Perhaps the best article that I have read in honor of this year’s Earth Day is Jack Cashill’s article, “Feminism is Bad for the Environment,” on Worldnetdaily.com. He notes how recent trends such as the increase of women in the workforce, and the commute that this entails (both for the mothers themselves and for their nannies!) means that there are more vehicles on the road. I found this article while perusing Feminsting.com, a very amusing hobby. He also pointed out the toll that increased divorce rates take on the environment – double the homes, double the impact. I have read about this before. Finally, Cashill, the author of “What’s the Matter with California?” examined the radically ‘green’ town of San Mateo, where everything is eco-friendly, and a person with median income can afford only 13% of the homes (contrasted with the average, where a person of median income can afford 87% of homes in his community). He noted that in San Mateo, not only is everything INCREDIBLY expensive because of the environmental policies and programs, but the very wealthy of San Mateo bring in many, many low-income workers to do everything from care for their children to paint their nails. Because of the insane property values, these workers have very long commutes and, therefore, release a whole lot of carbon into the atmosphere. Rich environmentalists? Bad for the environment. Read the article, it’s very witty.
Jessica’s other brilliant post on the environment took a Family Research Council quote entirely out of context and made it look stupid. Well, actually, what the oh-so-clever Jessica did was remove the citation which backed up FRC’s claim, but left the claim more or less intact. Very cute. If you read the entire email, as Jessica prevented her dear readers from doing, you can see that the claim FRC makes, namely that environmentalism is intimately linked with sex education and population control, and therefore the pro-life movement is backed up by reference to a quote on the Sierra Club’s website - "Talk to your decision-makers and demand an increase of funding for voluntary family planning programs and access to comprehensive sex education for young people,” and a paper from Optimum Population Trust that argued children are “bad for the planet.”
The comments on Feministing.com never cease to amaze me. But today, there were two that really caught my eye. One astute reader realized that FRC was, in fact, correct, and provided links to two terrifying articles about two young women who decided not to have babies to save the earth. One had her husband sterilized, the other was sterilized herself at age 27 following an abortion. I suppose I’d rather see women sterilized than murdering their infants, but the whole mentality over flowers over babies is truly disturbing.
Luckily, Cardinal Pell and Bishop Crepaldi agree with me. and These brave men have provided a voice of reason for the Church in an age when environmental fervor has become a new religion. They stress the fact that people MUST, for the Christian, come before the Earth while nevertheless acknowledging that we are called to be stewards of God’s earth. It is interesting to me that it takes a Cardinal and a Bishop to call for objectivity in science and urge scientists to challenge what has become dogma, because the science community will not do it for itself.
Web addresses of all referenced sites (because I STILL can't figure out how to make my links work...):
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61758
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU08D17
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=26342
http://www.ignatius.com/Magazines/CWR/pell_jan08.html
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Mother Earth versus single, low-income mother of five
My Heart Leaps Up
My heart leaps us when I behold
A rainbow in the sky:
So was it when my life began;
So is it now I am a man;
So be it when I shall grow old,
Or let me die!
The Child is father of the Man;
And I could wish my days to be
Bound each to each by natural piety.
This William Wordsworth poem has always struck a chord in me, and I am proud to say that I still get jumping-up-and-down excited every time I see a rainbow, or even thunder and lightning. I grew up gardening, climbing mountains and kayaking. Gardening and clambering up tress in my own back yard, and exploring the lakes and mountains of Maine, Vermont, Alaska and Washington in the summer. No family vacation was complete without an excursion into the wilds of nature. Although I am not my chaco-wearing, granola-eating, backpacking mother, my love of wilderness runs deep. Nature has ever been a source of inspiration, peace and joy for me.
I first experienced profound Christian devotion in the heartbreakingly beautiful mountains of rural Appalachia. Each spring, I look with wonder at the tree blossoms and flower gardens that adorn Washington, DC, and especially Georgetown University's campus. The concept that God lovingly made each leaf and flower is amazing. To look at each one is like gazing with admiration on the brush strokes of a most beloved painter who captures light and color in just the right way, but is even more startling when we consider that all of created earth is utterly unnecessary.
