February 11, 2006
The bureaucratic mind-set of the people at Children of the World is appalling. Once they learned that, contrary to the mother's initial claim, the father was "known," they must have realized that the case was more complicated than first thought and immediately halted the adoption process. They must have known they needed to initiate a different process which must begin by contacting the child's father. They didn't.
It's easy to speculate that the agency ignored the father because fathers have been more and more deemed expendable these days, but it may well be that the fault lies in a rigid bureaucratic mentality. No matter the cause, the easy manner in which the father and his rights were banished - as well as those of the child, who was entitled to the chance to be with his natural father - is disgraceful.
When, a year later, Mr. Archuletta was finally told the truth by the child's mother he began trying to fight for custody of his son but has no money to pay for attorneys.
Maybe someone will take his case pro bono? It seems a worthy cause.
Posted by: Debbye at
06:52 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.
February 10, 2006
In short, I'm still waiting for the much-needed post-Christmas slowdown, but at least I am working what passes for normal hours (at least this week -- but don't take any bets that I won't have to work this Saturday although, with luck, next Saturday is reserved for personal time!)
The Canadian elections were interesting and, although the Tories lead a minority government, perhaps the most important thing is that a balance has been restored to Canadian politics in that there are two functional national mainstream parties vying for power. Liberal corruption was enabled in part by the lack of a credible alternative for the electorate -- a lesson both Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. should already know but don't.
Andrew Coyne has written brilliantly on some weird appointments by the new government. Just a note to American readers: Cabinet members up here are supposed to be elected Members of Parliament which is why the appointment of Fortier is such a shock. I should also note that Fortier doesn't have to be confirmed by Parliament which is in some ways a mixed blessing given how acrimoniously political such things have been but the appointment is, nonetheless, disconcerting.
Note to Democrats: re-read Sen. McCain's letter to Sen. Obama on developing legislation for lobbying reform and pay special attention to this:
They [the American people] see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing.Attempts to run campaigns around corruption will fail for precisely the reason cited above: we see it as irritatingly business as usual. As JFK famously said, every mother wants her son to grow up to be President but no mother wants her son to grow up to be a politician.
Back to the point, Americans who have a post-Sept. 11 mentality realize that securing the defense of the nation is not the most important job of the national government but is the only job of the national government. With that understanding, those with a grasp on reality, like Sen. Lieberman and Robert Livingston, lend respectability to a party that has irrationally wedded itself to the mindset of the 1960's without remembering that those days were molded by a generation that rebelled against the kind of mind-controlling authority such as Orwell wrote about in 1984. Those of us who cherish liberty regard "politically correct" speech more as confirmation of Orwell's fears than any supposed enlightenment and if the Democrats really want to look at the future maybe they should start by not forlornly wishing for the past. It's no accident that the intensely irreverent South Park is so popular.
If you've noticed that any attempt at a segue was incomplete then you got my underlying point. Canadians are not Americans, and among other differences, most people up here regard the war on terror as not that much a Canadian thing (despite the presence of and and casualties inflicted on Canadians in Afghanistan.) Nevertheless, as an American I want to say again that the participation of Canada in the WOT is, although often obscured, important and greatly appreciated. It does not, nevertheless, drive Canadian politics.
There isn't much that can be stated about Coretta Scott King's passing that others haven't said. My generation owes much to this woman who symbolized dignity and strength because she held us together when we were torn with grief and fury over Dr. King's murder. (I guess only people of my generation can know what I mean about that time, as with all things some people read about but which others of us lived through. Those were dark days during which many of us lost hope as well as our way, and focusing on the erect figure of Mrs. King restored a point on which to focus.)
Lastly, I'd like to thank President Bush because his revelations about the plot to attack a Los Angeles building gave me the opportunity to drag out one of my favourite photos:
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Isn't he cute? And I would like to note that something that may have been vital to thwarting that and future plots could have been the arrest of a Canadian-based terrorist and no, I'm not referring to any member of the Khadr family, but to Mohammed Mansour Jabarah, who was a prominent member of Jemaah Islamiya (see here for his role in JI) until his capture and incarceration with the assistance of Canada. (His brother was killed in a shoot-out with Saudi police. Sigh.)
