators who think they know best how to “prepare” your child for the “real world” is you.

I am continuing to sound the alarm on RP's Reproductive Health Bill.

Give and take

While the "demand" for hybrid engines, batteries, and cars rise, the supply for components for these engines and batteries should decrease as well. It is a give and take. What happens when the supply is lost? Reuters reports, in part:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The Prius hybrid automobile is popular for its fuel efficiency, but its electric motor and battery guzzle rare earth metals, a little-known class of elements found in a wide range of gadgets and consumer goods.

That makes Toyota's market-leading gasoline-electric hybrid car and other similar vehicles vulnerable to a supply crunch predicted by experts as China, the world's dominant rare earths producer, limits exports while global demand swells.

Worldwide demand for rare earths, covering 15 entries on the periodic table of elements, is expected to exceed supply by some 40,000 tonnes annually in several years unless major new production sources are developed. One promising U.S. source is a rare earths mine slated to reopen in California by 2012.

Among the rare earths that would be most affected in a shortage is neodymium, the key component of an alloy used to make the high-power, lightweight magnets for electric motors of hybrid cars, such as the Prius, Honda Insight and Ford Focus, as well as in generators for wind turbines.

Read all here.

Babies without sex

Picked up from Jill's Quote of the Day:

A child is not a right. Unfortunately in todays society, children are seen as product to be had rather than gifts. If you don't want that product, you may abort it. If you want that product, we can create one in a lab for you. The problem that the Church has with IVF is the same problem it has with contraception; it destroys and separates the two aspects of the conjugal act, the unitive and the pro-creative. Contraception is sex without babies. IVF is babies without sex. The two go hand-in-hand, to artificially separate them goes against God's design of the conjugal act. This is so beautifully and throughly hammered out in JPII's Theology of the Body, and as I am now learning, especially in Christopher West's commentary "Theology of the Body Explained."

JillStanek.com moderator Bobby Bambino, as quoted by Stanek post Céline Dion pregnant with 8-year-old frozen embryo

Conspiracy theory

One of the reasons I don't go for legislated, big government-run health care programs may be explained in this post at CWA on the brewing health care reform in the US. Excerpts:

As the House of Representatives prepares to debate health care legislation (without reading it, of course), the term “No health care for you!” comes to mind. Liberal representatives are pushing hard for a “public option” insurance plan, a government-run insurance program that they claim would provide “a little healthy competition for private insurers.” The long-term reality of a public option, however, is that millions of Americans would be dumped by their employers on the cheaper government plan, and private insurers would eventually be run out of business. The government cannot insert itself as a competitor in a game that it also referees.

To add insult to injury (no pun intended), once the government had a majority stake in health insurance, health care would then be categorized into the overall grouping of government programs that must fight for funding. This would ultimately lead to “rationing,” or the government’s ability to regulate what kinds of treatments it deems necessary for patients. Consequently, the government could even deny procedures in the name of “cost-savings.” As we’ve seen in Canada and England, health care rationing often creates immense moral crises for those concerned with the sanctity of life. In government-run health care programs, end-of-life dilemmas arise in which older patients are deemed unworthy of treatment because of their age, or individuals die waiting for crucial treatments.

The same possible big-government interventionism on health care can happen in the Philippines. Far-fetched it would seem but allow me a conspiracy theory. The One's liberal policy changes concerning women, children, and health care are not only for domestic use. His appointments to various posts do not make me comfortable, and for good reason:

For pro-life advocates, naming the pro-abortion Tchen as the director of an agency devoted to the interests of women is yet another example of how Obama is falling short when it comes to pro-life issues.

Today's announcement comes on the heels of Obama announcing the creation of a new foreign policy position to focus on women's issues.

Melanne Verveer, an abortion advocate who served as chief of staff to former First Lady Hillary Clinton, will occupy the new post and serve as a United States ambassador.

Her role as the new Obama ambassador to women abroad? Promote abortion and overturn pro-life laws in nations across the world.

Now, shouldn't we think even harder how this impacts our RP?