Just the other day, I was sitting outside of a nearby café saying a rosary and contemplating a deep purple and gold pansy. I was conscious of the little pansy's perfection because it in no way imaged man's own sin. All around us are objects created by man, which image sin. Any object created by man can be used properly, and yet still be used for ill. A book is intended to convey information; it cares not whether the information it conveys is beneficial or harmful to its reader, and in either case it functions as a book. The possibility for evil is built into a book, indeed, into all objects made by imperfect human hands. But nature can only be used for good, unless it is misused. A tree fulfills its function by placing its roots in the ground, growing and producing leaves, flowers or fruit (depending on what type it is). For a tree to be used for evil, say when it is made into a battering ram or another weapon of war, its natural function must be interrupted by man. This is striking, I think.
If I wax overly sentimental about nature, it is only to show that although I am by no means a "hippy dippy," I have an ingrained proclivity towards nature for its own sake. And so I have, thus far, been skeptical about conservative arguments against environmentalism. But about two weeks ago, I heard Alexandra “Sandy” Liddy Bourne from the Heartland Institute speak about global warming and the energy crisis. Her passion for these issues shone through her very convincing talk.
Sandy first gave the typical talk questioning global warming science, and then moved into a discussion of the economy. But then Sandy talked about the effects that proposed environmental protection legislation would have on individual low-income Americans, and already was having on the poor throughout the world. If pending legislation goes through, gas prices will rise to the point where low-income Americans are paying 18 to 20 percent of what they make on fuel in order to even make it to their jobs. This is unconscionable. Sandy spoke from personal experience: she had grown up, along with four siblings, the child of a single mother in the DC area, and so she knew just how devastating such a cost would be to a poor family. Sandy also talked about how the use of corn for ethanol has already driven up the price of corn around the world. Though this barely affects Americans themselves, many people in developing nations rely on corn as a staple food, and are less and less able to afford it. The focus on the poor, and on the individual, was something I had not heard before, but it makes sense that legislation crafted by wealthy Americans such as Al Gore to pursue this pet project would fail to take into account the lives of impoverished individuals.
Many times, I have heard about the toll that environmental policies may take on the economy, but when I (who have never taken so much as an intro to economics class) hear the word ‘economy,’ I have only a vague and nebulous idea of the subject in my head. Typically, I think of dollar signs and am unable to grasp any nuance. When faced with the choice of a dollar sign or a flower, I am inclined to choose the flower. But when faced with the choice between a low-income single mothers in America’s inner cities and hungry children in Latin America or the flower, my choice is obvious.
Sandy also noted that we don’t even have a full and accurate census on all of the land we own and what resources it contains. We focus on land such as ANWR, but do not even talk about the other places, which are less rare in terms of ecology, that could be opened up for drilling. Another interesting fact I gleaned from the talk was that Hurricane Katrina hit many, many oil rigs and yet none spilled. Modern technology has served to eliminate many of the threats that we continue to harp on when discussing environmental policy. Essentially, Sandy advocated that our policies be based on a measured and rational assessment of the facts, instead of on emotion. Sounds reasonable, no?
All praise be yours, my Lord, through Sister Earth, our mother, Who feeds us in her sovereignty and produces Various fruits with coloured flowers and herbs.
- St. Francis of Assissi Canticle of Brother Sun/ Canticle of Creatures
My heart leaps us when I behold
A rainbow in the sky:
So was it when my life began;
So is it now I am a man;
So be it when I shall grow old,
Or let me die!
The Child is father of the Man;
And I could wish my days to be
Bound each to each by natural piety.
This William Wordsworth poem has always struck a chord in me, and I am proud to say that I still get jumping-up-and-down excited every time I see a rainbow, or even thunder and lightning. I grew up gardening, climbing mountains and kayaking. Gardening and clambering up tress in my own back yard, and exploring the lakes and mountains of Maine, Vermont, Alaska and Washington in the summer. No family vacation was complete without an excursion into the wilds of nature. Although I am not my chaco-wearing, granola-eating, backpacking mother, my love of wilderness runs deep. Nature has ever been a source of inspiration, peace and joy for me.
I first experienced profound Christian devotion in the heartbreakingly beautiful mountains of rural Appalachia. Each spring, I look with wonder at the tree blossoms and flower gardens that adorn Washington, DC, and especially Georgetown University's campus. The concept that God lovingly made each leaf and flower is amazing. To look at each one is like gazing with admiration on the brush strokes of a most beloved painter who captures light and color in just the right way, but is even more startling when we consider that all of created earth is utterly unnecessary.