P.S. What, I should weigh in on those cartoons? I intensely dislike anything that is racially stereotypical whether it be of Muslims, Jews or Condi Rice, but didn't find the cartoons to be all that terrible (especially compared to those I've seen over at lgf from the Arab media) so although I will pass on re-producing the Danish cartoons I do defend anyone else's right to do so. I just don't see them as advancing the struggle against terrorism. Besides, Calvin and Hobbes they ain't.
Free speech does mean that we will see things that we may find offensive. We handle it. Freedom often means having a thick skin, but hot damn! it's worth it.
On the recent Palestinian elections, is anyone really all that surprised? Yes, I know many say they are, but the difference between Hamas and El Fatah is more one of perception than reality. Neither is interested in peaceful co-existence with Israel and both have deep roots in terrorism. I'd rather deal with the wolf than the fox any day.
Posted by: Debbye at
04:33 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1011 words, total size 7 kb.
November 17, 2005
Drinking decaffeinated coffee could increase the risk of heart disease, a study has suggested.Heh. I never touch the stuff.It could lead to a rise in harmful cholesterol levels, the US National Institutes of Health study found.
Posted by: Debbye at
12:09 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.
November 14, 2005
Easier than it sounds, no? But I think most parents find that the first life lessons their kids learn in school are that (1) not everybody is going to like them and (2) nothing they can do will really change it. That second part is the hardest, and I doubt I'm the only parent who listened to their child's lament that after he did everything they could think of, little Johnny or Jane still despised him. (Gender specific because I had boys.)
On the one hand we teach our children to avoid "peer pressure" because we know their friends can lead them into all kinds of trouble. On the other we (Americans, in particular) are castigated because we defy "peer pressure" and embark upon courses of which "the rest of the world" disapproves. This isn't only about Iraq but also include Kyoto, social programs in which people become increasinlgy dependent on the state and, perhaps most of all, on gun control (or the lack thereof.) (Snark Time: maybe they want us to be like them in order to validate their compromises. Misery loves company, they say.)
The willingness to march to the beat of one's own drummer is one that is sorely and repeatedly tested and, let's be honest: sometimes we keep faith with our inner drummer and sometimes we wimp out.
I've finally been able to review comments left on posts made during my computer's comatose state and can only shake my head at how little people seem to know of recent history.
On my post for Rosa Parks there was an attack on the U.S. due to the "separate but equal" policy which was enshrined by the Supreme Court in Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896). I presume the troll also denounces an activist judiciary as this deplorable decision took nearly 60 years to be overturned because only the SCOTUS could overturn its own rulings. (He might also be expected to applaud Harry S. Truman despite the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because he found a work-around to that Supreme Court decision and opened the proverbial roadblock to integration, and if the trolll doesn't I will.)
Then there's the claim that Americans didn't know our presence in Iraq would be lengthy. Actually, a CNN poll right after the fall of Baghdad says differently: a majority of the respondents said we would be there 3 years, and barely in second place was those who chose 5 years. Or, for those who pay attention and connect dots, a recent DoD press release spoke to the number of troops we currently have in Bosnia after 10 years and that situation is by no means stabilized yet despite their recent elections (which only occurred after just under 10 years of occupation.)
If Iraq is a quagmire, what is Bosnia? or, indeed, Cyprus?
What do they teach in schools these days? Evidently not the definition of fascism which includes "stringent socioeconomic conrols" and the "suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship" or Canadians would be more alarmed about their own laws permitting censorship and regulating the economy. Time was that leftists understood that laws intended to suppress their freedom of speech were often disguised as "progressive." (Of course, time was that leftists opposed gun control because they recognized the implicit threat to them. I can only conclude the left has gotten dumber.)
I may at some point address the claims that President Bush misled the nation about the state of Saddam's Iraq weapons research and capability but, as only a real wacko would try to pretend that Bush wasn't relying on intelligence collected by the prior Clinton administration as well as that of other nations, I will pass for today. Those who embark upon re-writing history need to rely so much on invective that I find it hard to respond without scorn (and I'm not in a scornful mood this morning.)