The one thing that we did not know ...

... about Eunice Kennedy-Shriver was that she was a pro-lifer. Some even say that she was the only pro-lifer among the siblings. Even as I have no proof of the previous statement except that I remember reading about it sometime back, what is certain is that she would have been so much different from her brother Sen. Ted in the pro-life - pro-choice debate. Fr. Raymond J. de Sousa has a piece in National Post about the extremes that the siblings found themselves in this matter.

Excerpts:

The Shrivers were devout Catholics who lived their faith with integrity privately before bringing its implications to the public square. Before Alzheimer's took its toll on Sargent, he was a daily communicant, attending Mass either in Maryland or in Hyannis, Mass., a well-worn rosary often in hand. He shared his Marian devotion with his wife; in a statement upon Eunice's death, her family noted that "she was forever devoted to the Blessed Mother. May she be welcomed now by Mary to the joy and love of life everlasting, in the certain truth that her love and spirit will live forever."

Such lines will not be written of Ted Kennedy who, as one of America's most prominent Catholics, blazed the trail of making religious belief an entirely private matter. His debauchery was the opposite of the Shrivers' piety. Having broken up his own family, he degenerated into a dissoluteness that reached its nadir on Good Friday, 1991, when instead of doing the Stations of the Cross at the local parish, he took his son and nephew out for a night of bar-hopping and skirt-chasing. The details of Ted's behaviour that night were embarrassingly sordid. It gave rise to the joke that Senator Kennedy's religion was so private he refused to impose it on himself.

What's the matter, SJ? #?

Perhaps she is not speaking for Gonzaga University or as Jill says, she just might have been having a bad day, but Susie, how could you think this way? Is this the Jesuit way now? Crickey!

Who is?

Who would do such a thing?
The original is found here.
It comes from the website of a leftist.
What? Honeymoon's over?

Check this for context. Or this.

Joker

Reaping what they have not sown.

Update 18Aug: the original artist has been found.

9th Commandment?

Sunstar Cebu quotes one of the city's congressmen as saying: “Though shall not bear false witness against thy neighbors." The congressman apparently said this after reminding the mayor of the 9th Commandment.

Hey, I'm sure so many things, with the corresponding emotion of the press conference, clouded his mind a bit, that he made this mistake. Yep, that's it. Heh!

TIRED of being continuously accused by Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña as having abandoned the south district barangay captains, Rep. Antonio Cuenco yesterday showed reporters receipts of cash allies received during the October 2007 elections.

He also reminded the mayor of the Ninth Commandment, saying what Osmeña is doing violates the laws the Lord sets for the faithful.

False witness

“Though shall not bear false witness against thy neighbors.

A thousand words #2

What does this show?

American Thinker has a take on this. Would you agree?

When green sees red

Blood. We've said it many times. The greenies want to kill your babies. They don't want you to have babies. They don't want any people besides themselves.

Another proof is a study that Steve mentions in Green Hell Blog: "Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals" authored by Paul A. Murtaugh and Michael G. Schlax.

Steve quotes the Oregonian:

Some people who are serious about wanting to reduce their "carbon footprint" on the Earth have one choice available to them that may yield a large long-term benefit - have one less child.

It's bad enough to have these types lurking around, but even worse that the laws in support of bad-green initiatives might make more people see even more red (as in red figures in the financial statements). The WT has a report of a government study that shows that the US Congress bill on global warming could do more harm to employment, especially if (worst case): technology doesn't materialize and other countries refuse to cooperate on offsets. (H/T: ST)

Good luck to us all!

Who would pay P2.25M for this?

Two months ago, Toyota Philippines started offering the Prius for Filipinos. Stories here, here, and here.

The retail price is pegged at P2.25M, although I also heard that some dealers were selling at P2.5M. Who would spend that much money for a car?

Maybe the die-hard greenies? I don't think so. Perhaps the wealthy who want to take off a little of the guilt in buying a car so expensive in these trying times? Most likely.

But driving hybrids is not without problems.

