Thursday, March 31, 2005
A sad day..
Well Michael Schiavo finally got what he wanted, his wife died this morning. This man is a murderer and completely disgusts me. What a sad day for this family and for our country..
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Terri Schiavo: What is happening in our country?
As I was driving home from work tonight I was listening to the radio and they were discussing the Terri Schiavo case. The broadcasters were talking with Suzanne and Bobby Schlinder (Terri's sister and brother) about how the family is holding up after watching Terri go without food or water for 12 days.
I must say that the more I learn about this situation the more outraged I become. I CANNOT believe that an entire nation is watching while our judicial system orders that a severely disabled woman is starved to death! And the most scary thing to me, is that most people in the U.S. seem to believe that it is the right thing to do.
Now I am the first one to say that if anything tragic ever happened to me and I was left in a vegetative state with little hope of recovery, I would want my family to make the difficult decision to take me off life support so that machines werent keeping me alive. However, that is NOT the case with Terri. Although it is debateable as to whether Terri is in a permanent vegetative state, she is not on any life support. By removing a feeding tube and withholding any food or water from her, they are actively killing Terri Schiavo by starvation. I know that several people have said that Terri should have a peaceful end to her life, and that through dehydration/starvation she could achieve that, but according to her family the doctors have been giving Terri morphine at this point b/c of the enormosity of the pain that she is experiencing.
I feel incredible sorrow for the family at this time. Having whether their daugther lives or dies be a national TV broadcast must be so offensive. They are forced to sit and watch Terri writhe in pain and suffer; unable to do anything b/c Michael (terri's husband) makes all the decisions. How horrific! Even more disturbing is how there is not a public outrage for Terri's life! This case brings to the forefront the rights of disabled individuals and we should be concerned about the possible implications. Why is this judge and Michael Schiavo so adamant that Terri must die? Who gives anyone the right (in particular a judge) to determine whether someone's life has value or not? What will stop us in the future from wiping out whole groups of people b/c they have disabilities and we think as a society that their life couldnt possibly be rewarding? I know that is extreme but I cant get over how arrogant and reminiscent of the Holocast/Nazis all of this sounds. I mean wasnt that the goal of Hitler?; to create a "perfect" race of people. Those who were different ( Jews they were physically different in appearance) were those he weeded out and killed. Yet that same concept is what essentially is being said in the Terri Schiavo story. Because Terri is brain damaged, Terri's life isnt worth the fight, she is better off dead.
I must say that the more I learn about this situation the more outraged I become. I CANNOT believe that an entire nation is watching while our judicial system orders that a severely disabled woman is starved to death! And the most scary thing to me, is that most people in the U.S. seem to believe that it is the right thing to do.
Now I am the first one to say that if anything tragic ever happened to me and I was left in a vegetative state with little hope of recovery, I would want my family to make the difficult decision to take me off life support so that machines werent keeping me alive. However, that is NOT the case with Terri. Although it is debateable as to whether Terri is in a permanent vegetative state, she is not on any life support. By removing a feeding tube and withholding any food or water from her, they are actively killing Terri Schiavo by starvation. I know that several people have said that Terri should have a peaceful end to her life, and that through dehydration/starvation she could achieve that, but according to her family the doctors have been giving Terri morphine at this point b/c of the enormosity of the pain that she is experiencing.
I feel incredible sorrow for the family at this time. Having whether their daugther lives or dies be a national TV broadcast must be so offensive. They are forced to sit and watch Terri writhe in pain and suffer; unable to do anything b/c Michael (terri's husband) makes all the decisions. How horrific! Even more disturbing is how there is not a public outrage for Terri's life! This case brings to the forefront the rights of disabled individuals and we should be concerned about the possible implications. Why is this judge and Michael Schiavo so adamant that Terri must die? Who gives anyone the right (in particular a judge) to determine whether someone's life has value or not? What will stop us in the future from wiping out whole groups of people b/c they have disabilities and we think as a society that their life couldnt possibly be rewarding? I know that is extreme but I cant get over how arrogant and reminiscent of the Holocast/Nazis all of this sounds. I mean wasnt that the goal of Hitler?; to create a "perfect" race of people. Those who were different ( Jews they were physically different in appearance) were those he weeded out and killed. Yet that same concept is what essentially is being said in the Terri Schiavo story. Because Terri is brain damaged, Terri's life isnt worth the fight, she is better off dead.