The personal is not the political. Polls that suggest that Canadians "dislike" President Bush always leave me baffled. Who freaking cares if Canadians "like" or "dislike" him? It's not a popularity contest! Clinton was (and is) very likeable but his "law enforcement" policies toward terrorists proved disasterous. One of the most likeable, decent and kindly men I ever had the privelege to meet was Jimmy Carter (when he was still governor of Georgia) but he was utterly inept as the Head of State. I can like him even as I deplore his weakness at a time of national crisis (okay, I don't often attack Carter. Truth is I think he has become unstable but that doesn't make him evil but misguided in his desperate efforts to justify his policies during his brief presidency. Any why blame him alone? Didn't many of us wish that the U.S. would take a closer look at their internal policies toward dissidents before allying herself with men like Marcos of the Phillipines as well as the Shah of Iran? I can't blame Carter for being shortsighted when I myself was so in my younger years.)
Sad Conclusion: liking them on a personal basis isn't a good enough reason to vote for them. We're adults, right? We get to vote in real elections because we are adults, and have presumably developed criteria beyond those necessary for selecting the Head Cheerleader.
The only rational measure must be about the policies of a state's leaders, and Bush's approval ratings in the U.S.A. can go up and down yet he still scores higher than the current Prime Minister of Canada. (Paul Martin would do cartwheels if he could garner Bush's approval figures at their lowest.)
There's a point to all this, right? Well, yes. I'm the sort of Christian who doesn't attend church but feels a personal relationship with my deity and my savour but nevertheless the catechism of my early years has left a lasting impression as to the faith and courage of the early Christian martyrs -- and how resolutely they defied peer pressure and refused to burn meaningless incense on the altars of false gods.
My friend Dex has long been a source of strength and kindness. He recently sent me the following which speaks to the difficulty of being true to oneself (and maybe should be sub-titled I Will Not Be A Co-dependent) because, by implication, it poses the question of who needs to approve of you the most: You, or Toxic Others.
THE FRONT ROWLife is a theater - invite your audience carefully. Not everyone is holy enough and healthy enough to have a front row seat in your life.
There are some people in your life that need to be loved from a distance. It's amazing what you can accomplish when you let go, or at least minimize your time with draining, negative, incompatible, not-going-anywhere relationships, friendships or fellowships.
Observe the relationships around you. Pay attention to: Which ones lift up and which ones tear down? Which ones encourage and which ones discourage? Which ones are on a path of growth uphill and which ones are going downhill? When you leave certain people, do you feel better or feel worse? Which ones always have drama or don't really understand, know and appreciate you and the gift that lies within you?
The more you seek God and the things of God -- the more you seek quality. The more you seek not just the hand of God but the face of God -- the more you seek things honorable -- the more you seek growth, peace of mind, love and truth around you, the easier it will become for you to decide who gets to sit in the FRONT ROW of your life and who should be moved to the balcony of your life.
You cannot change the people around you...but you can change the people you are around! Ask God for wisdom and discernment and choose wisely the people who sit in the front row of your life. [My bolding.]
(Author Unknown)
Dex added this postscript: I am only one, but I am still one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something. And because I cannot do everything I will not refuse to do the something that I can do. Helen Keller
What is your "something that you can do?"
Posted by: Debbye at
07:58 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1439 words, total size 9 kb.
November 11, 2005
Best amend that to just "running." There are still some features that disappeared and had to be re-installed and some old features that reappeared - like just how freaking old is Morpheus, anyway? and how many times do I have to uninstall Wild Tangent until goes away and leaves me alone?
At least I no longer need to wrestle over whether to get rid of Kazaa, and in one blazingly cheering revelation I realized that not only was it gone but that all its accompanying adware was also gone yet all my downloads remain. It doesn't seem quite cricket somehow, but I'll take it.
Recent news items have left me shaking my head. Some chickens may have come home to roost but other members of the fowl family cluck cheerfully along. The terror attacks in Jordan showed the futility of trying to fool all of the people all of the time. The latest reports are all about the shock that Palestinians were the victims of the bombings:
SILET AL-THAHER, West Bank -- In this village, the Akhras clan mourned 17 relatives killed by a suicide bomber in Jordan -- the first time Palestinians have been a target in a suicide attack.That's from an AP dispatch, by the way, and I am incapable of commenting because my head is spinning as I wonder who the hell was killed in Bali, Jerusalem, Istanbul, London, Madrid, New York City and IRAQ (I know - I left some terror attacks out. Head. Spinning. remember?)"Oh, my God, oh, my God. Is it possible that Arabs are killing Arabs, Muslims killing Muslims?" asked Najah Akhras, 35, who lost two nieces.
