Stand Up and Speak Out

Stand Up and Speak Out Has MOVED!

2006-07-16T15:55:00.000-07:00

I apologize for the lack of posts recently. I have been working on moving Stand Up and Speak Out to my own website. The new website at www.standupandspeakoutblog.com.

This site change is mostly because I was unhappy with the Blogger platform. I originally chose to use Blogger because it seemed to the easiest, but I soon discovered that there were many things that I could not do in Blogger. For example, I was unable to change most of my Blogger profile. Other factors included Blogger’s server repeatedly going down, and the lack of tools that I wanted to use on my blog. For instance, I liked the idea of having categories, but Blogger doesn’t easily allow that. So, I began researching other blogging software, and stumbled across a free one called Wordpress. With Wordpress, the options are unlimited. It is Open Source, which means that people all over the world are working on it. I used Wordpress when I made the American Conservative Youth Union, and it worked fantastically.

For Blogger users who plan to expand their site, I would strongly recommend buying a domain name (websites are surprisingly cheap) and installing the Wordpress software. For those of you who are just starting a blog, or may not be interested in anything that isn’t free, you can get a hosted blog using Wordpress at Wordpress.com.

Anyways, please check out my new blog. I plan to keep my old blog as is for a few days, then I will close the comments and redirect anyone who enters to the corresponding page at my new blog.

Feedback is greatly appreciated!

Assisted Suicide Bill Defeated

2006-06-27T21:47:00.000-07:00

Today, a bill intended to legalize physician assisted suicide was defeated in the Senate Judiciary Committee. From what I can gather, the proponents of this bill fully expected it to be approved. This would probably have been the case, if not for the surprise negative vote of Democratic senator Joe Dunn.

For more information, you can read The Mercury News story, or read California High School Conservative's indepth account.

"Can I Live"

2006-06-11T22:10:00.000-07:00

I recently came across the song "Can I live" by Nick Cannon, who is a relatively well-known rapper, comedian, music producer, and actor.

His song, "Can I live", tells the story of how his mother was going to abort him, but changed her mind.

Click here to view the music video in a pop-up screen.

I have to admit, I actually started crying when I saw this, both times too. ;)

Here are some of the lyrics near the end of the song:

I am a child of the king
Ain't no need to go fear me
And I see the flowing tears so know that you hear me
When I move in your womb that's me being scary
Cause who knows what my future holds
Yo the truth be told you ain't told a soul
Yo you ain't even showing I'm just 2 months old
Through your clothes try to hide me deny me
Went up 3 sizes
Your pride got you lying saying ain't nothing but a migraine
It ain't surprising you not trying to be in Wic food lines
Your friends will look at you funny but look at you mommy
That's a life inside you look at your tummy
What is becoming ma I am Oprah bound
You can tell he's a star from the Ultrasound
Our Spirits Connected Doors Open Now
Nothing But Love And Respect Thanks For Holding Me Down She Let Me Live...

[Chorus]
I'll Always Be a part of you
Trust Your Soul Know it's always true
If I Could Talk I'd Say To You
CAN I LIVE
CAN I LIVE
I'll Always Be apart of you
Trust Your Soul Know it's always true
If I Could Talk I'd Say To You
CAN I LIVE
CAN I LIVE
[Repeat 2]

[Nick Talking]

It's uplifting foreal yall
I ain't passing no judgement
Ain't making no decisions
I am just telling ya'll my story
I love life
I love my mother for giving me life
We all need to appreciate life
A strong woman that had to make a sacrifice
Thanks for listening
Thanks for listening
Mama thanks for listening

You can click here for all the lyrics.

Generosity of "Red" states

2006-06-05T22:38:00.000-07:00

Since I have been interacting recently with bloggers of diverse political beliefs and ideologies, I thought this would be of interest.

"the Catalogue For Philanthropy recently released their 2004 Generosity Index with some rather stunning findings. What this directory of non-profit organizations does every year is compare the average adjusted gross income of each state to the average itemized charitable deduction, and derive a ranking based upon the differences in these statistics.

According to their calculations, for the eighth year in a row, Mississippi is the most generous state in our nation, followed by Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Alabama -- all red states that Mr. Bush won by an average margin of 25%. In fact, the top 25 most philanthropic states according to this study all voted for Mr. Bush. This means that all the states that Mr. Kerry won in November fall into the bottom half of charitable contributions as related to income in our nation. Moreover, the worst seven states in this study also all voted for Mr. Kerry, including number 49 (Massachusetts), which Mr. Kerry won by a comfortable 25% margin. "

Coincidence?

Operation Completion

2006-05-21T13:59:00.000-07:00

Last Friday, I attended an Operation Completion rally at the Sacramento capitol with my sister and dad. Operation Completion’s mission is “to provide constructive support for our troops and reinforce the mentality that we need to defend America and to support the War on Terror to Victory.” All of the rallies were planned by teens and youth.

At the rally, my family listened to songs performed by the Right Brothers, who have been promoted by Hugh Hewitt, and who play what they describe as “political, issue-based country music.” The speakers included a man who spoke about his service in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a Californian politician, among others. Also, fellow Western Alliance member Craig DeLuz acted as the MC.

But anyways, Operation Completion will hold a series of rallies all over the country, so please click here to see if there is one near you to support our armed forces and conservative youth.

Reflections on the Day of Silence

2006-05-19T19:44:00.000-07:00

(All right, I realize that this is very late. However, I’ve been working on school projects and finishing up the year, so if you could please just think of it as extra early for next year, I would appreciate it. : ) Also, if you have not yet heard about the Day of Silence in Sacramento high schools, please click here, or scroll down to read my first post on this subject.)

I believe that the reactions to the Day of Silence and following events were based on miscalculations and misunderstandings among all parties involved.

First, let me voice what I believe to be the miscalculations among the anti-gay students and community. They misjudged the reaction to their shirts. As Christians, they are called to love their enemies, but also explain sin when they see it, in order that it won’t happen again. If their intent is for others to change their opinion, and “sin no more”, it was not reached by having the word ‘gay’ with a circle and a line through it. Even though I don’t believe the students to be “gay-haters”, since as Christians they are against the sin, not the sinner, the shirts let people label this effort as such. Thus, every effort should have been made to differentiate between the sin and the sinner, so that people would be able to understand.

A better alternative would be through the Day of Truth. The Day of Truth is a day that presents an alternate, Christian viewpoint. In all fairness, I did see students at Mira Loma wearing Day of Truth shirts while protesting. However, because there can be nothing objectionable about these shirts, those who oppose the Day of Silence need to wear them in school, and attempt to clarify their opinions to those who presuppose and misinterpret them as intolerant.

Secondly, the San Juan School District has misunderstood student rights. These rights are already clearly spelled out under California Educational Code Section 48907. Why a school district would try to create a policy with differing regulations is a mystery to me. It is a direct set-up to a major lawsuit, either now or sometime in the future. It would benefit the school district and students to simply follow the rules that are already laid down. That way, there are no conflicting regulations, and the school district would be much less likely of losing in court.

Thirdly, the pro-gay section is very ignorant of Christianity, as evidenced by their handout (here). Anyone who thinks that the Bible might be possibly against inter-racial marriage or fun on a Saturday needs a refresher course. And, contrary to popular opinion, there is no such commandment as, “Thou shalt not judge”. Jesus’ comment (Judge not, that you may not be judged… Hypocrites, cast out first the beam out of thine eye, and then thou shall see clearly, that thou mayest pull out the straw from they brother's eye.) is clearly against hypocrites, not against thinking that actions are wrong or right (judging). In fact, the Bible frequently encourages speaking out against sin (or in liberal terms, being judgmental): “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them...” (Eph 5:11).

Fourthly, I think there is a major misunderstanding today in our society. People are simply unable to understand the difference between tolerance and acceptance. Tolerance means simply recognizing and respecting the beliefs and practices of others. Acceptance involves approval. We are not required to approve of everything, but we must tolerate other opinions in the public realm. Thus, one can tolerate gays, but can still say that homosexuality is wrong. Yet, in our society today, if someone disapproves, that person is automatically intolerant or hateful. Now, that is not to say that some people who disapprove are not hateful. However, in this incident, every single person that I interviewed was unable to list any times when they saw a instance of abuse against gays at school. They only spoke of a general disapproval, yet believed that it equaled “intolerance” or “hate”. Thus, strangely enough, because they wanted to exclude an disagreeing opinion that they mistakenly viewed as intolerant, they are actually being intolerant themselves (thus my t-shirt, mentioned in the previous Day of Silence post).

In my opinion, you learn more than math and science in high school, because it is the time period in which a child transitions into an adult. However, that learning cannot be taught- it comes only from experience. If we as a school community do not allow any disapproval or disagreement to be shown, we as students will be unable to deal with it when we do come across it later in life. I know, personally, that everyday that I spend in an environment where 99% of the people are outspokenly liberal, I learn much more about dealing with people than I normally would. Therefore, intellectual diversity is essential to a teenage learning environment.

So, in summary, the California Educational Code Section 48907 makes it very clear that a student has the right to express their opinion in their public high school. This provides an intellectual diversity that is essential to an environment where people learn to be adults.
However, these rights, like any, have certain conditions. In this case, no opinion may be stated that is “obscene, libelous, or slanderous... [or] incites students as to create a clear and present danger of the commission of unlawful acts on school premises or the violation of lawful school regulations, or the substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the school.” Schools need to stick by this to the best of their ability, which will save them from most lawsuits. On the other hand, students need to be aware of these restrictions and do as much as is possible to clarify their intent and message to those who are inclined to misinterpret them. Lastly, our country as a whole needs to recognize there is a difference between acceptance and tolerance. Tolerance is allowing differing beliefs, but acceptance involves agreement. We are required to be tolerant, but we are not required to accept or agree. And, when we are required to agree, that is intolerance towards us by definition.