Just the other day, I was sitting outside of a nearby café saying a rosary and contemplating a deep purple and gold pansy. I was conscious of the little pansy's perfection because it in no way imaged man's own sin. All around us are objects created by man, which image sin. Any object created by man can be used properly, and yet still be used for ill. A book is intended to convey information; it cares not whether the information it conveys is beneficial or harmful to its reader, and in either case it functions as a book. The possibility for evil is built into a book, indeed, into all objects made by imperfect human hands. But nature can only be used for good, unless it is misused. A tree fulfills its function by placing its roots in the ground, growing and producing leaves, flowers or fruit (depending on what type it is). For a tree to be used for evil, say when it is made into a battering ram or another weapon of war, its natural function must be interrupted by man. This is striking, I think.
If I wax overly sentimental about nature, it is only to show that although I am by no means a "hippy dippy," I have an ingrained proclivity towards nature for its own sake. And so I have, thus far, been skeptical about conservative arguments against environmentalism. But about two weeks ago, I heard Alexandra “Sandy” Liddy Bourne from the Heartland Institute speak about global warming and the energy crisis. Her passion for these issues shone through her very convincing talk.
Sandy first gave the typical talk questioning global warming science, and then moved into a discussion of the economy. But then Sandy talked about the effects that proposed environmental protection legislation would have on individual low-income Americans, and already was having on the poor throughout the world. If pending legislation goes through, gas prices will rise to the point where low-income Americans are paying 18 to 20 percent of what they make on fuel in order to even make it to their jobs. This is unconscionable. Sandy spoke from personal experience: she had grown up, along with four siblings, the child of a single mother in the DC area, and so she knew just how devastating such a cost would be to a poor family. Sandy also talked about how the use of corn for ethanol has already driven up the price of corn around the world. Though this barely affects Americans themselves, many people in developing nations rely on corn as a staple food, and are less and less able to afford it. The focus on the poor, and on the individual, was something I had not heard before, but it makes sense that legislation crafted by wealthy Americans such as Al Gore to pursue this pet project would fail to take into account the lives of impoverished individuals.
Many times, I have heard about the toll that environmental policies may take on the economy, but when I (who have never taken so much as an intro to economics class) hear the word ‘economy,’ I have only a vague and nebulous idea of the subject in my head. Typically, I think of dollar signs and am unable to grasp any nuance. When faced with the choice of a dollar sign or a flower, I am inclined to choose the flower. But when faced with the choice between a low-income single mothers in America’s inner cities and hungry children in Latin America or the flower, my choice is obvious.
Sandy also noted that we don’t even have a full and accurate census on all of the land we own and what resources it contains. We focus on land such as ANWR, but do not even talk about the other places, which are less rare in terms of ecology, that could be opened up for drilling. Another interesting fact I gleaned from the talk was that Hurricane Katrina hit many, many oil rigs and yet none spilled. Modern technology has served to eliminate many of the threats that we continue to harp on when discussing environmental policy. Essentially, Sandy advocated that our policies be based on a measured and rational assessment of the facts, instead of on emotion. Sounds reasonable, no?
All praise be yours, my Lord, through Sister Earth, our mother, Who feeds us in her sovereignty and produces Various fruits with coloured flowers and herbs.
- St. Francis of Assissi Canticle of Brother Sun/ Canticle of Creatures
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Papal address to US video
You know you are a Catholic nerd when you watch this video three times in one day. I love Pope Benedict.
http://www.uspapalvisit.org/stories/vmessage.htm
http://www.uspapalvisit.org/stories/vmessage.htm
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
COME TO THIS EVENT!!
"There Was a Man!
On Learning to Be Free"
A lecture in conjunction with the conferral of the
First Annual Rev. James V. Schall, S.J.
Award for Teaching and Humane Letters
Upon
Ralph M. McInerny
Michael P. Grace Professor of Medieval Studies
University of Notre Dame
Thursday, April 10, 2008
6:00-7:45 p.m.
Georgetown University Conference Center
Georgetown University
3800 Reservoir Road, NW 20057
RSVP requested: tocquevilleforum@georgetown.edu
Parking Information
On Learning to Be Free"
A lecture in conjunction with the conferral of the
First Annual Rev. James V. Schall, S.J.