In the West Bank and Gaza Strip yesterday, Palestinians expressed outrage over suicide attacks aimed at civilians.
Then there's France, where the rioting of "insurgents" are in part a consequence of a country which has successfully fooled most of its people all of the time.
I don't believe that those who advocated multi-culturalism were actively or knowingly promoting racist policies, but it does seem that one result has been to isolate rather than genuinely embrace non-European immigrants and the events of the past two weeks have perhaps been hardest of all on the parents and grandparents of these young Molotov tossers who moved to France in pursuit of a better future for their children. Their reward was to be denied protection by the law from lawlessness - after all, whose cars, schools and businesses were torched?
Was I the only person yelling "Use tear gas!" every time clips came up on the news? The kind of thinking that dictated that it would be racist to confront and stop the rampaging led to the French government's choice to deny these "other" citizens their indisputable right to be protected by the law from lawlessness. But then it wasn't whitey's car a-burning, you know?
But they did rouse themselves sufficiently to put out full police presence to protect a military parade.
The ease with which people are willing - even desperate - to be fooled was indicated in Canada when the initial Gomery report exonerated Paul Martin from any involvement in much less knowledge of Adscam or, as Doug Fisher put it, "Gomery's whitewash of Martin is both thorough and repetitious" and the report also cruised past what senior government bureaucrats knew or did not know (we already know that they did nothing.)
Mark just called and for some reason emails being sent to him are being bounced back. I need to "fix" it and then tackle my own email. The universe can be so very unkind.
Posted by: Debbye at
09:19 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 635 words, total size 4 kb.
Er... Nice post, too! :/October 24, 2005
Even Dominique was beginning to make sense.
Posted by: Debbye at
10:05 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.
This is extemely funny.
Posted by: Debbye at
01:22 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.
October 20, 2005
Okay, I've always tried to be honest here so I'm also watching Stargate SG-1 and will watch the new Smallville episode at 11 p.m. (on the LA W-B station) and a Season 2 episode on YTV at 2:35 a.m.
Here's a couple of worth-while reads:
Relapsed Catholic is on a roll. Just start at the top and keep scrolling and following the links (I spent over an hour there.) If you're short on time, at least read this, which quotes from another:
"Canadian anti-Americanism is, paradoxically, perhaps best expressed in its adulation for one of the US's most infamously unscrupulous and immoral leaders, former president William Jefferson Clinton. .."They also love Michael Moore up here and don't understand why we didn't elect their choice, John Kerry, for president. That Canadians have preferences isn't strange, but their indignation that we ignore their wishes as to how we run our country and live our lives is nearly psychotic.
I've tried to write about Saddam's trial but can't be dispassionate and the solemn pronouncements of those wonderful human rights sorts would be laughable if their sentiments didn't disguise so total a lack of any respect for human rights. Peter Worthington sums it all up nicely, both in the title of today's column in the Toronto Sun Get it over with: Saddam must die, and in this:
We, in civilized countries that live by law and decency, like to say that the process is more important than the outcome. Certainly that was the case in the first free elections in Iraq and Afghanistan.Those who doubt the ability of Iraqis to try Saddam are the same who doubt Iraqis - or Muslims in general - are capable of forming and maintaining consensual governments. Coincidence? I think not.With Saddam, however, the verdict is more important than the process: Death for the despot.
For those who don't know, the Toronto police are conducting a form of work to rule, i.e., they've parked the cruisers and only respond to 911 calls. The issues as stated are:
A first-class constable -- an officer with at least five years on the job -- earns $66,852 annually.The one thing the police desperately need and can't negotiate for is RESPECT from City Council and the citizens of this city. We want them to be saints even as we villify them as demons, and we want them to risk death but pay them less than the city's paper-pushers. We tie their hands yet expect results.Wilson complained that the police services board wants to cut benefits, require officers to work an additional 40 hours each year without compensation and to reduce retention pay.