"'Baby Killer' tells teacher's side in Loretto firing"

2006-05-05T17:01:00.000-07:00

Here's an item of interest:

Anita Creamer: 'Baby Killer' tells teacher's side in Loretto firing
By Anita Creamer -- Bee Columnist

Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, May 5, 2006
Story appeared in Scene section, Page J1

Marie Bain insists she's a private woman, the kind of person who keeps her opinions to herself. But she's also an entertainer.

Which is why, she says, she developed "Baby Killer," a one-woman show based on her experiences last fall being fired from teaching drama at Loretto High School because of her previous tenure as a Planned Parenthood volunteer.

Nothing like a shocking title to jump-start the controversy again. So much for a quiet, private life.

"I come from show business," says Bain. "You need to get people's attention. The title comes from ... what they scream at us at the clinics. Extremists say horrible things to everybody. People don't get that.

"The play is about one year in my life. It's about when and why and how I started volunteering, through my hiring and firing at Loretto. In the play, I sing and dance. It's entertainment. I'm not giving a speech."

On a cool morning, we're sitting in the Sacramento home that belonged to her late parents. The house is filled with Bain's quirky, frog-themed collectibles. Her cat sits at our feet.

Bain, 51, is a dancer and actress who's appeared in "Gilmore Girls" and several low-budget movies. For now, she's teaching cardio kickboxing at American River College. But she'd like to take "Baby Killer" on the road after its brief run (starting Saturday, continuing May 13 and 20) at Sacramento's downtown YWCA.

"This play is about the First Amendment," she says. "It's about how someone has the right to stand on a sidewalk screaming hate speech, but I'm not allowed to express my beliefs before I was even hired.

"I said nothing to anybody at Loretto - not to the kids, not to anybody - about my beliefs. Nobody knew my beliefs on anything because I kept my personal beliefs private. But I was fired, and it became a media event."

Hired Aug. 24, Bain was dismissed seven weeks later, after a student's mother - an anti-abortion activist who'd seen Bain escorting clients at a family-planning clinic months earlier - raised objections, first with Loretto administrators, then with the local diocese.

Bishop William K. Weigand ordered Bain fired, and Loretto's president complied. Subsequently, school administrators expelled the student from Loretto, and her family was banned from campus.

All in all, a mess. A public relations disaster for Loretto, certainly, but also a very public nightmare for a self-proclaimed private person.

Imagine, if you will, how weird it is for a private citizen to find herself the subject of strangers' vitriol, expressed in letters to the editor, on radio call-in shows and all over the Internet.

"I've never dealt with anything like this," Bain says. "The level of hate out there is surprising and shocking and disturbing."

After she sued Loretto, she received an undisclosed settlement.

But for a while, the debate continued. For some reason, it came as a surprise to a vast number of local parishioners that non-Catholics teach at Catholic schools - and that a well-regarded private Catholic high school such as Loretto prides itself on the tolerance and open-mindedness it instills in its students.

Strangest of all, decades after the passage of federal employment legislation, people also seemed surprised to learn that employers are barred by law from asking job candidates about their personal lives and religious and political beliefs.

On the other side, many people - including Bain herself - were surprised to learn that many Catholics are progressive rather than conservative.

"Since I was fired, I've run into a couple of my students' parents," she says. "They come up and say, 'We're so sorry.' "

It's the strictly conservative strain of Catholicism, of course, that's helped fuel the unfortunate rise of knee-jerk Catholic-bashing, which seems rampant in American society.

"Baby Killer," the title of Bain's play, seems to pander to the Catholic bashers among us.

"You can't not court controversy on this topic," she says.

Granted. Writing about anything related to abortion is like walking through a minefield: Danger lies in every direction.

In a sense, the extremists have already won the debate: They've polarized the nation. And they've largely shut the rest of us up, because we know quite well the toxicity that will spew in our direction if we don't agree word for word with their views.

And so the fringe rules, despite the fact that for decades polls have shown that Americans support reasonable access to abortion rights.

If nothing else, then, let's give Bain an A-plus for bravery.

"My story is bizarre," she says. "That's why this is entertainment. I have a play to put on, because I have a very weird life."

Mira Loma High School and the Day of Silence

2006-04-29T14:06:00.000-07:00

Some of you may have heard about the Day of Silence and the related events at Mira Loma High School here in Sacramento, CA. As a student there, I wanted to share the information I have gathered, and then, in a separate post, explain my opinion. In this post, I have tried to be as accurate and unbiased as possible, but if I have faltered in achieving either, please leave a comment.

The Day of Silence, according to the GLSEN (The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network), is “an annual opportunity for students to tell their truths about anti-LGBT [Lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender] bullying, violence and harassment.” This Wednesday, April 26, was the Day of Silence at my school, Mira Loma. As I entered school, I saw people wearing shirts like the ones above, or wearing rainbow colors.

Near the beginning of the day, students wearing the “Homosexuality is sin” shirts were told by the Mira Loma administration that they had the choice to either turn their shirts inside out, or accept a suspension for the rest of the day. According to one of my teachers, (see below), some members of the predominantly Eastern European Christian club had told Mira Loma’s administration about their future actions on the Day of Silence before it actually occurred. According to another of my teachers, the school administration had responded by warning the students about the possible consequences. Also, the school administration sent the teachers of Mira Loma an email with the following San Juan District regulation: “Clothing and other items worn or carried by students, including buttons and backpacks, may not: denigrate any group...”

Throughout the day, there was some discussion in my classes. One teacher called the “Homosexuality is sin” t-shirts “hateful”. A student in my English class stated that she felt like she wanted to throw tomatoes at those against the Day of Silence. However, nothing much happened (that I am aware of, at least) until the end of school.

After the bell rang, many students and faculty went to the front of the school, finding a line of protestors on the opposite side of the street whom I will call “anti-gay”; and a group on the school side, whom I will call “pro-gay”. (These labels may not be perfectly accurate, but they are as accurate as I can get without using a paragraph every time I try to reference each side.) (Note: Pictures were taken on Thursday, the day after the Day of Silence, where the same scenario was repeated.) The anti-gay group had posters such as, “One Nation Under God” and “School Bans Free Speech.” The pro-gay side had signs such as, “Gay is Okay” and “Thou shall not judge.” There was also an anti-gay van that had many signs on it, one being a picture of a male gay couple kissing with a circle and line through it, another saying “Stop the Insanity”, and more mentioning things like “Sodom and Gomorrah”. I overheard someone next to me in the pro-gay section who was looking at the signs on the van say, “Look! They forgot the ‘y’ in sodomy.” Now, on the actual Day of Silence (Wednesday), I simply observed both sides. But, on the next day (Thursday), with the same scenario continuing, outside and within school, I decided that I needed to start to interview and photograph.

The first girl I interviewed on Thursday (while still in class at this point) told me that she had participated in the Day of Silence because she had had friends that were targeted. When asked if she could share examples of incidences, she replied that she didn’t have any specific incidences, but just that there was a general hatred because gays were not accepted. She described the protesting as “hurtful” and said it was “targeting groups.” “They should be able to do it respectfully. Gays shouldn’t be treated any different than anyone else. They should be able to get married, and it’s their business what they do in bed.” When I asked if she would do anything differently if she were in the place of the school administration, she mentioned that she thought the school administration was handling things “really well”. Now, earlier, in this same class, our substitute teacher had given a student time to talk about the Stop the Hate day, which would occur on Friday. “If you disagree with what’s going on out there,” declared the student, gesturing towards the window, “then wear a t-shirt with Stop the Hate on it. You can even make it yourself.”

After school, I went out to the front of the school, just like the day before. There, I asked a nearby teacher if she thought it was all right for me to interview people for an article on my website. “On the opposite side of the street?” she asked. “Both sides,” I said. “Just be careful,” she answered. I tried to interview one of the actively protesting (for Day of Silence) students. The girl who volunteered to be interviewed explained that she was upset that those against the Day of Silence would bring in the Bible. She told me of a flyer that had been handed out, and I asked if I could have a copy. (Click here to view the flyer.)

I thought I should at least try to talk to one of the many police officers, but when I did, the officer (understandably) said that he needed to watch what was going on, but that I could call their media number. I also attempted to ask a school administrator if I could interview him, and he agreed. However, when I asked what his personal opinion was on this whole incident, he (in a rather frustrated manner, I thought) said that he was “just an administrator doing my job.” I thought it best to move on.

Thinking that I probably had enough viewpoints from that side of the street, I went to the other. There, I talked with one of the students who had been suspended for refusing to turn his t-shirt inside out. He told me that he had been suspended the day before after telling the principle “I have free speech and I will not remove the shirt.”, but today had stayed out of school to protest. He said that the police had taken away his megaphone, and that he and the others are just expressing their opinions. “The Bible says Adam and Eve,” he told me, “not Adam and Steve.” Another student at Mira Loma stated that there had been “fingers shown to us,” meaning that people had been flipping them off. “We harass, they say, but we are saying our opinion.” She said that they had had objects thrown at them, and that one girl had wrote an essay in a class at Mira Loma that mentioned God, but that the teacher had crossed out every mention. I knew they had attempted to pass out pamphlets, so I asked for one. (Click here to view the pamphlet.)

I went home, thought about what I had heard from both sides, and decided that I needed a t-shirt of my own, stating “Tolerance for all means everyone... even if you disagree.” When I wore it today (Friday) I think some people were unsure of what I meant, but I will explain that in my next post.