A recent study of SF-based Quality Planning concluded:

Hybrid drivers typically drive farther, get more tickets, and have significantly more expensive insurance claims.

Can we risk the cons of having hybrids run in RP's streets in favor of the green agenda? These problems would take a long time still in presenting themselves, I assume, as the price to pay for a hybrid is just too hard on the pocketbook.

A similar story is that of the Indian-made Tata Nano, the USD 2T car that has raised issue whether making cheaper cars available for more people would actually be environmentally safe. It seems that there is a new spin though:

There has been some debate about whether providing inexpensive volume cars to millions of the world's currently car-less citizens is environmentally responsible. But the huge demand for safe, basic mobility seems likely to render the question moot.

H/T: Sis

SONA update

It's been a week and not much refutations still. But attacks have not stopped. Much like Michelle Malkin getting attacked for her new book.

Boy, it's been only 6 months of the One's presidency and Michelle's got a book out!

Contempt is the emotion ...

A thousand words

What's in a picture?
I thought they got past this.
H/T: Michelle

Waiting for more

I have been searching for refutations of GMA's SONA and while there are lots of negative reactions, not much refutations in the proper sense. I watched Winnie Monsod on the news last night and she did have one: that the 2M + jobs were not exactly true and in fact 450,000 jobs were lost. This is as well as I can remember. I could not find a clip of that report though. I found something here:

Monsod argued that basing on actual figures from the National Statistics Office, only 2.8 M jobs were created from 2004-2008, a far cry from the promised 1M jobs per year. She added that poverty rose by almost 50%.

The same site also quotes Mayor Binay about the number of poor people, of an increase of 2.7M from 2000-2006. I cannot say this actually refutes what GMA said in the SONA, as figures cited by Binay is not of the same time period as what GMA used:

Bumaba ang bilang ng nagsasabing mahihirap sila, mula 59% sa 47%. Kahit na lumaki ang ating populasyon, nabawasan ng dalawang milyon ang bilang ng mahihirap.

So far, not much refutations really. Reactions abound but many are simply perceptions. Even the CBCP weighed in on the SONA but I feel the reactions were not enough to be considered refutations. Besides the reactions were mostly on GMA's lack of "clear" and "categorical" statement on her "future political plans". I guess for others her political plans will have an effect on the SON. But not much on the more important statements on the economy and education.

Still waiting for more.

Not about looking back and getting even

The past twelve months have been a year for the history books. Financial meltdown in the West spread throughout the world.

Tens of millions lost their jobs; billions across the globe have been hurt – the poor always harder than the rich. No one was spared.
It has affected us already.

But the story of the Philippines in 2008 is that the country weathered a succession of global crises in fuel, in food, then in finance and finally, economy in a global recession, never losing focus and with economic fundamentals intact.

A few days ago, Moody’s upgraded our credit rating, citing the resilience of our economy. The state of our nation is a strong economy. Good news for our people, bad news for our critics.

I did not become President to be popular. To work, to lead, to protect and preserve our country, our people, that is why I became President.

So goes the intro to Pres. Gloria Arroyo's State of the Nation address this year, her last SONA.

I welcome what she said about education: Our educational system should make the Filipino fit not just for whatever jobs happen to be on offer today, but also for whatever economic challenge life will throw in their way.

She sums what has been done:

In sum:
1. We have a strong economy and a strong fiscal position to withstand global shocks.
2. We built new modern infrastructure and completed unfinished ones.
3. The economy is more fair to the poor than ever before.
4. We are building a sound base for the next generation.
5. International authorities have taken notice that we are safer from environmental degradation and man-made disasters.

And being a Mindanaoan like her, I agree to some extent with this:

There is nothing more that I would wish for than peace in Mindanao. It will be a blessing for all its people, Muslim, Christian and lumads. It will show other religiously divided communities that there can be common ground on which to live together in peace, harmony and cooperation that respects each other’s religious beliefs.