We're so damned enlightened that we imagine ourselves superior to the men and women who put their lives on the line to save our sorry asses.
I said I was going to read more and write less. I didn't intentionally lie ... I'll to back to reading and update this after Smallville. (What? It's one of the funniest shows on TV these days. Every time one of the Kent parental units gives that "exasperated but indulgent look" I crack up. Besides, the episode where Clark met The Flash was wonderful and tonight he's going to meet Aquaman.)
Oct. 21 - 01:50: If you're looking for spoilers on Aquaboy meets Superboy I'm going to disappoint. But if Canadian viewers without W-B access want teasers ... Arthur Currie (Aquaboy) does bring new meaning to the phrase "blew him right out of the water" and there was a cute play on acronyms with Junior Lifeguard Association. Also, Clark gets pissy over some kissy-face at the Kent Farm, which after last week's antics was totally hypocritical.
South Park Does Katrina! Clips for viewing at the link.
Robert has been temporarily stuck at home with an injured foot but it hasn't affected his posting. Annan talks about needing more aid to Pakistan. Maybe Kofi and his "advisors" should read Big Windy In Pakistan dated October 15:
BW has been on the ground here in Pakistan for 6 days now and we have been going non stop. We have 3 Chinooks along with 2 Dco Hooks from Kandahar. In the last 4 days we have hauled thousands of pounds of relief supplies and back hauled well over a 1000 Quake victims. The crews are running from sun up to sun down making turns up into the mountains and back to the airfield of Islamabad. This is the main hub where most of the supplies we pick up are brought in from all over the world. Below are a few photos of operations of the last few days.These guys do while others talk. I know which are more likely to get results, and now I'm back at that humble-but-proud state whenever I think about the exceptional men and women in the American Armed Forces.
Robert also looks at the coverage by some of the British press of Saddam's trial.
You all know that Kate's back, right? Kate's always great, but the Postcard from Kandahar in particular needs to be read and re-read. It reveals a reality that bland reporting and the "La la la Canadian troops are Happy Peacekeepers" fiction obscures. (Yeah, I know I linked it downstream but ... so what? It deserves double-dipping.)
Ith writes on Social Justice and Cultural Competency and poses an interesting question to a scary scenario. For some weird reason the word "brainwashing" leapt to mind ...
Via Newsbeat1, Michelle Malkin reports on the on-going fight over Able Danger. I'm glad she and others are staying on top of this. Why isn't Congress demanding that the Pentagon stop the stonewalling and tell us the truth? (You'd think the Dems would be all over this. Why aren't they?) We already know there were serious intelligence failures leading up to Sept. 11 and we assume (hope) changes have been made. Or haven't they? After all, nothing more typifies the immoveable object than bureaucracy.
Newsbeat1 has some other great links that I plan to read right now, including the newest Rosett investigatory piece about the UN procurement scandal.
Posted by: Debbye at
10:56 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1048 words, total size 8 kb.
October 17, 2005
Under News and Commentary:
The Ornery American (I can't believe I hadn't already put Orson Scott Card on the blogroll. Argh.)
I'd really wanted to add Michael Yon under Those Who Serve for, even though he's not a soldier, he does serve, but accuracy compels me to put him under News and Commentary.
From the Great White North:
From the Rest of the World:
There are a few seemingly dormant blogs I'm leaving on because I never give up! Someday (I'm looking at you, Paul,) I hope they will resume blogging.
Posted by: Debbye at
02:42 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.
October 10, 2005
The ballgame forced Thanksgiving dinner to be a few hours late (we held it today to accomodate the kid who has to get his b*tt back up to Ottawa for school) but it was worth it.
What. A. Game!
The post title above comes from a small thing for which I am also very grateful. Space: The Imagination Station aired the first four hours of the Battlestar Galactica series last night and this evening, and although it will be difficult to wait until January for season 2 (who am I kidding? it's driving me nuts!) I continue to be impressed by the sheer power of the series.
Each time I see the memorial scene in which Adama suddenly reveals that Earth is not a myth and he knows it's location I find myself cheering as the shouting grows louder: "So say we all!"