Award for Teaching and Humane Letters
Upon
Ralph M. McInerny
Michael P. Grace Professor of Medieval Studies
University of Notre Dame
Thursday, April 10, 2008
6:00-7:45 p.m.
Georgetown University Conference Center
Georgetown University
3800 Reservoir Road, NW 20057
RSVP requested: tocquevilleforum@georgetown.edu
Parking Information
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Things I like/ don't like:
A summary of my day:
Things I like:
Good confessors
Cherry tree blossoms blowing in the wind
Running into the guy who protests outside Planned Parenthood on his way to Mass
Free vegetarian food in the break room
Beautiful muslim girls from Saudi Arabia who love GU Right to Life
Things I don't like:
Learning about how Planned Parenthood and SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States) have even shadier pasts than I ever imagined. (See below for more detail)
DC weather (45 degrees and raining when I leave in the morning; 70 degrees and sunny by the time I leave work).
So, my current project at work is to research the history of abstinence education in the U.S. In the process, I am learning a lot about the history of sex education in the U.S. It is amazing how hush hush the whole thing is and how hard it is to find the facts. At any rate, here are some of the scary things I found:
1. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, created a journal in which she wrote some gems including, "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and others. She even wrote a whole book, called the Pivot of Civilization, developing these ideas, and included a postscript entitled "Breeding Out The Unfit," in her book, What Every Boy and Girl Should Know.
2. SIECUS was co-founded by Mary Calderone, former Director of Planned Parenthood's National Medical Committee. Another founding board member was Wardell Pomeroy, co-author of the Kinsey Reports (which, have come under fire for their poor research methods and the failure to report known pedophiles to the authorities, among other things).
3. SIECUS advocates showing pornography as a de-sensitizing technique. SIECUS advocates for sex education programs for children as young as five years old!!
4. Although abstinence education opponents claim that comprehensive sex education gets no funding, Planned Parenthood sex education programs have been funded under Title X since 1970. Title X was renewed in 1978 and continues to provide funding. In the 2001 fiscal year, congress released data showing that pro-promiscuity groups (including PP, SIECUS, Youth Advocacy, and the Guttmacher Institute) received federal funding to the tune of $170 million. The majority of that went to PP. The Heritage Foundation estimates that for every single federal dollar spent on abstinence education, twelve are spent on
promoting contraceptives. That's hardly a lack of funding.
This stuff scares me. These people are crazy. I wish this were an April Fool's day joke.
Things I like:
Good confessors
Cherry tree blossoms blowing in the wind
Running into the guy who protests outside Planned Parenthood on his way to Mass
Free vegetarian food in the break room
Beautiful muslim girls from Saudi Arabia who love GU Right to Life
Things I don't like:
Learning about how Planned Parenthood and SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States) have even shadier pasts than I ever imagined. (See below for more detail)
DC weather (45 degrees and raining when I leave in the morning; 70 degrees and sunny by the time I leave work).
So, my current project at work is to research the history of abstinence education in the U.S. In the process, I am learning a lot about the history of sex education in the U.S. It is amazing how hush hush the whole thing is and how hard it is to find the facts. At any rate, here are some of the scary things I found:
1. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, created a journal in which she wrote some gems including, "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and others. She even wrote a whole book, called the Pivot of Civilization, developing these ideas, and included a postscript entitled "Breeding Out The Unfit," in her book, What Every Boy and Girl Should Know.
2. SIECUS was co-founded by Mary Calderone, former Director of Planned Parenthood's National Medical Committee. Another founding board member was Wardell Pomeroy, co-author of the Kinsey Reports (which, have come under fire for their poor research methods and the failure to report known pedophiles to the authorities, among other things).
3. SIECUS advocates showing pornography as a de-sensitizing technique. SIECUS advocates for sex education programs for children as young as five years old!!
4. Although abstinence education opponents claim that comprehensive sex education gets no funding, Planned Parenthood sex education programs have been funded under Title X since 1970. Title X was renewed in 1978 and continues to provide funding. In the 2001 fiscal year, congress released data showing that pro-promiscuity groups (including PP, SIECUS, Youth Advocacy, and the Guttmacher Institute) received federal funding to the tune of $170 million. The majority of that went to PP. The Heritage Foundation estimates that for every single federal dollar spent on abstinence education, twelve are spent on
promoting contraceptives. That's hardly a lack of funding.
This stuff scares me. These people are crazy. I wish this were an April Fool's day joke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)