Some of the one-liners:

To those who want to be President, this advice: If you really want something done, just do it. Do it hard, do it well. Don’t pussyfoot. Don’t pander. And don’t say bad words in public.

Those in the past administrations conjured the demon of foreign debt. We exorcised it.

The noisiest critics of constitutional reform tirelessly and shamelessly attempted Cha-Cha when they thought they could take advantage of a shift in the form of government. Now that they feel they cannot benefit from it, they oppose it.

My term does not end until next year. Until then, I will fight for the ordinary Filipino.

However much a President wishes it, a national problem cannot be knocked out with a single punch. She must work with the problem as much as against it, turn it into a solution if she can.

And I have never done any of the things that have scared my worst critics so much. They are frightened by their own shadows.

My critics call it dictatorship. I call it determination. We know it as strong government.

But I never declared martial law, though they are running scared as if I did. In truth, what they are really afraid of is their weakness in the face of this self-imagined threat.

I never expressed the desire to extend myself beyond my term. Many of those who accuse me of it tried to cling like nails to their posts. I am accused of misgovernance. Many of those who accuse me of it left me the problem of their misgovernance to solve. And we did it. I am falsely accused, without proof, of using my position for personal profit. Many who accuse me have lifestyles and spending habits that make them walking proofs of that crime.

We can read their frustrations. They had the chance to serve this good country and they blew it by serving themselves. Those who live in glass houses should cast no stones. Those who should be in jail should not threaten it, especially if they have been there.

Those who are not happy with the SONA, now is the time to check on whatever she said. Just remember that "Contempt is the emotion we feel for an opponent whose arguments are too formidable to refute."

Who said it, I do not remember. Oh, Ambrose Pierce, according to Ann.

Bbbuut

... we thought the science is settled? Then why does a new peer-reviewed climate study (peer-reviewed being the operative word, and not just simply based on computer models, mind you) say that nature is responsible for the recent global warming, and not man?

Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.

The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling.

"The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Niño conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Niña conditions less likely" says corresponding author de Freitas.

"We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century. It may even be more if the period of influence of major volcanoes can be more clearly identified and the corresponding data excluded from the analysis.”

Amazing Filipina

Amazing Filipina:

http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/Cenzon-DeCarloComplaint.pdf

H/T: Jill at http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2009/07/landmark_case_f.html

I don't either

I don't understand how open flouting of Catholic teaching is tolerated at an institution centered on Catholic teaching. More than that, this group is working to undermine Catholic teaching. It seems to me the Church has lost total control of the American Catholic educational system.

Believe me Jill, I don't either. 

But as I have commented many times in the past, in this blog and even among my friends in conversation, many of these "Catholic" institutions that find themselves in these "class" are run or started by the Jesuits.  I finished my undergraduate studies on scholarship in a Jesuit institution, and even then, I had my misgivings.  Pains me more to read about these things happening now, and perhaps, going for worse.

But there are many Catholic institutions in the US and all over the world that have remained faithful to the Magisterium, without watering down the intellectual and academic freedom that universities and institutions of higher learning should have.  Students there are even happier.

I ask again, "What's the matter, SJ?

Who's lying now

Some days ago, the Vatican said that Obama pledged to reduce abortions in the US, but no sooner did this hit the wires that the White House made it clear that the way this will be done is to "to change economic and social conditions so as to put more women in situations where they do not feel they have to have an abortion."  Only says therefore that if the need isn't taken away (for whatever flimsy reason that may be), abortion on demand will always be the way to go.

It does not help much that the proposed healthcare program contains more federal funding for abortions, so in a sense, Obama is in a weird situation -- if he told the Pope that he was committed to reduce the number of abortions while "his" healthcare program will in fact increase abortions in the US, he was either lying or that he did not read the proposed bill.  Either way is possible for the One really, as he and his allies have been doing it many times, right?