A vital truth lies in Adama's explanation for the subterfuge: it isn't enough just to live; one has to live for something. Hope is the spur that lends wings to our feet and meaning to our deeds. It's why we continue to breathe, love, and have children. And it's why we have celebrate Thanksgiving.
So say we all.
Posted by: Debbye at
02:07 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.
October 07, 2005
I'm referring of course to the awarding of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize to the UN International Atomic Energy Agency and its chief, Mohamed ElBaradei.
On reading the rationale, I gather it's been awarded for doing absolutely nothing to make the world safer from nutjobs having nuclear weapons but for opposing U.S. military action and foreign policy in general:
The Nobel Committee's decision lent support to negotiations and inspections, not military action, as the best way to handle volatile nations. It also was seen as a message to the U.S. administration, which invaded Iraq after claiming UN efforts to eradicate Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions had failed and which opposed ElBaradei's appointment to another term.Well, they are diplomats and I'm not.UN Ambassador John Bolton, once the U.S. point man on nuclear nonproliferation and a key opponent of ElBaradei's reappointment, refused to comment when asked if the prize was a rebuff to U.S. strategy.
"I'll stick with the secretary's statement," he said Friday as he entered the United Nations, referring to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's statement that ElBaradei deserved the honour.
Rice also reaffirmed that the administration was "committed to working with the IAEA to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons technology."
On more sober reflection, they should have given the award to Libyan Head of State Omar Muammar al-Ghaddafi. It was through him (albeit indirectly) that the black market of nuclear weapons technology and Dr. Khan were exposed. At least one source was actually shut down, which is more than the IAEA has accomplished.
Posted by: Debbye at
05:31 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.
October 05, 2005
He also posts on a somewhat more serious topic: accusations that Iran has been behind attacks on British soldiers in Iraq, and notes the chief affliction of BBC reporting:
Thus for the reader the meaning is clear: for the BBC, the word of the Iranian theocrats is supposed to be as trustworthy as that of the British government.Exactly. Welcome back, Robert.
Posted by: Debbye at
07:47 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.
October 03, 2005
They played .500 ball, not bad for their first year in D.C.
You all ready for the World Series? This household is firmly in the "anyone but the Yankees" camp which probably means the Red Sox (for as long as they last, which will hopefully be all the way to the Series.)
Ever watch baseball with a coach and an umpire? It can be ... informative. Yeah, that's the word. Loud Informative.
Posted by: Debbye at
08:09 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.
September 29, 2005
Stephen Baskerville, PhD - Fathers and Men's Rights Articles.
There are a number of articles by Dr. Baskerville on the web page; some of them look interesting, some look to be controversial and a few look to be extremely uncomfortable.
Discomfort is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact, sometimes it is an extremely health sign that something is wrong and needs fixing.
Posted by: Debbye at
09:44 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.
September 27, 2005
The book Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by economist Steven D. Levitt and scientist Stephen J. Dubner was reviewed by Orson Scott Card in Freakonomics Or You Have to Find the Facts Before You Can Face Them. Some of the assertions in the book are controversial and Card touches on one of the hypotheses: that lower crimes rates came about as a result of decriminalizing abortions.
In 1973, Roe v. Wade made abortion permissible throughout the United States. The floodgates opened, and vast numbers of abortions were performed. As a result, vast numbers of children were not born.Did I mention that some of the conclusions are controversial?Ah, but which children? The vast majority of the abortions were among women who would have been raising their children without a father; substantial numbers of these women were addicts. And even the abortions performed on middle-class women were somewhat more likely to be the result of liaisons in which one partner or the other, or both, had poor impulse control.
In other words, the fetuses that were aborted, had they been born, would have become children who were statistically the most likely group to become criminals. Raised by single mothers, in poverty, with genes that might not provide them with much ability to foresee the longterm consequences of impulsive actions.
The crime rates began falling exactly when that generation of children would have reached adolescence and those with such tendencies would have begun their criminal careers.
It certainly looked as if we killed off much of our criminal class in the womb.
I've only excerpted the portion of the review that fit the blog post I was writing, but the review is about much more than that and addresses one of the biggest problems of this information age: too much specialized knowledge by experts which we can neither ignore nor understand.