So, some people wore “Stop the Hate” shirts on Friday, as I earlier explained. This included some of the teachers. I then interviewed one of my teachers that had been wearing one of the shirts. She said that nothing like this (meaning the opposition) had happened before. Mira Loma had had the Day of Silence three or four times, she explained. “We were surprised.” When asked if she had perceived any discrimination against gays at Mira Loma, my teacher said that she had not noticed “any gay bashing”, but that there had been a gay student who had committed suicide a few years before. “I don’t know if that was from direct or indirect pressure,” she told me. Because she was wearing a “Stop the Hate” t-shirt, I asked (politely) what particularly she perceived to be hateful. She appeared slightly startled, but said that she was against any intolerance, “just like your shirt says.” Also, according to my teacher, the administration was “doing a fairly good job of it.” They had gotten police officers to keep the peace, and had tried to disperse the Day of Silence students on the school side of the sidewalk, she said. We then started talking about the email that the faculty had been sent about San Juan School District’s t-shirt policy, so I inquired as to how she felt the San Juan policy fit with the student expression section of the California Education Code (read here).

"48907. Students of the public schools shall have the right to exercise freedom of speech and of the press including, but not limited to, the use of bulletin boards, the distribution of printed materials or petitions, the wearing of buttons, badges, and other insignia, and the right of expression in official publications, whether or not such publications or other means of expression are supported financially by the school or by use of school facilities, except that expression shall be prohibited which is obscene, libelous, or slanderous. Also prohibited shall be material which so incites students as to create a clear and present danger of the commission of unlawful acts on school premises or the violation of lawful school regulations, or the substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the school."

She replied that the San Juan policy was more restrictive, but that someone “can’t incite problems at school.” The intent behind both is the same, she said.

You can view more pictures here.

As soon as possible, I plan to write a follow-up essay outlining the reasoning for my opinions.

(Linked at Basil's Blog, Cao's Blog, TMH’s Bacon Bits, Third World County, and Jo's Cafe.)

Tolerance and Choice? I think not.

2006-04-22T21:35:00.000-07:00

In two incidents, college pro-life displays were vandalized this month. The first occurred at Northern Kentucky University, when “British literature professor Sally Jacobsen and several of her students destroyed a display of hundreds of crosses pro-life students have put up in the grass outside the student center to talk about the 47 million unborn babies who have been killed via abortion.... Jacobson has admitted encouraging students in her class to engage in the vandalism but would not comment to the media about whether she was involved. However, a reporter from the student newspaper caught the professor on camera ripping up a sign set up next to the crosses... ‘I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom of speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to,’ Jacobsen said last week after the incident.” (Photo: Dr. Sally Jacobson tears down main "Cemetery of Innocents" sign displayed by the campus pro-life group)

This is ridiculous. Destroying displays is most definitely not inviting freedom of expression. That is suppressing expression, by using criminal actions!

But this was not the sole incident. Another occurred when pro-life students at Princeton set up a “flag display in front of Frist Campus Center to remember the 347 students that the group estimates are not attending Princeton this year because of abortion... The pink and blue flags the group used to represent the men and women who are not a part of this year's freshman class were destroyed and abortion advocates replaced them with coat hangers, a pro-abortion symbol used to claim women will die form illegal abortions if it is prohibited. The sign in front of the display explaining its significance had been trampled and abortion advocates taped computer printouts over it with the message ‘support smaller class sizes: support abortion’ and ‘347 rusty coat hangers were saved from mangling and mutilation.’”

It should be obvious that destroying displays is not showing tolerance. It should also be obvious that when opposing views are suppressed, there is little choice in what views are heard or can be expressed. So why would groups that supposedly promote tolerance and choice deny both to anyone who disagrees?

Don't Buy Dubai Lies

2006-04-02T22:38:00.000-07:00

Over the past two months, there has been a frenzy of media attention over the takeover of P&O (a London-based company) by Dubai Ports World (a United Arab Emirates company). This was suddenly ended when the company agreed to sell their American operations to an American shipping company.

Both Republican and Democratic politicians have been outspoken in opposition to allowing Dubai Ports World to operate the former P&O terminals. In a poll of 1000 American adults, only 17% agreed with the Dubai Port deal. These 17% are the smart ones.

But let’s compare the opposing arguments with the facts. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said, “I don’t think any foreign government company should be running our ports, managing, leasing, owning, operating.” However, Dubai Ports (DP) World is what is called a terminal operator. This means that DP World would only operate a few terminals in each port. In no way does any company “own” a port. The port operator is responsible for “the area within the port that serves as a loading, unloading, or transfer point for the cargo. This includes storage and repair facilities and management offices.” (U.S. Department of Homeland Security). Furthermore, foreign companies already run nearly all the port terminals on the West Coast and about half of those on the East Coast. For example, Los Angeles alone has port operators from China, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore and Denmark.

Senator Dianne Feinstein asked, “Do we want our national security assets to be sold to foreign powers?” Never mind that U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard are responsible for port security. Or that U.S. Customs and Border Protection screens 100% of all cargo before it arrives in the U.S. Or that “the workers handling security in U.S. ports are supplied by longshoremen's unions” (Washington Post, 2/22), meaning that the workers will remain the same no matter who the port operator is.

New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine began, “When Americans expressed concern about turning our ports over to the government of this country...” Governor Corzine should recognize that “Dubai Ports' top executives include two Indians, a Dutchman and several Americans, including a guy who went to the University of Maryland.” (Baltimore Sun, 2/26). These people are hardly terrorist-friendly Arab government executives.

“Why in the world should we let this rogue government control ports in the United States?”, asked Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., Again, no company is “controlling ports”. Yes, two of UAE's 1 million citizens became hijackers in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the terrorists did store money in UAE banks. However, it is also true that the hijackers were allowed to take piloting lessons in our own country. If we rule out every country that at one time unknowingly contained terrorists, we would rule out ourselves.

Another argument is that the UAE recognized the Taliban after they seized the Afghan capital Kabul in 1996. Yet, the UAE completely severed all ties with Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Now, UAE ports host more U.S. Navy ships than any port outside the United States. According to a government fact sheet, “[A] team of U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers is permanently stationed inside Dubai's ports, where they work closely with Dubai Customs to screen containers destined for the United States.” and “cooperation with Dubai officials has been outstanding and a model for other operations.” Also, “The UAE has provided significant monetary and materiel support to the Iraqi government, including a pledge of $215 million in economic and reconstruction assistance.”

So how can our politicians be so illogical, and how can so many people be wrong? The answer is that politicians are taking advantage of our own ignorance in an election year. I mean, somehow, our politicians failed to “protect” us from dangers of the Chinese, Japanese, Danish, British port operators. That they are only against Dubai Port World, now, is absolute proof that this is not a real issue. As I have shown above, having DP World as a port operator would not lessen security in any way. Instead, it would enhance it by strengthening our alliance with the UAE, who in turn are giving us needed resources and information. Our politicians are exploiting our concerns about security, while alienating one of our best allies just because they are Arab. If you don’t believe me, then look it up for yourself. But whatever you do, don’t buy the lies.

Growing Impatience and Unrealistic Expectations for Iraq

2006-03-26T23:19:00.000-08:00

It seems that one of the most currently debated points in politics is whether or not there is civil war in Iraq. To me, this seems to be a useless point. Yes, it is true that there is violence, but it is seemingly chaotic, without a full strategy. But whatever your opinion may be, hopefully everyone can agree that there is violence in Iraq that is best stopped as soon as possible. The question then remains- Will the violence decrease or increase, and what can we do to lower the amount of violence?

Firstly, the way I view the Iraqi people is this: They have just been freed from an oppressive government. It is unrealistic to expect a newly free society to be able to shift into a functional democracy smoothly and quickly. Let’s not forget our own origins. Although we declared our freedom in 1776, we did not have our constitution until 1787 (11 years later). We did not have our first President until 1789 (13 years later). And we also had our problems (Shay’s rebellion, etc.).

So, looking at what has been done in Iraq in such a short amount of time, and considering that we are facing violent groups with absolutely no apparent self-control, morality, or value of life, the progress is amazing. It is completely unwarranted to say that Iraq is hopeless, or that it can only get worse. After all, who are we to say so? Even when we thought our problems had been solved, we had a complete civil war that almost destroyed our country, and killed nearly 700,000 Americans.

But what can be done to discourage this violence? The problem will be solved when all can learn to bring ideas to the table, instead of the rooftops. They need a form of government that will allow all people an equal voice. Basically, they need to learn democracy.

South Dakota and Roe vs. Wade

2006-03-11T17:33:00.000-08:00

South Dakota recently passed a bill outlawing abortion, except when the life of the mother is at stake. Many people may not think that this is the right time for such a law, including some pro-lifers. (Case in point: Going With Your Brain Over Heart by Andy Nevis) However, I disagree. I will examine the possible outcomes and the advantages and disadvantages of such a law, in terms of overturning Roe vs. Wade, the number of abortions, and the average opinion of abortion.

The first outcome is that the issue will be taken to the Supreme Court. As Andy (see above) wrote, "At the present time, there are just not the votes on the court to overturn Roe vs. Wade. At best, it is probably 5 to 4 in affirmation." But if Roe vs. Wade is not overturned then, the issue may come to the Supreme Court again. All that is needed is 4 votes from the justices saying that the issue needs to be addressed.

The second outcome, and the most likely, is having a referendum. "A referendum would require 16,728 signatures. Those petitions would have to be filed within 90 days of the end of the Legislature, which is scheduled for a final veto day on March 20. If sufficient signatures were filed within the time allowed, the law wouldn’t take effect until after the November vote."

So what would these two outcomes mean? First, no matter what the outcome, having a such a law against abortion undermines the legality of the act. I've found that a common response when faced with the truths of abortion is to say, "Well, it's legal, isn't it?" When it is debatable as to whether abortion should be legal, people can no longer allow law to do their thinking for them. And, when people are forced think about abortion, many people become pro-life. When they know when the heart starts beating (21 days after conception), the percentage of abortions done for birth control purposes (about 95%), the number of abortions done in our country every day (4,000), the vast number of un-planned pregnancy resources, and the option of adoption (about 40 couples are still waiting to adopt per every baby put up for adoption), they have no choice but to change their position. When more people become pro-life, there are less abortions.