As I was telling a friend then, even if he were sincere with reduction in abortions, his position is untenable, because of the people he puts in positions that will influence the abortion issue on the liberal side.  His Sec. of State, his HHS Sec., his recent SCOTUS appointment.  In the news lately is his science czar, John Holdren, who has authored a 1977 book that "advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population"  through "laws requiring compulsory abortion", "illegitimate babies be put up for adoption", "require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions", "adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods", "sterilizing women after their second or third child", "long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin", among others.

This is the US, but as I always say, things like this have a way of getting into our politicians's and policy makers's heads.

H/T:  Michelle

What's for dinner?

Have you eaten yet? Want to try this?

As she steamed the placenta with some herbs, the kitchen got that ironlike smell of cooked organ meat, with vague undertones of a consciousness-raising group and a Betty Friedan rally. Sara said Cassandra had a particularly robust placenta, and she hoped to get 120 pills out of it. As she sliced the cooked organ and put it on parchment paper in a dehydrator, she told me that some people drink the placenta raw as a smoothie. "I do this for a living, and I couldn't do that," she said. The pills, she explained, were superior, since Cassandra could stretch their hormone-rich benefits much further, perhaps even freezing some for menopause. Sara did not understand that when Cassandra's looks fade in her 50s, there's no way I'm putting up with this crap.

H/T: Jill

All boils down to this

USSC Justice Ginsburg's interview in New York Times (The Place of Women on the court) has gotten a lot of hits (flak or praise, either way). Most of her thoughts about Roe v. Wade are not unexpected -- government "has no business making that choice for a woman", and that legalizing abortion was a way of legalizing eugenics.

Of course, pro-choice and pro-aborts (no difference there really, is there?) will protest the eugenics angle, especially since the eugenics that they know is mostly limited to the Nazi-led holocaust of Jews and Israel's war against their Islamic "neighbors". Yep, not abortion, nor euthanasia, nor honor killings, nor healthcare, nor climate change rhetoric (ok, the last one's a stretch, but see).

See also Jill.

I like

School officials deemed this (printed on a shirt of a seventh-grader) in 2008 as "'inappropriate subject matter' in violation of the school's dress code, which bans clothing with 'suggestion of tobacco, drug or alcohol use, sexual promiscuity, profanity, vulgarity, or other inappropriate subject matter.'" The case against the officials will proceed.

More power

Conal Holdings Corp. will proceed with its USD 450-million 200 megawatt coal-fired power plant in Maasim, Sarangani. That's close to home. Despite the opposition to it, this power plant will benefit a lot of people in the south. I am sure that Conal will do their utmost to do their job well, providing power responsibly.

Update: My folks say that power outages are getting more frequent in the area. Take it at face value.

“It’s beyond belief"

TimesOnline:

GIVE Richard Dawkins a child for a week’s summer camp and he will try to give you an atheist for life.

The author of The God Delusion is helping to launch Britain’s first summer retreat for non-believers, where children will have lessons in evolution and sing along to John Lennon’s Imagine.

The five-day camp in Somerset (motto: “It’s beyond belief”) is for children aged eight to 17 and will rival traditional faith-based breaks run by the Scouts and church groups.

I told you so

Almost two years ago today, I blogged about my blogger friend's experience in Kawasan. Recently, media personality Bobby wrote about what he learned from a Kawasan tour guide.

I learned from my guide that tourists are complaining that some tour guides and their cohorts rob visitors of their valuables. Tour guides (locally known as haulers) are also charging exorbitant fees, especially from foreigners. But robbery incidents have been reduced after local officials met with and warned tour guides about this.

They're still at it over there. Any typhoons coming around?

Anno Paolino ends

The year dedicated to St. Paul ends today. How did you spend the last year?

Cap and Trade all you want

US House of Representatives passed the Cap and Trade Bill yesterday, what one congressman called "the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change." Many have said the bill was not read by all in Congress. Everyone's waiting for Senate action. Meanwhile, the fear of higher costs for American families continues. Green jobs are promised. Spain has retrenched so many because of "greeen jobs", and the US is still pushing for these, I wonder. Of course, US beat Spain in the Confederations Cup -- maybe they think they can also beat them in the "green jobs" thingy.