I was curious and read about the book at the Freaknomics site and saw something that never fails to get my attention:
[Steven D. Levitt] usually begins with a mountain of data and a simple, unasked question. Some of these questions concern life-and-death issues; others have an admittedly freakish quality. (Emphasis added)I can't recommend the book as I haven't read it (at least not yet) but it sounds intriguing.
I need to write (or at least begin) a report on a meeting I attended yesterday evening and then catch some sleep so probably won't post again until tonight.
(Orson Scott Card link via Relapsed Catholic)
Posted by: Debbye at
07:43 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 477 words, total size 3 kb.
They're also a bit modest, but Jack's profile of them is very informative. [Blogger permalinks seem somewhat skewed today; scroll down to Sept. 26 post "Very Late Update | OPP Ironmen" or run find option (Ctrl + F for IE users) search words "OPP Ironman."]
Welcome to the crazy blogging world, Ironmen!
Posted by: Debbye at
06:38 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.
September 24, 2005
David has written an outstanding post about The Ultimate Victims of single-parent families and he's backing it up with more than abstract speculation. Some of the figures cited are alarming and point to the need for a sober evaluation of the impact on families without a father's influence.
It's a touchy subject. There are a great many women (and a few men) who are raising children singlely and it is not always by choice. Some were deserted or one of the parents died. Others wisely left abusive or destructive relationships. I doubt anyone would argue that remaining together "for the sake of the children" is a good thing when the kids are forced to endure the fighting, bitterness, and animosity that often arises when a marriage has crumbled. Yet the acceptance of "no-fault divorces" argues that we as a society do accept that marriages can fall apart for a number of reasons that don't cast either spouse as villainous but simply as incompatible.
But somehow there has been a shift whereby dropping the belief that it's best to stay together for the sake of the children has led to assertions that a non-custodial parent, usually the father, is dispensable. Mom can do it all, be both father and mother, and the kids will turn out just fine because ... well, actually, that part is kind of left out. Dad's good for presents and trips to amusement parks, but when it comes to guidance, discipline and that most important parenting tool which we are literally stuck with, setting a good example, he's too often considered inconsequential. Evidently, two heads are not better than one.
The alarming part is that family courts also seem to regard the other parent as superfluous by their reluctance to enforce visitation rights when the custodial parent deliberately (and one might argue maliciously) denies it.
The seeming indifference of the courts when a parent's visitation rights are denied allows for a second injustice: the child's rights have also been violated. Judges and family courts, by inaction, diminish the worth of the love between the child and the non-custodial parent. Although the impact of that has yet to be assessed, one has to wonder how a child will develop emotionally when love for one parent is intentionally thwarted by the other or if the child comes to feel ashamed or disloyal because of that love.
I believe we need to find a way to encourage and support those who are raising children alone without diminishing the very real need for children to have two involved parents because, in this instance, we really do need to think about the children.
Anyone who prefers words like "resilient" and "survivor" over "irreparable" and "victim" will be intrigued by this next post. Raskolnikov evokes the former as he examines a different kind of parenting issue in Gramma's House by looking at the large number of grandparents who have taken on the child-raising of their grandchildren in aboriginal communities. That mirrors what is happening throughout Canada and the U.S.A. but there's a twist: the grandparents who are raising these kids are of the generation that is often viewed as having been so damaged by res-schools that they were rendered incapable of good parenting skills.
Evidently there has been a lack of any noticeable concern exhibited by Tribal Child and Family Service workers and community leaders, which is surprising and perhaps even alarming, but both of the outcomes Raskolnikov suggests contains the hope of healing.
(The comments, by the way, offer some different perspectives and worth the read.)
Sept. 25 - 17:05 - Read Is There Really a Fatherhood Crisis? for more (it's long and I'm still working through it, but it's already pretty hard hitting.) I don't know what to say; it's all very sobering.
I read an article this week (but can't find it now) linking the lowered crime rates in some major American cities with readier access to abortions. That was really a mind-stopper (if you know the one I'm referring to please drop me a line so I can link to it as well.)
Sept. 27 - 07:14 - Many thanks to Andrew P., who remembered that the article was Freakonomics Or You Have to Find the Facts Before You Can Face Them by Orson Scott Card and - bonus - that it had been linked by Kathy at Relapsed Catholic which was how we both came to read it.