So as you can see, there really are many advantages to such a law. Therefore, we need to keep pushing the envelope, and keep abortion in the public view. Sooner or later, they will come to their senses.

Liberalism- Ignorance, Rumors, and Lies

2006-03-01T22:07:00.000-08:00

"It is my belief that liberalism, as understood today, is based on ignorance, rumors, and outright lies. But let me explain myself."

Read more at the American Conservative Youth Union. Dissenting opinions welcome.

The American Conservative Youth Union

2006-02-28T20:58:00.000-08:00

You may have noticed that I have not posted in awhile. Well, I have been designing and working with Andy Nevis on a new website called the American Conservative Youth Union, or ACYU.

The ACYU is a blog/website with content written entirely by conservative youth age 13-21. It is just getting started, but already we have over ten contributors waiting to post. So please, support your future conservative leaders, and give the ACYU a read.

If you are a conservative youth yourself, we would love to have you! Please click here to learn more about contributing.

Doctors Refuse to Assist Execution

2006-02-22T13:42:00.000-08:00

From the Times Online:

The execution of a Californian man was postponed at the last minute yesterday after two court-appointed doctors refused to help to administer the lethal injection, a move that reignited America’s death penalty debate.
Michael Morales, who has been on death row since 1983 for the rape and murder of a teenage girl, was scheduled to die at 12.01am. But the execution was suddenly put off after the two anaesthetists withdrew, claiming their involvement would violate their medical oath to preserve life.
The involvement of the doctors, which had been ordered by a judge, was the first such case in the US and stemmed directly from research in The Lancet, the British medical journal, last year. The article, published in April, has shaken up advocates on both sides of the death penalty issue in the US because it suggested that some prisoners executed by lethal injection suffered agonising deaths...

...But rather than stay the execution, the judge gave prison officials two options: bring in the doctors to ensure that Morales was properly anaesthetised, or forgo the paralysing and heart-stopping drugs and kill Morales with a huge dose of barbiturates. The state of California agreed to provide two unidentified anaesthetists.
Just hours before the execution time, everything appeared in order. Despite the fierce opposition to medical participation in executions by the American Society of Anaesthesiologists and the American Medical Association, on the ground that physicians take an oath to preserve life, the two doctors are understood to have volunteered to attend the lethal injection procedure.
Then, shortly before the execution was due to take place, the doctors withdrew. They appear to have become alarmed at the details of the judge’s order, in particular a requirement that they intervene in the event that Morales woke up or appeared to be in pain. “Any such intervention would clearly be medically unethical,” they said.
Morales was again due to be executed early today, this time by a fatal overdose of barbiturates. But the delays and confusion increased hopes among death penalty opponents that both public opinion, and that of the courts, was shifting against the death penalty.

Here's more from The Mercury News:

"the state said it could not find a licensed medical professional to give the lethal injection. Previously, prison employees have inserted the intravenous lines, and then the drugs were added by a machine."

Doctors are violating the Hippocratic oath when they assist in executions. As California Medical Association CEO Jack Lewin, M.D says, "Physicians should be treating people’s illnesses, not participating in their execution. Participation in an execution goes against longstanding principles of professional ethics and is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath: First, Do No Harm.” Therefore, I am glad that the medical community has decided to take a stand. I was surprised to find out that the California Medical Association (CMA) is also opposed to physician assisted suicide.

However, the CMA supports abortion, although this too is against the Hippocratic oath. I suppose getting 2 out of 3 right is better than most. But you would think that they would at least remain consistent.

Bryant Gumble Speaks Out

2006-02-18T09:59:00.000-08:00

In the show "Real Sports", Bryant Gumble ended the program with the following:

"Finally, tonight, the Winter Games. Count me among those who don’t care about them and won’t watch them. In fact, I figure that when Thomas Paine said that “these are the times that try men’s souls,” he must’ve been talking about the start of another Winter Olympics. Because they’re so trying, maybe over the next three weeks we should all try too. Like, try not to be incredulous when someone attempts to link these games to those of the ancient Greeks who never heard of skating or skiing. So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world’s greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the winter games look like a GOP convention. Try not to point out that something’s not really a sport if a pseudo-athlete waits in what’s called a kiss-and-cry area, while some panel of subjective judges decides who won. And try to blot out all logic when announcers and sportswriters pretend to care about the luge, the skeleton, the biathlon and all those other events they don’t understand and totally ignore for all but three weeks every four years. Face it — these Olympics are little more than a marketing plan to fill space and sell time during the dreary days of February. So if only to hasten the arrival of the day they’re done, when we can move on to March Madness — for God’s sake, let the games begin."

Let's see. So he doesn't care to watch the Winter Olympics because there are mostly white competitors?! He does not believe that these are the world's greatest athlete's, just becuase they are white? This comment would absolutely be viewed as racist if the speaker was white and conservative. If you change it to a comparable paragraph, you get this:

"Finally, tonight, the NBA. Count me among those who don't care about them and won't watch them... So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world's greatest athletes, despite a paucity of whites that makes the winter games look like a NAACP convention. "

Can you imagine anyone saying this? They would be out of a job, plain and simple. This shows that racist remarks are politically correct, but only as long as they come from an African American. However, all remarks such as this are racially divisive, and should not be codoned.

Bush's "Outreach"

2006-02-09T22:05:00.000-08:00

On Tuesday, February 7^th, we recognized the passing of Coretta Scott King. Now, I didn’t get to actually see the funeral, but I saw clips of it on the evening news. The theme seemed to be that Bush is attempting to “reach out to blacks.” The news report was very similar to this Washington Post article.

..."President Bush was where he should have been," said Bruce S. Gordon, the new president of the NAACP. "Coretta Scott King is a very important figure in black American history and American history. I thought it was appropriate for the president to be there to honor her."
Bush all but ignored many black civil rights and political leaders during his first four years in office. Instead, he focused on building inroads to African American leaders through the pastors of black evangelical churches and business leaders who were not identified with the traditional civil rights agenda.
Bush became the first president since Herbert Hoover to serve a full term without addressing the NAACP, which many acknowledge as the nation's leading civil rights organization. At the same time, Bush's relations with the Congressional Black Caucus were frosty, contributing to a growing gulf between the administration and black voters...

...While Bush was greeted respectfully at the funeral, the tension between him and some black leaders also was evident. The Rev. Joseph Lowery, former president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, drew a standing ovation when he criticized the war in Iraq, saying, "There were no weapons of mass destruction over there."
"For war, billions more, but no more for the poor," Lowery added as Bush sat behind him on the speaker's platform...

Ok, so let's see if I've got this right. The NAACP is angry because they have not been consulted with. Instead, Bush meets with black pastors and business leaders who are actually reasonable people. Now, these "civil rights leaders" that Bush "ignored" are using Coretta Scott King's own funeral to spread their propaganda. And Bush supposed to listen to these people?

Anyways, another issue (in the news, though not mentioned in the article) was the difference between Clinton and Bush in regards to their "outreach" to blacks. It seemed to be that Clinton had "made the connections" but that Bush was still "struggling". Yet, nowhere did I hear it mentioned that Bush has a more diverse set of top advisers than any president in history, even Clinton. Now why haven't we heard that as much before? The answer is quite simple: Bush doesn't go around doing things such as calling himself the "first black president." (BTW, I just found this little gem.) But, I believe the main difference is not the numbers or statistics, but the attitude. The reason that Bush isn't known for his relations with minorities is because he doesn't chose people based on their race. He chooses them based on how good they are at the job, unlike Clinton.

California High School Exit Exam

2006-02-08T20:49:00.000-08:00

In the past two days, I have been taking the California Exit Exam. On Tuesday, all sophomores (and the juniors and seniors who have not yet passed) took the English portion of the test. It was very, very easy. Most of it was reading a passage and answering questions on it, such as whether the passage is a biography, persuasive essay, or fiction. Earlier today, I took the math portion, which was also very easy. It dealt with fractions, percentages, exponents, and line graphs. Both of these tests were set up so that we took the test in the morning, then had our regular clases afterward.

However, I was wondering how anyone could possibly not pass it and why anyone would be against an exit exam. So I found this opinion article in The Mercury News. The article gives us this student's situation:

Liliana is a senior. She is an English learner. She has a 3.84 GPA and has made the honor roll every year. She passed the math portion of the exit exam on her first try, but she has not been able to pass the English part. Although she has made great strides in her language skills, she will not be given a high school diploma when her class graduates in June. Will California benefit from denying her a diploma, even though she ranks 12th in her class of 413 students?

Now, when I read this, I wonder what in the world the school is teaching (or even if this scenario is factual!). How could it even be possible that someone could be ranked 12th out of their whole class, but not know the difference, in English, between a fictional story and a persuasive essay? Also, how did Liliana fail all 7 opportunities given ? How did Liliana not improve with the "six months of instruction in reading, writing and comprehension in English during the first 24 months of enrollment in the California school system" that she must have completed? The real question here is not whether she will be denied a diploma, but how she managed to have passing grades in the first place.

The article goes on, saying,

"many of the students who are failing the test are being taught by teachers who are not certified to teach the subjects on the exit exam."

Firstly, I have been taught in the past by non-certified teachers. In actuality, the ones that I had are better than other certified teachers, in my opinion. Secondly, this test is so simple that a cashier at Walmart could probably help you.