Saturday, March 26, 2005
THE FINAL FOUR!!!
So all i have to say is WAY TO GO ILLINI! What an amazing game vs. Arizona tonight! Now we are on the way to St. Louis for the Final Four! Louisville better bring your game...
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Why America hates its children
Okay...so a little disclaimer before I post this article. I realize that there is an obvious more liberal bias in this article, obviously advocating the philosopy advocated by Hillary Clinton that "its takes a village to raise a child"... For the record, I believe that the government shouldnt tell parents how to raise thier children and yes that people have to take responsibilty for the babies they produce, however I also believe there is alot of merit in the stance this author takes. We cant just ignore the needs of thousands of children in the U.S. and allow them to suffer simply because we think their parents shouldnt have been having sex in the first place. These children are already here and they deserve the same possibilites as anyone else. Besides doesnt the government have an obligation to promote equality for all of its citizens?
I think that you tell alot about what an individual values by where they put thier money. With that said, think of how much most babysitters make to watch someone's kids. I can say that many people still only pay $5/6 hour, now think about how much you would pay someone to mow your lawn. Probably at least $15-$20 for around 1 maybe 2 hours of work. To me something is inconsistent in this picture. I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this issue.
Here is the article i was talking about....
Why Do Americans Hate Children?by Daniel C. Maguire
Show me how you treat kids and I will tell you what you are.There is a simple principle that can test the moral spirit of a people and their government. Here it is: what is good for kids, is good; what is bad for kids is ungodly. Let's take that principle and look into the American soul. I warn you in advance: the U.S. doesn't get a passing grade.My main guide here will be the recent blockbuster book by Gloria Albrecht: HITTING HOME: FEMINIST ETHICS, WOMEN'S WORK, AND THE BETRAYAL OF "FAMILY VALUES," Continuum, New York, 2002). Albrecht makes it clear that our nation does not think that having babies is in the national interest. (How could we miss the point that if we have no babies, there is no tomorrow?) Since 1920 the number of women in the work force rose from 21 percent to 60 percent. The economy is such that one earner per family is not enough. 58 percent of women with a baby under one year are in the labor force and 77% of mothers with kids under six kids. Only 23% stay at home. This means many children are latchkey kids, unsupervised for many hours per week. Is that in the national interest?Obviously, children need care but the ruling assumption in this land of ours is that if you have a baby, it's your problem. Child care is looked on as a consumer item. If you can afford it, great; if not, tough! 96 % of working parents pay full costs of childcare. What government help there is, is inadequate. Only 12 percent of employers provide childcare. Of course, all this hits the poor hardest. Low income families who pay for their childcare spend 35 percent of their incomes on it compared to 7 percent of income spent by non-poor families.Thus, in democratic America the quality of child care varies according to class. Once society decides that child care is a consumer item and not a basic human right that deserves national support, market logic kicks in, and you only get what you pay for. Of course, and ironically, according to classical economics, those who receive the benefits should pay the costs. The benefits of healthy, well cared for, well educated children accrue to the nation not just to the families. They are tomorrow's citizens.Because they are the bearers of children, women are discriminated against in the workplace. They are denied opportunities not just when they have children, but by the very fact that they can have children.Our attitude toward children also shows through in this telling statistic: the median wage of childcare workers in 1997 was $7.03 per hour, three cents less than that of parking lot attendants--and this is usually without benefits. These workers could not afford child care for themselves. Obviously caring for children is not work that we value.Has anyone heard from the so-called "pro-life" people on any of this? Could it be that their interest in life is short circuited by birth?Here is another look into the American heart: according to the Temporary Aid to Need Family program, caring for someone else's children is classified as work; caring for your own is not!As Albrecht says: "The United States lags behind all other industrialized nations in addressing family/work concerns through public policies." A White House report in December 2000 said that "states were able to provide childcare assistance to only 12 percent of all federally eligible