Michelle talks of how the science, once again, was trumped by ideology.

*That*, Detective, is the right question

Del Spooner gets to ask the right questions in the end.

MSM at the WH, well, they need to ask better. That's what The Anchoress thinks. She introduces her 10 Questions WH Press Corps left unasked, thus:

Yesterday’s O-presser was a little interesting. The White House seems to be doing what I predicted the other day; they’re suggesting that the so-so Cairo speech was the impetus for the popular uprising in Iran. Funny how that worked out. When the president finally figured out what was the right side to be on, then it was the side he’d always vociferously been on, and in fact, he caused the whole thing to happen. But the Weenee diplomacy is still on.

While the White House co-ordinated a question from the Huffington Post, even astonishing the press corps with their brazen stagecraft, here are some questions that the mostly fawning press did not ask the adolescent-angst-ridden POTUS:

"Prejudice never shows much reason." (Lawrence Robertson)

Photo from IMDB.

The science is fiction

H/T: Jules

Will they listen at all?

Hey, cut off the global warming alarmism already. Although I have been saying this for long, look who's saying the same now: a PR firm advising the Democrats (H/T: Steve)

2. Use global warming only as a supporting story, not as the primary frame.

Awareness about global warming is broad, and some in the public are seriously concerned about it. But almost no one in our groups expressed such concern; for most voters, global warming is not significant enough on its own to drive support for major energy reform. So while it can be a part of the story that reform advocates are telling, global warming should be used only in addition to the broader economic frame, not in place of it.

Hah!

Chopper-gate

Last week, former President Joseph Estrada, who was visiting South Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat said that the official trip of President Gloria Arroyo to Japan and Brazil was a waste of people's money, that it would have been better to use the money spent on the trip to help alleviate the lives of Filipinos especially in these trying times (sorry I can only find this as "proof"). I find his statement full of hypocrisy considering that he just bought a $1.6M helicopter, that's over P70 million. Even as he says he is only one of three owners of the chopper (yeah, right), sources also say that he bought two choppers, a King Air plane, and 20 vans. Now, how far would the money used to buy those go to help alleviate our lives? Of course, he denies the other chopper, the plane, and the vans.

Year of the Priest

On June 19, coinciding with this year's celebration of the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Pope Benedict XVI declared a special Year of the Priest. CNS reports:

In his address, Pope Benedict said the priestly ministry consists of total adherence to the ecclesial tradition of participating "in a spiritually intense new life and a new lifestyle which was inaugurated by the Lord Jesus and which the apostles made their own."

Priestly ordination creates new men who are bestowed with the gift and office of sanctifying, teaching and governing, he said.

The pope underlined the necessary and "indispensable struggle for moral perfection which must dwell in every authentically priestly heart."

The pope said he was calling for the special year for priests in an effort to foster the priest's yearning "for spiritual perfection, upon which the effectiveness of their ministry principally depends."

"The awareness of the radical social changes over the past decades must stir the best ecclesial energies to look after the formation of priestly candidates," the pope said.

This means great care must be taken to ensure permanent and consistent doctrinal and spiritual formation for seminarians and priests, he said, specifying the importance of passing down, especially to younger generations, "a correct reading of the texts of the Second Vatican Council, interpreted in the light of all the church's doctrinal heritage."

Priests must also be "present, identifiable and recognizable -- for their judgment of faith, their personal virtues and their attire -- in the fields of culture and charity which have always been at the heart of the church's mission," he said.

"The centrality of Christ leads to a correct valuation of ordained ministry," he said, adding that, without priestly ministry, there would be no Eucharist, no mission and even no church.

Therefore, he said, it is crucial to make sure that new bodies or pastoral organizations are not set up "for a time in which one might have to 'dispense with' ordained ministry based on an erroneous interpretation of the rightful promotion of the laity."

"This would lay the foundations for further diluting the priestly ministry, and any supposed 'solutions' would dramatically coincide with the real causes of the problems currently connected with the ministry," he said.