What many people don't seem to understand is that these tests do actually help students. Simply passing students along is not a help at all. It will cause us to have students who are surprised that they are unprepared for the real world. However, the exit exam identifies those who are ready, and those who are not, as early as their sophomore year. This means that instead of finding out on their first day of work, students have two more years, and seven more tries to get up to par. Thus, if they are not willing to work for their diploma, these students shouldn't get one.

Politically Incorrect Science- "Virtue of Radiation"?

2006-02-02T22:47:00.000-08:00

My dad got "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science" for Christmas. I just read it, and I found it very interesting, so I thought I would start a series of posts on it. One particularly interesting section was on radiation, nuclear power, and hormesis. I will attempt to outline the argument.

Our nation's policies concerning radiation are based on linear theories. These state that either low doses of radiation are harmful or have no effect. However, there is another theory known as hormesis. Hormesis is "any stimulatory or beneficial effect, induced by low doses of an agent, that can not be predicted by the extrapolation of detrimental or lethal effects induced by high doses of the same agent. " This basically means that what is harmful in high doses may be beneficial in small doses.

This theory holds true for things such as alcohol, and caffeine, and is also the theory behind weight-building. According to the book, the biggest difference between these theories is that hormesis is experimentally observed, but the lower sections of the linear theories are simply continuations of the line, in which measurements have not been made, or have been ignored.

There have been studies that have shown that low doses of radiation may protect against cancer by activating cells' natural defense mechanisms. One study of tuberculosis patients who had multiple chest x-rays found that they had fewer cases of breast cancer than would have been expected. In 1997, the Washington Post said, "In Japan, site of the world's only nuclear attacks, radiation victims are outliving their peers... As expected, the people closest to ground zero have died in high numbers of cancers that began in a white hot flash of nuclear radiation. But as one moves further from the blast site, the death rate plunges until it actually dips below the baseline." Another study of 700,000 shipyard workers, including 108,00 who had been exposed to radiation when working with nuclear reactors in Navy vessels, found that the irradiated workers "had 24 percent lower death rates and 25 percent lower cancer mortality than the unexposed workers."

As an interesting side-note, Ralph Nader once said that a pound of plutonium could cause eight billion cancers. In response, Bernard L. Cohen, "an emeritus professor of physics at the University of Pittsburgh offered to eat as much plutonium as Nader would eat of caffeine. " However, no major TV networks were interested.

Using this questionable linear theory as the basis of our policies has had large consequences. It has derailed the switch to nuclear power, and has made us dependent on coal to produce energy, which is much more environmentally harmful.

Abortion and Women's Equality

2006-01-25T22:35:00.000-08:00

A couple of weeks ago, I entered a pro-life essay contest in the Diocese of Sacramento hosted by Catholics for Life. I was informed last week that I had won first place. Yesterday (Tuesday), I was recognized at the pro-life mass at the Cathedral and was asked to read my essay at the pro- life rally on the capitol steps. Here is the essay I submitted:

How Abortion Hurts Women’s Equality and Degrades Individual Women
By Katelyn Sills

Today, abortion has been championed as “a woman’s right” and described as a “liberty” by the United States Supreme Court. On January 22, 1973, in the Roe vs. Wade decision, the Supreme Court struck down individual state abortion laws and made abortion legal up until the time of birth in all fifty states. The Supreme Court says that “Roe is an integral part of a correct understanding of both the concept of liberty and the basic equality of men and women.” Yet, our country is slowly realizing that this may not be true. Abortion hurts women’s equality and degrades all women. In this essay, I will explain how women, as a result of on-demand abortion, are seen as inferior to men and how in actuality, it is the pro-abortion attitude that impairs women both born and unborn. This impairment does not only affect women who have abortions, but all women, those in the past, present and future.

First, let us examine women from our past. In the last hundred years, women have seen enormous progress in gaining equal rights with men, only to have abortion destroy many of those rights and liberties. Women suffragists led the campaign for women’s rights, and the vast majority of these women were very strongly anti-abortion. Susan B. Anthony, one of the most widely recognized feminists, said, “I deplore the horrible crime of child murder… No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed… but oh! Thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime.” Susan B. Anthony’s newspaper, The Revolution, stated that, “When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged.” Elizabeth Cady Stanton said that “When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we wish.” Mary Wollstonecraft condemned those who would “either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast it off when born.” Victoria Woodhull, the first female presidential candidate, said "The rights of children as individuals begin while yet they remain the foetus." and "Every woman knows that if she were free, she would never bear an unwished-for child, nor think of murdering one before its birth." Thus, early feminists in the past understood that abortion is a symptom of inequality and exploitation, and certainly not a solution for women. Continue>>>>

Walk for Life West Coast 2006

2006-01-22T17:18:00.000-08:00

This Saturday, my dad, my brother, and my sister attended the Walk for Life. According to several sources, there were about 15,000 people there. The San Francisco Chronicle chose to describe it this way: "Subdued Walk For Life meets boisterous pro-choice demonstrators." According to my family, it was more like "Regular pro-lifers meet wacko pro-aborts." But anyway, here are some of the pictures.

According to the Chronicle, this is a group of tourists watching the Walk. Notice the guy with the black handkerchief and drum. According to my family there was a group of these people all yelling obscenities.

A pro-abortion protester gets arrested.

I believe that this is the pro-abortion group described in the Chronicle article:

"One group wore sheets and gowns dipped in red paint to symbolize their image of back-alley abortions."

Interesting. Very interesting.

More love and tolerance from the pro-aborts.

Another interesting individual.

According to my family, there was an amazing amount of police officers keeping the peace.

(Picture is my own)

Up close and personal with some of the pro-lifers.

All in all, it was a good event, with very good turnout. It seems that a lot of the opposition had anti-Bush signs, which I thought was interesting. I mean, why would they have that there? Do they think that abortion is all Bush's fault too? But anyway, according to my family, they did not see even one "wacko" pro-lifer, but saw many questionable pro-aborts, including some of the above. Even the San Francisco Chronicle could hardly twist this one!

Graphic Abortion Pictures

2006-01-16T23:16:00.000-08:00

I have been to pro-life rallies. (I have also seen a pro-abortion rally, since they were counter-protesting on the same day.) I have seen the reactions range from giving a thumbs-up sign to flipping people off and yelling obscenities. (These last two are almost always from those usually labeled "tolerant.") However, I cannot understand some of the negative reactions to graphic pictures of abortion themselves, no matter what the views of the viewer are.

For those that believe the unborn to be just "tissue," there should be no problem. Undoubtedly, some of them must watch popular shows such as the ER, House, etc. Yet, seeing "tissue" never seems to disturb them there. Often, the "pro-choice" liberals that condemn the pictures are the very ones that were showing pictures of the vile Abu Ghraib abuses to anyone and everyone.

On the other side, those that are pro-life and believe that abortion is the killing of human beings cannot be outraged at the pictures either. Who gets outraged at the history books that have pictures of the Holocaust? No, people are usually outraged that the Holocaust even happened. If that same event were happening now, we would not scorn those who show the evidence, and then continue on our way to work. Instead, hopefully, we would be called to end such evil.

We know that people won't believe something until they see it themselves. Ad campaigns recognize this. Anti-smoking campaigns show pictures of cancerous lungs. Anti-drinking campaigns show scans of alcohol-affected brains that look like swiss cheese.

Even pro-abortion "feminist" author Naomi Wolf realizes that pictures force the truth to be faced. She says,

So, what will it be: Wanted fetuses are charming, complex REM-dreaming little beings whose profile on the sonogram looks just like Daddy, but unwanted ones are mere "uterine material"? How can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that the truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy. Besides, if these images are often the facts of the matter, and if we then claim that it is offensive for pro-choice women to be confronted by them, then we are making the judgment that women are too inherently weak to face a truth about which they have to make a grave decision. This view of women is unworthy of feminism. Free women must be strong women, too: and strong women, presumably do not seek to cloak their most important decisions in euphemism.

There is no good reason to be "outraged" at the pictures themselves. If you think abortion is a procedure that removes tissue, there's nothing worth arguing over. If you think abortion kills a human being, you should feel called to help, if you have any moral character at all. The pictures themselves are only an "outrage" to those who have been hoping to avoid the issue, only to be faced with it head-on.

Catholics for a Free Choice?

2006-01-13T12:47:00.000-08:00

I found this on the Catholics for a Free Choice website.

Liturgy for Seeking Wisdom

Background: This liturgy will help a woman decide to bring her pregnancy to term or to have an abortion.

Centering: Play soothing instrumental music quietly in the background.

Candle Lighting: Light candle, absorb its power, pray.

Prayer: Gracious and loving Holy Wisdom, fill ______ (name of woman) with wisdom that she may see clearly the choice that she needs to make. Bless her and comfort her with your Spirit.

Visualization: Guide the woman through this visualization.

See yourself walking on a path through the woods. You are walking into the future. At the end of this path see yourself in ten years if you decide to bring this pregnancy to term. (Pause for three minutes and listen to yourself.)

Now begin again. (Pause fifteen seconds.) See another path through the woods. Walk along this path. At the end of this path see yourself in ten years if you do not bring this pregnancy to term. (Pause for three minutes and experience what this is like.)

After you have visualized these two pathways, find a cozy room with a comfortable chair. Sit in this chair and think about what you have seen. (Pause for as long as you like.)

Reflection: Sit and watch the candle burn, write down your thoughts in a journal and/or share your insights.

Closing: Wisdom comes when we reflect on our life and make choices based on honesty and truth. Wisdom lives within us. Listen to her. Trust her. Talk to her whenever you need to. She is your friend.

Song: "i found god in myself" from Colored Girls

i found god in myself, i found god in myself

and I loved her fiercely, i loved her fiercely,

i found god in myself.

Blow out the candle when you are finished. Invite the woman to do something comforting, for example, drink a cup of tea or take a warm shower.