low-income working families." Albrecht states the assumption of U.S. welfare "reform.": "There is widespread social agreement that economically poor mothers cannot, by definition, be good mothers unless they work away from their homes and their children." Poor parents can often not afford to work because of the cost of transportation, clothing, and childcare needs at home. In a United Nations survey of 152 countries, the U.S. was one of only six countries that does not have a national policy requiring paid maternity leave.Some 40 states are deeply in debt and are shortening the school week and cutting certain classes and programs. According to the New York Times (January 12, 2003) 60%of Americans oppose raising taxes to correct this. Meanwhile, the Bush administration is spending billions to ship soldiers to the middle east while the states back home starve and victimize kids.There are countries that do not hate their children. Albrecht: "Many European countries already provide universal healthcare, childcare, and requirements benefits, as well as generous (by U.S.. standards) paid parental and family leave, paid vacation time and unemployment policies." Swedes currently are entitled to eighteen months of paid leave with job protection that can be prorated over the first 8 years of a child's life. France provides universal childcare to all toilet- trained children, and single mothers receive government payments until their children are over the age of three. In Denmark all children up to 18 years of age have access to free dental care for both routine examinations and treatment. Europeans are guaranteed longer vacations times, four to six weeks, and this is protected by legislation.Americans bask in a surreal self-image, seeing themselves as a "kind and gentle" people. Most would be offended to read in Duane Elgin's book PROMISE AHEAD: "The United States is the stingiest developed nation in terms of the proportion of total wealth that it donates." We should not be surprised. If we can treat our kids the way we do, why would we be generous to strangers?Dr. Maguire teaches Moral Theology and Ethics at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He is founder and president of The Religious Consultation, the author of many books, and is a popular lecturer and frequent guest on radio and TV.
I think that you tell alot about what an individual values by where they put thier money. With that said, think of how much most babysitters make to watch someone's kids. I can say that many people still only pay $5/6 hour, now think about how much you would pay someone to mow your lawn. Probably at least $15-$20 for around 1 maybe 2 hours of work. To me something is inconsistent in this picture. I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this issue.
Here is the article i was talking about....
Why Do Americans Hate Children?by Daniel C. Maguire
Show me how you treat kids and I will tell you what you are.There is a simple principle that can test the moral spirit of a people and their government. Here it is: what is good for kids, is good; what is bad for kids is ungodly. Let's take that principle and look into the American soul. I warn you in advance: the U.S. doesn't get a passing grade.My main guide here will be the recent blockbuster book by Gloria Albrecht: HITTING HOME: FEMINIST ETHICS, WOMEN'S WORK, AND THE BETRAYAL OF "FAMILY VALUES," Continuum, New York, 2002). Albrecht makes it clear that our nation does not think that having babies is in the national interest. (How could we miss the point that if we have no babies, there is no tomorrow?) Since 1920 the number of women in the work force rose from 21 percent to 60 percent. The economy is such that one earner per family is not enough. 58 percent of women with a baby under one year are in the labor force and 77% of mothers with kids under six kids. Only 23% stay at home. This means many children are latchkey kids, unsupervised for many hours per week. Is that in the national interest?Obviously, children need care but the ruling assumption in this land of ours is that if you have a baby, it's your problem. Child care is looked on as a consumer item. If you can afford it, great; if not, tough! 96 % of working parents pay full costs of childcare. What government help there is, is inadequate. Only 12 percent of employers provide childcare. Of course, all this hits the poor hardest. Low income families who pay for their childcare spend 35 percent of their incomes on it compared to 7 percent of income spent by non-poor families.Thus, in democratic America the quality of child care varies according to class. Once society decides that child care is a consumer item and not a basic human right that deserves national support, market logic kicks in, and you only get what you pay for. Of course, and ironically, according to classical economics, those who receive the benefits should pay the costs. The benefits of healthy, well cared for, well educated children accrue to the nation not just to the families. They