Let us say extra prayers for all the priests this year.

There are pictures at Lover of Futility of the solemn vespers led by the Pope at the start of the Year of the Priest.

Not a super Mom

I just had to link to Danielle at IC.

I know just what they mean. I couldn't do it either. Until, with God's help, I did.

Will the One also endorse our right to develop nuclear energy?

The One is in favor of nuclear energy. He has expressed this many times in the past, and even supports Iran's right to develop nuclear energy (he reiterates the same in a BBC interview as reported by WaPo). Since RP's environmentalists are so so enamored by the One, as if he cannot say nor do wrong, they are not protesting the One's stand on nuclear power, and instead whine about a plan to rehab the BNPP or to make new ones. I dare the environmentalists to protest the One or dare the One to endorse our right to develop nuclear power -- besides, we are not producing nuclear weapons, unlike Iran and North Korea.

Yes? Yes? I don't think so. RP is of no significance to him.

Related.

Obama also said that it was unfair that "some countries have weapons that others do not" and proclaimed that "any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

Wait -- how about us? If a fanatical holocaust denier with messianic delusions can have nuclear power, can't the U.S. at least build one nuclear power plant every 30 years?

I'm sure Iran's compliance will be policed as well as North Korea's was. Clinton struck a much-heralded "peace deal" with North Korea in 1994, giving them $4 billion to construct nuclear facilities and 500,000 tons of fuel oil in return for a promise that they wouldn't build nuclear weapons. The ink wasn't dry before the North Koreans began feverishly building nukes.

But back to Iran, what precisely do Iranians need nuclear power for, again? They're not exactly a manufacturing powerhouse. Iran is a primitive nation in the middle of a desert that happens to sit on top of a large percentage of the world's oil and gas reserves. That's not enough oil and gas to run household fans?

From the lips of babes

This came about last month yet, but this is what they say now (which many in the other side of the fence have been saying all along backed by research). This is dangerous lifestyle, and they now agree. Using this though to want to claim more rights, to "equitable levels of programming supports based on needs when compared with programming supports from the general population and other minority populations."

Legacy of his first 100 days

What the One has done, in light of the pro-life movement.

Summary

The facts of the first 50 days of the Obama presidency seem overwhelming. According to the 55-page pro-abortion document, "Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration," $4.5 billion in federal funding will be disbursed at home and abroad to "advance reproductive rights." This document is posted on www.change.org, Obama's official website for his transition team.

Obama's Steps for the First 100 Days projects the end of the Mexico City Policy, the Hyde Amendment, the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, the Weldon Amendment, restrictions on emergency contraception (Plan B), the termination of all abstinence-only programs and a reversal of the recent HHS regulation protecting pro-life physicians and institutions. By Day 50, many of these had been accomplished already. Any present obstacles to so-called abortion rights not covered by removing these restrictions, such as the ban on partial birth abortion and state laws requiring parental notification, will be covered by the passage of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) or perhaps by many acts or regulations each embodying one particular aspect.

We draw the attention of our readers especially to the coercion which is built into many of these measures. A combined United States-United Nations assault on the freedom of poor countries to determine their own domestic policies on population is already underway.

At home, the Obama regime will take on more abusive, tyrannical features as it seeks to destroy the rights of people to disagree and dissent. All along, this has been the implication of the new legislated rights to kill and to overthrow the natural moral law in family and sexual matters introduced 40 years ago.

... - Alas it is much more. Freedom of speech, thought and religion are now under attack. False "rights" are about to triumph. The Culture of Death is seeking to destroy the Culture of Life. In this it will fail because of the secret power on the side of Life, which will conquer even despite the mass apostasy of its Protestant and Catholic followers.

Good thing they don't sell baloney

Did you read about the Memphis-based Burger King franchisee who put up "Global Warming is Baloney" signs in his stores?

No guts no glory!

H/T: GHB

What's the matter, SJ?

Another one loses its way? And another? And another? What's the matter SJ?

Here are some more Catholic universities in the US that are in the same league.