What they don't seem to realize is that there is no choice between having a baby and not having a baby. The baby is already there. (A heartbeat can be detected by five weeks after the last menstrual period, which is when a woman usually notices that she is pregnant.) So what is this choice?

If they are truly for an informed choice, then why do they not suggest that women see ultrasounds or look at baby development?

Roe vs. Wade Remembrance

2006-01-12T13:36:00.000-08:00

To remember Roe vs. Wade and the effect it has had (33 years of legalized abortion, resulting in over 43 million deaths, and an estimate that 43 percent of American women will have at least one abortion by the age of 45), there are several events those in the California or Sacramento region can attend:

St. Joseph Parish, Lincoln - Everyone is encouraged to pray and sacrifice during the week of January 16-22.
At St. Joseph Church, we will pray the pro-life Rosary before the 8:30 am weekday Masses on January 16, 17, 19 and 20, before the Saturday 5:00 pm Mass on January 21 and the 8:00 am Mass on January 22.
At St. Daniel Church, the pro-life Rosary will be prayed at 8:00 am on Friday, January 20.
The 8:30 am Mass on Monday, January 23, at St. Joseph Church, will be celebrated for the Day of Prayer and Penance for Life as requested by the United States Bishops.
"Show the Truth" Project- Join other Christian churches in the Roseville area for this life-saving ministry which involves standing at busy intersections showing the truth about abortion. See www.prolifeaction.org/truth/ and www.project33.org Events include:
January 17th, Tues. 3:30-5:00 pm, Kaiser Hospital, Douglas & Rocky Ridge.
January 18th, Wed. 7:00-8:30 am at Sunrise and Cirby Way.
January 19th, Thurs. 7:00-9:00 am at Roseville Planned Parenthood, 729 Sunrise Blvd.
3:30-5:00 pm at Douglas and Sunrise Blvd.
January 21st, Sat. 9:30-11:00 am at The Galleria Mall.
Abortion Memorial, Hope and Healing Services- January 20th, Friday, 7:00 pm, at Foothill Community Church, 200 Cirby Way, Roseville.
Project 33 Youth Assembly- January 21st, Saturday, 1:30-3:30 pm at Foothill Community Church, 200 Cirby Way, Roseville. See more information at www.project33.org
West Coast Walk for Life in San Francisco, January 21st, Saturday. For more information visit www.WalkforLifeWC.com

Auburn Life Chain - Sunday, January 22
California Pro-Life Council Breakfast- January 24th, Tuesday www.californiaprolife.org/breakfast
Pro-Life Mass at the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament- January 24th, Tuesday, at 10:30, followed by noon rally at the State CapitolÂs west steps.
"Abortion Hurts Us All" prayerful ministry to women at Roseville Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinic, 729 Sunrise Blvd. January 26th, Thursday, 8:30-10:00 am and Sacramento Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinic, 29th and B Streets, Friday, January 27th, 8:30-10:00 am. Everyone hurt by abortion, especially post-abortive women, are invited to participate.

For more information you can email me.

"The Plague of Success"

2006-01-05T10:05:00.000-08:00

Here's an interesting article in the National Review. I think it sums things up quite accurately. Here's an excerpt:

After September 11 national-security-minded Democratic politicians fell over each other, voting for all sorts of tough measures. They passed the Patriot Act, approved the war in Afghanistan, voted to authorize the removal of Saddam Hussein, and nodded when they were briefed about Guantanamo or wiretap intercepts of suspect phone calls to and from the Middle East.

After the anthrax scare, the arrests of dozens of terrorist cells, and a flurry of al Qaeda fatwas, most Americans thought another attack was imminent — and wanted their politicians to think the same. Today's sourpuss, Senator Harry Reid, once was smiling at a photo-op at the signing of the Patriot Act to record to his constituents that he was darn serious about terrorism. So we have forgotten that most of us after 9/11 would never have imagined that the United States would remain untouched for over four years after that awful cloud of ash settled over the crater at the World Trade Center.

Now the horror of 9/11 and the sight of the doomed diving into the street fade. Gone mostly are the flags on the cars, and the orange and red alerts. The Democrats and the Left, in their amnesia, and as beneficiaries of the very policies they suddenly abhor, now mention al Qaeda very little and Islamic fascism hardly at all.

Continue ->

CAHS Conservative Death Penalty Discussion

2006-01-05T09:44:00.000-08:00

Conservative Schooler at California High School Conservative is having a discussion on the death penalty. He says:

As California prepares to increase the rate of executions in 2006, I would like to have a discussion about the merits and morality of the death penalty.

I have until recently been a huge supporter of the death penalty. However, the Tookie Williams case and conversations with a close friend who opposes the death penalty have pushed me towards being undecided.

I can see both sides of the argument. It certainly seems like common sense that if you take someone’s life, you should lose yours. And I do think that the Death Penalty may have some value in deterring crime.

However, is it really moral to take a life simply for revenge? Does it really make potential murderers think twice before killing? And how do we prevent killing an innocent person?

Those are just some of the issues that I would like to see addressed.

Seriously, I am undecided on this one. Unlike in most cases, you actually may influence my opinion by your comments.

Well, I'm going!

3 Column Blog Design and Recent Comments

2006-01-02T14:14:00.000-08:00

Edit- The blog is temporarily back to its old design while I work out the bugs.

As you probably noticed, I've changed my blog design to three columns with the help of this template from Thur's Templates. Needless to say, it took a lot of modifications.

Another new feature is the recent comments section on the left side. For a long time, I've been looking for a way to do this with Haloscan comments, after seeing it on some of the other blogs. But, I discovered that if you take the RSS feed for haloscan:

"http://www.haloscan.com/members/rss.php?user=yourusernamehere" (replace "yourusernamehere"),

plug that into a RSS feed viewer (I used RSS to Javascript), and plug the code into your blog, you get a section like the one I have. (You could probably do the same thing with blog posts, only they are xml.) If you do use the directions here to make your own "Recent Comments", please make a link back to this post.

So, hopefully, the new design will be easier to use and more interactive. I've already noticed that the middle section loads last, which could be a problem. Please tell me what you think and make sure to tell me if anything goes wrong.

Evolution Discussion

2005-12-27T17:59:00.000-08:00

Because I am taking biology (I've already taken physics and chemistry) and the section I am doing now is all about Darwin's theory of evolution, I have decided to have a discussion of evolution on my blog, in light of the recent Intelligent Design controversies. From 2nd grade to 8th grade, I went to a Baptist-run but non-denominational school, so our science books were unsupportive of evolution. But, now I am being officially taught about it for the first time.

Anyway, here is how I understand evolution-

There is genetic diversity.
Animals with certain genes do better in a certain environment than others do.
Those animals that have the better suited genes survive (survival of the fittest.)
When one species has multiple environments, it begins change in multiple, separate directions.
Eventually, the different sections of the original species change so much that they can no longer interbreed, and are no longer a single species with each other.

While I believe that evolution is at least a possibility, I recognize that atheistic evolution is unreasonable. Something cannot come out of nothing unless someone puts it there.

Also, a fellow member of the Western Alliance (Bill Lama of palosverdesblog) has been posting on certain claims of evolution.

So, is there anyone willing to take it from here?

Hugh Hewitt adds Western Alliance to blogroll

2005-12-27T17:14:00.000-08:00

As reported by Conservative Schooler, the Western Alliance, of which I am a member, has been added to the list of blogger organizations on Hugh Hewitt's blogroll under "Center Right State Alliances".

Merry Christmas

2005-12-24T23:35:00.000-08:00

I just wanted to wish everyone a Merry Christmas. Also, I wanted to thank those who regularly read my blog, whether they agree with me or not. ;) Tomorrow, I might have some Christmas music (performed by me) up. But anyways, may we never forget the Reason for the Season, and may all of us have many more animated discussions!

Student Confesses Fabricating US Surveillance Story

2005-12-24T15:12:00.000-08:00

From the Boston Globe-

Student's tall tale revealed
Confesses fabricating US surveillance story
By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff | December 24, 2005

It rocketed across the Internet a week ago, a startling newspaper report that agents from the US Department of Homeland Security had visited a student at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth at his New Bedford home simply because he had tried to borrow Mao Tse-Tung's ''Little Red Book" for a history seminar on totalitarian goverments.

The story, first reported in last Saturday's New Bedford Standard-Times, was picked up by other news organizations, prompted diatribes on left-wing and right-wing blogs, and even turned up in an op-ed piece written by Senator Edward M. Kennedy in the Globe.

But yesterday, the student confessed that he had made it up after being confronted by the professor who had repeated the story to a Standard-Times reporter.

The professor, Brian Glyn Williams, said he went to his former student's house and asked about inconsistencies in his story. The 22-year-old student admitted it was a hoax, Williams said.

''I made it up," the professor recalled him saying. ''I'm sorry. . . . I'm so relieved that it's over."

The student was not identified in any reports. The Globe interviewed him Thursday but decided not to write a story about his assertion, because of doubts about its veracity. The student could not be reached yesterday.

Williams said the student gave no explanation. But Williams, who praised the student as hard-working and likeable, said he was shaken by the deception.

''I feel as if I was lied to, and I have no idea why," said Williams, an associate professor of Islamic history. He said the possibility the government was scrutinizing books borrowed by his students ''disturbed me tremendously."

The story stems from an incident in the fall in a history seminar on totalitarianism and fascism taught by a colleague of Williams, Robert Pontbriand. The student, who was in the seminar, told Pontbriand he had requested an unabridged copy of ''Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-Tung" through the UMass interlibrary loan system for a research paper.

Days later, he told Pontbriand, he was stunned to get a visit by Homeland Security agents who told him the book was on a ''watch list" and asked why he wanted it. Pontbriand was appalled. ''A university is a place for the open inquiry for the truth," he said.