are tomorrow's citizens.Because they are the bearers of children, women are discriminated against in the workplace. They are denied opportunities not just when they have children, but by the very fact that they can have children.Our attitude toward children also shows through in this telling statistic: the median wage of childcare workers in 1997 was $7.03 per hour, three cents less than that of parking lot attendants--and this is usually without benefits. These workers could not afford child care for themselves. Obviously caring for children is not work that we value.Has anyone heard from the so-called "pro-life" people on any of this? Could it be that their interest in life is short circuited by birth?Here is another look into the American heart: according to the Temporary Aid to Need Family program, caring for someone else's children is classified as work; caring for your own is not!As Albrecht says: "The United States lags behind all other industrialized nations in addressing family/work concerns through public policies." A White House report in December 2000 said that "states were able to provide childcare assistance to only 12 percent of all federally eligible low-income working families." Albrecht states the assumption of U.S. welfare "reform.": "There is widespread social agreement that economically poor mothers cannot, by definition, be good mothers unless they work away from their homes and their children." Poor parents can often not afford to work because of the cost of transportation, clothing, and childcare needs at home. In a United Nations survey of 152 countries, the U.S. was one of only six countries that does not have a national policy requiring paid maternity leave.Some 40 states are deeply in debt and are shortening the school week and cutting certain classes and programs. According to the New York Times (January 12, 2003) 60%of Americans oppose raising taxes to correct this. Meanwhile, the Bush administration is spending billions to ship soldiers to the middle east while the states back home starve and victimize kids.There are countries that do not hate their children. Albrecht: "Many European countries already provide universal healthcare, childcare, and requirements benefits, as well as generous (by U.S.. standards) paid parental and family leave, paid vacation time and unemployment policies." Swedes currently are entitled to eighteen months of paid leave with job protection that can be prorated over the first 8 years of a child's life. France provides universal childcare to all toilet- trained children, and single mothers receive government payments until their children are over the age of three. In Denmark all children up to 18 years of age have access to free dental care for both routine examinations and treatment. Europeans are guaranteed longer vacations times, four to six weeks, and this is protected by legislation.Americans bask in a surreal self-image, seeing themselves as a "kind and gentle" people. Most would be offended to read in Duane Elgin's book PROMISE AHEAD: "The United States is the stingiest developed nation in terms of the proportion of total wealth that it donates." We should not be surprised. If we can treat our kids the way we do, why would we be generous to strangers?Dr. Maguire teaches Moral Theology and Ethics at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He is founder and president of The Religious Consultation, the author of many books, and is a popular lecturer and frequent guest on radio and TV.
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Okay so I know that I said i would post on this thing soon, but let me tell you I have SO much on my plate right now that it is slowly becoming overwhelming...but instead of allowing that to stress me out right now, I am going to start getting excited about my spring break trip to Myrtle Beach, SC!!! Yeah! My friend Jenn, my sister and I are living bright and early in the morning and driving south to hopefully warmer (we are crossing our fingers) weather for the week. It will also be my 23rd birthday while we are there so we will be celebrating that as well. My plan is to post more details about our fun girls vacation when I get back, until then i wish you all a wonderfully productive and fun week of adventures!
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Yeah! my computer finally works again! The past 3/4 days my computer has been having some serious issues but thank the Lord its up and running again!
I will post another entry sometime soon... until then check out this U.N. report on the how the plight of women across the globe has actually worsened in the past 10 years.
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050303135509990016
I will post another entry sometime soon... until then check out this U.N. report on the how the plight of women across the globe has actually worsened in the past 10 years.
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050303135509990016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)