My husband's grandmother passed away today. She was 82 and a Christian so it is bittersweet. We will certainly miss her.
Blogwise you will not hear from me for a while as we are travelling out of state for the funeral.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Single Mom on Purpose
Ann Colter (whom I generally find too caustic) has a good article in which she compares the MSM's reaction to smoking and being a single mom on purpose (as opposed to divorced or widowed). Here are some quotes:
According to hysterical anti-smoking zealots at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, smoking costs the nation $92 billion a year in "lost productivity." (Obviously these conclusions were produced by people who not only have never smoked, but also don't know any smokers, who could have told them smoking makes us 10 times more productive.)
Meanwhile, single motherhood costs taxpayers about $112 billion every year, according to a 2008 study by Georgia State University economist Benjamin Scafidi.
Smoking has no causal relationship to crime, has little effect on others and -- let's be honest -- looks cool. Controlling for income, education and occupation, it causes about 200,000 deaths per year, mostly of people in their 70s.
Single motherhood, by contrast, directly harms children, occurs at a rate of about 1.5 million a year and has a causal relationship to criminal behavior, substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, sexual victimization and almost every other social disorder.
First, the reason the children "tend to grow up poor" is that their mothers considered it unnecessary to have a primary bread-earner in the family.
Second, the Times simply made up the fact that poverty, rather than single motherhood, causes anti-social behavior in children. Poverty doesn't cause crime -- single mothers do. If poverty caused crime, how did we get Bernie Madoff?
Studies -- including one by the liberal Progressive Policy Institute -- have shown that controlling for factors such as poverty and socioeconomic status, single motherhood accounts for the entire difference in black and white crime rates.
God's plan is always better. He planned for children to have a mother and a father. Our children deserve at least that.
According to hysterical anti-smoking zealots at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, smoking costs the nation $92 billion a year in "lost productivity." (Obviously these conclusions were produced by people who not only have never smoked, but also don't know any smokers, who could have told them smoking makes us 10 times more productive.)
Meanwhile, single motherhood costs taxpayers about $112 billion every year, according to a 2008 study by Georgia State University economist Benjamin Scafidi.
Smoking has no causal relationship to crime, has little effect on others and -- let's be honest -- looks cool. Controlling for income, education and occupation, it causes about 200,000 deaths per year, mostly of people in their 70s.
Single motherhood, by contrast, directly harms children, occurs at a rate of about 1.5 million a year and has a causal relationship to criminal behavior, substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, sexual victimization and almost every other social disorder.
First, the reason the children "tend to grow up poor" is that their mothers considered it unnecessary to have a primary bread-earner in the family.
Second, the Times simply made up the fact that poverty, rather than single motherhood, causes anti-social behavior in children. Poverty doesn't cause crime -- single mothers do. If poverty caused crime, how did we get Bernie Madoff?
Studies -- including one by the liberal Progressive Policy Institute -- have shown that controlling for factors such as poverty and socioeconomic status, single motherhood accounts for the entire difference in black and white crime rates.
God's plan is always better. He planned for children to have a mother and a father. Our children deserve at least that.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Justice Ginsburg (a Bill Clinton appointee and the Supreme Court's only woman) under went surgery for pancreatic cancer. According to this article, pancreatic cancer is tough to beat. Though Justice Ginsburg has already beaten colon cancer. And I certainly don't wish her ill. In fact, I hope that she has a speedy recovery.
But all of this does raise the question, should she have to step down, what kind of a person would Pres. Obama nominate? Maybe I should be more specific. How far left is he willing to nominate?
But all of this does raise the question, should she have to step down, what kind of a person would Pres. Obama nominate? Maybe I should be more specific. How far left is he willing to nominate?
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Appearances
I have been listening to Christian radio lately. One thing really struck me. About 75% of the ads have to do with appearances. There are wrinkle cures, hair removal, baldness cures, weight loss commercials, etc. This got me thinking. Just how much should Christians be concerned about their appearance? I understand that people often judge us by our appearance. But how much should Christians care what others think? Now I am not advocating just letting yourself go and being as disgusting as possible. But when do fashion and outward beauty become idols or stumbling blocks?
Monday, February 2, 2009
Two Questions
1. Is God against global harmony? When the world was in complete agreement, they started building the Tower of Babel. Part of the reason God disturbed their languages is because He did not want all people to have a united mind.
2. What is the difference between Heaven and the Garden of Eden? If there had been no fall, Adam and Eve would have lived forever. (Hence the guarding of the Tree of Life.) They were in perfect communion with God. The only difference I can think of is marriage. (Jesus specifically says that their will be no marriage in Heaven.)
So I would love to hear your thoughts on these two questions.
2. What is the difference between Heaven and the Garden of Eden? If there had been no fall, Adam and Eve would have lived forever. (Hence the guarding of the Tree of Life.) They were in perfect communion with God. The only difference I can think of is marriage. (Jesus specifically says that their will be no marriage in Heaven.)
So I would love to hear your thoughts on these two questions.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Here and There
I read several articles of interest this morning. We will start with the ones here in America.
First, according to WorldNetDaily columnist Bob Unruh, part of the recently passed "stimulus" bill has a section that would "demand that every American submit to a government program for electronic medical records without a choice to opt out, and it has privacy advocates more than a little alarmed. " I can see a nice little bridge from here to gov. mandated eugenics. Call me crazy, but I think this is bad news.
Second, my new friends at the Cornwall Alliance alerted me to this article by Paul Dressen at Townhall about energy and the economy. Here is a portion of it.
Many states have oil, gas, coal uranium and other energy and mineral resources, within their borders or off their coasts. Development would produce critically needed energy, reduce oil and gas imports, create millions of jobs, and generate trillions of dollars in lease bonus, rent, royalty and tax revenues, to help pay these bills.