The story quickly made its way around the history department, and it might have stayed on campus if The New York Times had not broken a story about President Bush's approval of a controversial domestic spying program.

After that story, a Standard-Times reporter called Williams, who has traveled to Afghanistan for research, to ask whether he was concerned about government surveillance, Williams said.

As an afterthought, Williams said, he told the reporter about the alleged visit by the Homeland Security agents, and that became the lead of the Dec. 17 Standard-Times story.

John Hoey, spokesman for UMass-Dartmouth, said the university did not expect to take any action against the student. ''This was a conversation that took place between a student and his faculty members," Hoey said.

Dan Rosenfeld, managing editor of the newspaper, declined to comment yesterday, saying that the paper considered it a ''competitive newspaper story."

The university issued a statement Monday defending academic freedom, but said it had had no visits from Homeland Security agents and no record of any student seeking the Mao book through an interlibrary loan.

The student later told the professors he had requested the book at UMass-Amherst. But officials there said UMass-Dartmouth students cannot use their ID cards at the Amherst library and that all interlibrary requests are made by the libraries, not students.

A Homeland Security spokeswoman in Washington said she had no record of any interview of a UMass-Dartmouth student and pointed out that the department does not have its own agents. An FBI spokeswoman in Boston also expressed doubt.

That didn't stop it from buzzing around the Internet and even being picked up by Kennedy, who cited it as the latest example of the Bush administration's intrusion on civil liberties.

''Incredibly, we are now in an era where reading a controversial book may be evidence of a link to terrorist," he wrote in an op-ed piece in Thursday's Globe.

Laura Capps, a Kennedy spokeswoman, said last night that the senator cited ''public reports" in his opinion piece. Even if the assertion was a hoax, she said, it did not detract from Kennedy's broader point that the Bush administration has gone too far in engaging in surveillance."

More on Bush's "Violation" of the "Right to Privacy"

2005-12-23T10:03:00.000-08:00

First, there is no right to privacy specifically stated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. If the right to privacy was to be protected by the government, or in this case, seemingly protected from the government, you would think that they would have stated it, as it would be important. Now, some of you have mentioned the 4th and 5th amendments. For my reference, I will paste them below.

Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

So, I am wondering which exact part some people think contains a right to privacy, and exactly how the unspoken right to privacy has been violated.

Secondly, there is the issue of the FISA of 1978. Now, I must admit that it seems to me as though by this, the President should have gotten warrants. However, in an executive order of 1979, by Jimmy Carter, it states-

"By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and 104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section 103 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1803) to obtain orders for electronic surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information.

1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or defense, is designated to make the certifications required by Section 104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct electronic surveillance:

(a) Secretary of State.

(b) Secretary of Defense.

(c) Director of Central Intelligence.

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(e) Deputy Secretary of State.

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense.

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

1-104. Section 2-202 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at the end of that section: ''Any electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order.''.

1-105. Section 2-203 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at the end of that section: ''Any monitoring which constitutes electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order.''.

Jimmy Carter."

I must also admit that I am puzzled by how both can be conducted at once, as they seem contradicting to my inexperienced eye. But, it would seem that Bush was most definitely acting in accordance with the law, if he has attained the certifications listed above. Now, has he?

It would seem so- "The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President."

Now, some of you are probably saying that it doesn't matter whether it was legal or not, and that you are concerned the government is making such a "sea change."

Well, not really. The National Review says that in "1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches " including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens" for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body."

Now, Clinton is probably not the best person to be an example of what to do, but I think we can agree that it is suspicious that when Clinton goes even further to have physical searches, it only makes page A-19, but Bush's electronic eavesdropping is on the front page.

So, in summary, it would seem that Bush has acted in accordance with the law, not in violation with the Constitution, in a manner less intrusive than Clinton had in 1994, yet the front page story is "Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S. After 9/11, Officials Say."

No, the MSM isn't biased at all...

Listen to this!

2005-12-20T16:20:00.000-08:00

A blogger friend of mine let me know that one of her music students had written a song. I was interested, so I listened the song, and was amazed at the talent displayed! It most definitely is professional quality.

The song is called "Erin's Song (Daughter Awake)".

Singer/Songwriter – Mirenda Goff
Piano – Mirenda Goff
Violin – Allison Hamm
Composer of Violin music – Kierstin Bible
Recorded at Omega Sound in Ft. Smith, Arkansas

To sample a part of this song for yourself, click here.

Click here to download the entire song.

For lyrics and more information, you can go to Lyric Mezzo.

"Spying?!!"

2005-12-18T18:32:00.000-08:00

President Bush gave a radio address yesterday confronting the accusations of "illegal spying". I thought I should share it in its entirety, since these allegations still continue.

THE PRESIDENT: "Good morning.

As President, I took an oath to defend the Constitution, and I have no greater responsibility than to protect our people, our freedom, and our way of life. On September the 11th, 2001, our freedom and way of life came under attack by brutal enemies who killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. We're fighting these enemies across the world. Yet in this first war of the 21st century, one of the most critical battlefronts is the home front. And since September the 11th, we've been on the offensive against the terrorists plotting within our borders.

One of the first actions we took to protect America after our nation was attacked was to ask Congress to pass the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act tore down the legal and bureaucratic wall that kept law enforcement and intelligence authorities from sharing vital information about terrorist threats. And the Patriot Act allowed federal investigators to pursue terrorists with tools they already used against other criminals. Congress passed this law with a large, bipartisan majority, including a vote of 98-1 in the United States Senate.

Since then, America's law enforcement personnel have used this critical law to prosecute terrorist operatives and supporters, and to break up terrorist cells in New York, Oregon, Virginia, California, Texas and Ohio. The Patriot Act has accomplished exactly what it was designed to do: it has protected American liberty and saved American lives.

Yet key provisions of this law are set to expire in two weeks. The terrorist threat to our country will not expire in two weeks. The terrorists want to attack America again, and inflict even greater damage than they did on September the 11th. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that law enforcement and intelligence officials have the tools they need to protect the American people.

The House of Representatives passed reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Yet a minority of senators filibustered to block the renewal of the Patriot Act when it came up for a vote yesterday. That decision is irresponsible, and it endangers the lives of our citizens. The senators who are filibustering must stop their delaying tactics, and the Senate must vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act. In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment.

To fight the war on terror, I am using authority vested in me by Congress, including the Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force, which passed overwhelmingly in the first week after September the 11th. I'm also using constitutional authority vested in me as Commander-in-Chief.

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.

As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation's inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here, until it was too late.

The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.

The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.

The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.

This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the President of the United States.

Thank you."

Also, Hugh Hewitt explains the legality of the surveillance-

"Overlooked in most of the commentary on the New York Times article is the simple, undeniable fact that the president has the power to conduct warantless surveillance of foreign powers conspiring to kill Americans or attack the government. The Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures has not been interpreted by the Supreme Court to restrict this inherent presidential power. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (an introduction from a critic of the Act is here) cannot be read as a limit on a constitutional authority even if the Act purported to so limit that authority." Read more here.

Iraq Elections

2005-12-16T22:56:00.000-08:00

So I might be a few days late, but I still want to comment on Iraq's election.

Before the United States invaded, Iraq was still under the dictatorship of Saddamn Hussein. Now, however, Iraqis are able to proudly vote and elect their own government. They have gone from oppression to democracy in only close to three years. In the history of developing nations, that is amazing.

To better experience this, you can visit CNN and click on the photo galleries, and also visit Iraq the Model.

Governor Denies Clemency

2005-12-12T13:50:00.000-08:00

Arnold Schwarzenegger has released this statement.

In it, Schwarzenegger concluded:

"Clemency decisions are always difficult, and this one is no exception. After reviewing and weighing the showing Williams has made in support of his clemency request, there is nothing that compels me to nullify the jury's decision of guilt and sentence and the many court decisions during the last 24 years upholding the jury's decision with a grant of clemency.

Therefore, based on the totality of circumstances in this case, Williams' request for clemency is denied."

Clemency throughout history has been granted for many reasons. The reasons have included disproportionate punishment, possible innocence of the defendant, rehabilitation, personal opposition to the death penalty, and a request from the Pope, interestingly enough.

If the grant for clemency is based simply on the "redemption" of the individual, I don't believe that Stanley Williams should be granted clemency. I don't believe that anyone could "earn" clemency. However, I do believe that Williams should have been granted clemency, not because of his good works, but because the death penalty is an unnecessary punishment. Williams' death will help nothing. However, from his life, much good can come.

Because Schwarzenegger has not granted clemency, even though he could do so because of personal opposition, it is apparent that he is for the death penalty. This is unfortunate, but not surprising, considering his views on abortion.

Also, I noticed a very interesting post on PrawfsBlawg on this same subject.

Chinese Police Fatally Shoot Protestors

2005-12-09T20:51:00.000-08:00

"BEIJING - Armed with guns and shields, hundreds of riot police sealed off a southern Chinese village after fatally shooting as many as 10 demonstrators and were searching for the protest organizers, villagers said Friday.

It was the deadliest known use of force by security forces against Chinese civilians since the killings around Tiananmen Square in 1989, and marked an escalation in the social protests that have convulsed the Chinese countryside.

During the demonstration Tuesday in Dongzhou, a village in southern Guangdong province, thousands of people gathered to protest the amount of money offered by the government as compensation for land to be used to construct a wind power plant.

Police fired into the crowd and killed a handful of people, mostly men, villagers reached by telephone said Friday. Accounts of the death toll ranged from two and 10, with many missing.

--

A 14-year-old girl said a local official visited the village on Friday and called the shootings "a misunderstanding."

"He said (he) hoped it wouldn't become a big issue," the girl said over the telephone. "This is not a misunderstanding. I am afraid. I haven't been to school in days."