21:50 - John Leo is linking Katrina casualties to single-parent families, although I think he may be streching it a bit far. One of the most uplifting things I saw during the early coverage were two men who had delivered their wives and children to the Convention Centre and were heading out to see if anyone else needed help. They had such a matter-of-fact attitude - neither exhibited humility or arrogance - and just said they had done what men need to do. I wish I could remember their exact words.
An honest report on Katrina might well show that a lot of men stood up and, well, acted like men so often do: strong and true.
I enjoy some wine with dinner so I'm going to indulge in some sauce for the gander is good for the goose whimsy: Imagine, if you dare, what would happen if all the men in the world went on strike. [And before you mention Lysistrata, be sure and read the damned play. The women barricaded themselves in the town treasury, which was a bigger problem for the Greek men than doing without sex!]
Posted by: Debbye at
06:44 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 933 words, total size 6 kb.
September 23, 2005
The response from an NHL spokeswoman is wonderful:
"This ad shows no disrespect for women," [Bernadette] Mansur told The CP. "On the contrary, the woman is the spiritual and physical trainer for the 'Warrior' and is his mentor."Ah, that Canadian sense of humour. There may be a spiritual level to rock'em sock'em hockey, and the distinct sound of a well-placed body check is admittedly music to the ears, but I'll wait for Don Cherry's opinion on the ad before I'll let Martha Burk tell me what offends.
There is some merit to the claim of "mentor," though. Tacitus wrote that the women in Germanic tribes urged the men to battle, baring their breasts and reminding them that their children would be enslaved if they lost to the Romans.
Um, maybe I should stop while I'm ahead. And, you know, "Go Leafs!"
(Via Kathryn Lopez at the Corner.)
Posted by: Debbye at
05:48 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.
I've always had a pet theory that inviting the newly-American inhabitants of the city to join us in fighting the British - and beating the Recoats soundly - brought New Orleans and Louisiana securely into the American fabric and reduced the abandonment many felt when Napoleon sold them along with the territory. We cannot think of Andrew Jackson without remembering Jean Lafite, and the Battle of New Orleans is remembered with a glory which is scarcely diminished even when we consider that it took place after a treaty had been signed.
Abandoning New Orleans is literally a case of abandoning an important part of our heritage and an integral part of the history of extending our borders from sea to sea.
And then there's the personal. So many of us have wonderful memories of the times we visited there (and sometimes the memories are the more cherished because we can't exactly remember!) furthering the dilemma beyond logic and reason. The cuisine. The music. The people. The mystique. New Orleans is part of the American soul in ways I can feel more than articulate.
I can't even imagine how those who call New Orleans home are feeling today, but maybe it is time to bite the bullet and make some hard calls. It is going to hurt. Deeply. Even thinking about it hurts. Part of me knows that with time we'll do what we've always done: cling to that part of the American spirit that has always held that a new future means a better future, but for now I thinks its permissible to grieve.
18:25 - The news out of New Orleans is getting worse. Thank God the city stayed closed, but spare a thought for the troops there.
Glad to see the President sensibly cancelled his trip to the region. People on the ground there have enough to contend with and don't need the security nightmare.
I finally received word that my Texas friends are safely out of Rita's path. I have to go to work tonight (although I really don't want to leave the storm watch) and I'll be holding my breath even though I know on most levels that we'll weather it.
I can't help thinking that the destruction wrought by the hurricanes have brought us together again. I don't mean the politicians and other Important People but just us, the normal, everyday American whom everyone takes for granted. The press was all a-twitter at the lapses at every level of government but for me, it just reinforced the soundness of the joke "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Say a prayer for Texas. We owe them: the people of Houston electrified the nation when they strode in with a "we can help" attitude and gave refuge to thousands of NO Katrina survivors (and, more importantly, challenged other cities to do the same) and rekindled belief in something that we've seen too rarely in these modern times: neighbourly actions. Southern hospitality and Christian charity have combined to remind us (again) that we are a decent, good people and that we can help and stand by one another.
Posted by: Debbye at
04:17 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 580 words, total size 4 kb.
September 22, 2005
Posted by: Debbye at
02:10 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.
76 queries taking 0.1819 seconds, 240 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