California could nearly double its offshore oil production within 12-18 months, without installing a single new platform, by using directional drilling technology to bore more wells from existing platforms.
But environmentalists vigorously oppose development. Many states increasingly restrict exploration and production. The US Senate is considering bills that would place more energy prospects off limits. Many legislators want a permanent lock on billions of barrels of oil beneath Alaska’s North Slope and America’s Outer Continental Shelf – despite support for drilling by two-thirds of voters.
Third, across they ocean in Scotland we have a story that should serve as warning to us. LifeSiteNews has this article by Terry Vanderheyden.
According to the Daily Mail, the court found the grandparents, who are 46 and 59, to be too old to adequately raise the children. The grandparents could not afford to continue the expensive legal process, and therefore resolved to give the children up for adoption provided the new adoptive parents would be a loving mother and father.
Soon after the ruling, however, the couple was informed that their five year old grandson and four year old granddaughter, who had been living in a foster home during the custody battle because their mom was a heroine addict, were being put into the care of a homosexual couple.
“It breaks my heart to think that our grandchildren are being forced to grow up in an environment without a mother figure. We are not prejudiced, but I defy anyone to explain to us how this can be in their best interests," said the grandfather.
This article saddens me for both the children and the grandparents. If this woman had been artificially inseminated, most people in Scotland would have thought it fine for this couple to raise a child. But when she wants to care for her own grandchildren, the courts say no. And now these poor kids will never have a maternal influence. The whole thing is really sad.
First, according to WorldNetDaily columnist Bob Unruh, part of the recently passed "stimulus" bill has a section that would "demand that every American submit to a government program for electronic medical records without a choice to opt out, and it has privacy advocates more than a little alarmed. " I can see a nice little bridge from here to gov. mandated eugenics. Call me crazy, but I think this is bad news.
Second, my new friends at the Cornwall Alliance alerted me to this article by Paul Dressen at Townhall about energy and the economy. Here is a portion of it.
Many states have oil, gas, coal uranium and other energy and mineral resources, within their borders or off their coasts. Development would produce critically needed energy, reduce oil and gas imports, create millions of jobs, and generate trillions of dollars in lease bonus, rent, royalty and tax revenues, to help pay these bills.
California could nearly double its offshore oil production within 12-18 months, without installing a single new platform, by using directional drilling technology to bore more wells from existing platforms.
But environmentalists vigorously oppose development. Many states increasingly restrict exploration and production. The US Senate is considering bills that would place more energy prospects off limits. Many legislators want a permanent lock on billions of barrels of oil beneath Alaska’s North Slope and America’s Outer Continental Shelf – despite support for drilling by two-thirds of voters.
Third, across they ocean in Scotland we have a story that should serve as warning to us. LifeSiteNews has this article by Terry Vanderheyden.
According to the Daily Mail, the court found the grandparents, who are 46 and 59, to be too old to adequately raise the children. The grandparents could not afford to continue the expensive legal process, and therefore resolved to give the children up for adoption provided the new adoptive parents would be a loving mother and father.
Soon after the ruling, however, the couple was informed that their five year old grandson and four year old granddaughter, who had been living in a foster home during the custody battle because their mom was a heroine addict, were being put into the care of a homosexual couple.
“It breaks my heart to think that our grandchildren are being forced to grow up in an environment without a mother figure. We are not prejudiced, but I defy anyone to explain to us how this can be in their best interests," said the grandfather.
This article saddens me for both the children and the grandparents. If this woman had been artificially inseminated, most people in Scotland would have thought it fine for this couple to raise a child. But when she wants to care for her own grandchildren, the courts say no. And now these poor kids will never have a maternal influence. The whole thing is really sad.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Stimulus
I called my Congresswoman, Kay Granger, to ask her to not vote for this massive "stimulus" quickly becoming pork-a-rama bill. I was told by her staff to read this article in the Star Telegram. I found that not only does Kay Granger oppose the bill in its current form, but so do her Tarrant County colleagues. (That makes sense, since this is one of the most Republican areas of the country.)
The very beginning of the article caught my eye. Here is the quote:
While Texas is expected to get an estimated $25 billion to $30 billion of the massive $825 billion economic stimulus package, Tarrant County’s Republican congressional delegation says the combination of public works spending, more dollars for federal programs and tax cuts is too high a price to pay. (I added the bold.)
Now according to this website the population of Texas is about 21 million. So that means (if my math is right) that Texas is expected to receive about $1200 for every man, woman, and child in the state. About $4,800 for my family of 4.
I think if every American were actually given that much money they would waste it (generally speaking) faster than the government. I think that the root of this whole economic problem is that we the people have forgotten that federal money is all ours to begin with. We look at handouts as "free" money. We also have no concept of economics. We have no sense of stewardship before God. Our government is a reflection of ourselves.
The very beginning of the article caught my eye. Here is the quote:
While Texas is expected to get an estimated $25 billion to $30 billion of the massive $825 billion economic stimulus package, Tarrant County’s Republican congressional delegation says the combination of public works spending, more dollars for federal programs and tax cuts is too high a price to pay. (I added the bold.)
Now according to this website the population of Texas is about 21 million. So that means (if my math is right) that Texas is expected to receive about $1200 for every man, woman, and child in the state. About $4,800 for my family of 4.
I think if every American were actually given that much money they would waste it (generally speaking) faster than the government. I think that the root of this whole economic problem is that we the people have forgotten that federal money is all ours to begin with. We look at handouts as "free" money. We also have no concept of economics. We have no sense of stewardship before God. Our government is a reflection of ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)