She added, "Come save us.""

Read more.

Also, there have been reports of the villagers attacking the police "with gasoline bombs and explosive charges" from the San Francisco Chronicle.

In my opinion, there are many things that haven't been explained, which isn't surprising in a Communist country. However, no matter what happened, there should be no reason for so many riots (the Chinese government estimates at the number at 70,000 just for last year). If a government and country are truly working for the people, disagreements should never escalate to this level. The fact that it did get this far shows how well Communism works.

Truth Laid Bear News

2005-12-09T10:00:00.000-08:00

For Bloggers:

The Truth Laid Bear ecosystem has been updated. That would explain the recent changes in ranking on mine and other blogs...

No Shirt, No shoes, No crucifixes...

2005-12-07T22:20:00.000-08:00

Here's an item of interest from DrudgeReport:

"Sam Morris, 16, was told to remove her cross and chain on Thursday by deputy head teacher Howard Jones at Sinfin Community School in Derby.

When the year-11 student refused she was told not to return until today and without the item of jewellery.

The 1,070-student comprehensive has a strict policy which bans most jewellery being worn.

Items can be worn out of view or if they are part of religious beliefs, such as the Kara, a bracelet worn by Sikh males."

HT: Hermit's Skeet

California Catholic Conference on Death Penalty

2005-12-07T15:56:00.000-08:00

"SACRAMENTO—Most Reverend Stephen Blaire, Bishop of Stockton and President of the California Catholic Conference, released the following statement today expressing strong support for an end to the death penalty in California and affirming the recent statement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death.

'The California Catholic Conference of Bishops strongly supports an end to the death penalty and affirms the statement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death, which was issued earlier this month.
In light of the fact that California has scheduled three executions—one in December, one in January and one in February—we implore all Californians to ask themselves what good comes of state-sanctioned killing. We recognize the profound pain of those who have lost loved ones to violence and offer them our prayers and our consolation. However, nothing can undo what was done—even taking the life of the convicted killer. The infliction of the death penalty does not make for a more just society.

As Catholic bishops, we teach and preach the Gospel vision of a "culture of life." We believe that we are created in God's image, which compels us to teach a consistent ethic of life and obligates us to preach that the use of the death penalty does not protect human life nor promote human dignity.

We recognize that human beings can and do commit grievous crimes, but we reject the use of the death penalty—especially when we can protect society with an alternate penalty of life imprisonment. In addition, of particular concern to us is the fact that the application of the death penalty is deeply flawed—with those who are poor or from racial minorities most often its subjects. The three pending executions in California are illustrative of these facts.

At this moment in time, we entreat Californians to ponder carefully whether the use of the death penalty makes our society safer. A moratorium is needed to evaluate whether the death penalty serves the common good and safeguards the dignity of human life. We are convinced that it does not.'"

Susan Kennedy

2005-11-30T18:55:00.000-08:00

Arnold Schwarzenegger has named Susan Kennedy as his chief of staff. Ms. Kennedy was "a senior adviser to Gov. Gray Davis," is "an advocate of abortion rights and gay rights," and is a "former executive director of the California Democratic Party."

Here's a clip from her biography: "Kennedy previously served as Executive Director of the California Democratic Party and as Executive Director of the California Abortion Rights Action League. She managed two of the most successful Get-Out-The-Vote campaigns in recent California history, including the 1992 Coordinated Campaign for Clinton/Gore and the 1998 Coordinated Campaign that elected Governor Gray Davis."

As reported by Channel 10 News, Ms. Kennedy is also a married lesbian.

We just got rid of Gray Davis and his policies, Arnold. Have fun running for re-election.

"Aborted" Babies Born Alive

2005-11-29T17:37:00.000-08:00

According to this article, in England, "up to 50 babies a year are born alive after botched National Health Service abortions." Babies aborted "after more than 21 weeks and six days of gestation should have their hearts stopped by an injection of potassium chloride before being delivered."

However, sometimes that is not the case. According to Stuart Campbell, former professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at St George’s hospital, “They can be born breathing and crying at 19 weeks’ gestation. I am not anti-abortion, but as far as I am concerned this is sub-standard medicine.”

"'If a baby is born alive following a failed abortion and then dies (because of lack of care), you could potentially be charged with murder,' said Shantala Vadeyar, a consultant obstetrician at South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust, who led the study. "

And here is another story on this topic from earlier this year, in which a mother is suing because her now 3-year-old child survived abortion.

To me, the most disturbing thing is that we have now gotten to a point in our world in which a "botched procedure" results in a life saved.

My Two Cents on "Tookie"

2005-11-21T21:17:00.000-08:00

As you have heard, Stanley "Tookie" Williams, the co-founder of the infamous Crips street gang, is scheduled to be executed on Dec. 13. A grant of clemency by Arnold Schwarzenegger would be the only action to halt this. Williams was convicted of four murders in 1981. Since then, he has had a "transformation." He has written nine books against gang violence, and "has participated by phone in anti-violence mentoring programs."

However, in my opinion, the question is not, "Has he done enough to make up for the murders?" The answer to this, of course, is that he can't, ever.

I, as others have, believe that no good can come of his execution. Rather, much good can come of his continued outspokeness against gang violence.

However, I think that this argument goes beyond "Tookie." In this case, Stanley Williams represents the potential in every person on death row. If this possibility of redemption is present, then why end a life?

Therefore, I am against the death penalty. This is not because the "Church forces/tells me to." Frankly, that is not possible, because unlike abortion and euthanasia, "There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty," according to Pope Benedict VXI as Cardinal Ratzinger.

Some people may say that killing Stanley Williams is just punishment. But what, may I ask, is the purpose of punishment? When parents send their kids to their rooms, is it because they want to "give them justice," or because they want to stop and prevent the behavior from happening again?

Even if we look at it from a purely Christian perspective, if we prematurely kill an individual, we are responsible for taking away a chance for their redemption and reconciliation with God.

So, if the real purpose of punishment is to prevent future crime, then what better sentence than undisputed life in prison, especially for one who is working to prevent his very crime?

Western Alliance

2005-11-18T18:53:00.000-08:00

I have just offically been accepted into the Western Alliance. I've been reading their blogs for quite some time now, so I am very excited to get to post. Thanks!

Blogger Debates

2005-11-18T11:59:00.000-08:00

I just had the idea of having "Blogger debates." So far, I think it would work like this:

Two people with different opinions on an issue agree to debate during a certain time.
They each write a new post on the issue, no matter if they have written about it before.
At the end or beginning of the post, they link to their opponent.
(Optional) The readers can comment on which was their favorite, and maybe the one with the most "favorable" comments would be the winner?

I think that having these "debates" would not only be fun, but also would juxtapose the different opinions on an issue, so that people can see exactly what each side, through the bloggers, is saying. Too often, I think, conservatives and liberals are in their own "corners" of the internet.

If anyone is interested, they can email me by clicking on the link on the right side of the screen or you can just comment.

(linked to Stop the ACLU, TMH’s Bacon Bits, Cao's Blog, Jo's Cafe, and Basil's Blog.)

The Truth About My Immediate Dismissal

2005-11-15T20:00:00.000-08:00

We and our attorney, Eric Grant, have repeatedly tried to reconcile with Loretto's administration, beginning with our request for a retraction and apology on November 4th. After waiting ten days, Loretto finally responded with an unfortunate refusal along with a copy of their press release. My family continues to hope for reconciliation (see our press statement), but any reconciliation must necessarily address the falsehoods discussed below. Thus, we have decided to release all of the communications between my family and Loretto so that people can see the truth for themselves.

On Saturday, October 29th, I received an express mail envelope from Loretto administration, which ordered “immediate dismissal” of my family from Loretto High School. Please read it here.

First of all, the letter states that Loretto was "ready to move on with our educational mission" and that "the focus of the administration, faculty and students continues to be disrupted by the actions of your family." How does one "move on" while one's mom is restricted from campus permanently? It would seem that my family would be the ones not allowed to "move on."

As you can see in the letter, there were three pieces of "evidence" for my expulsion. I would like to discuss all of them below.

The first "piece of evidence" as reason for expulsion was that there was an "email from Wynette Sills threatening Sister Helen with the disruption of Open House." Here are the emails between my mom and Sister Helen about Ms. Bain teaching at Loretto and the events in between. Because Sister Helen has refused to meet with us or return our phone calls, these emails are our only communication with Sister Helen. These are all of the emails. Nothing in these emails has been edited, except taking off our home phone number (for obvious reasons), omitting personal identities when noted and the pictures included in the first email.
The October 4th email is where the "threat" supposedly happened. I invite you to read it again. If this email was so "threatening" that it was grounds for expulsion, then why was my family allowed to attend Open House after the "threat" was made? It just doesn't make sense.
The next bit of "evidence" is that my dad "trespassed into a private area and attempted to intimidate an Assistant Principal" at Loretto's Open House on October 16th. My dad talks about it here.
Obviously, it is my dad's word against the assistant principal's. However, Loretto's actions afterward further support my dad's statement. That day, there were police officers already on campus. If my dad truly was threatening and trespassed, it would have been common procedure to interview the alleged "intimidator." My dad was never interviewed. Also, my dad has volunteered on Thursday mornings before school for Loretto's TEAMS club (preparation for Stanford's Engineering, Math and Science contest) all of my freshman year and all of this past year up to two weeks after Open House. If my dad was intimidating, why was he allowed on campus with Loretto students? The only reasonable conclusion is that Loretto's administration knows that my dad did not threaten or intimidate anyone. Thus, this second reason for dismissal is also false.
The third piece of "evidence" was an email from my mom asking our family and friends for prayer. It is quoted fully in the letter, but you can also directly read the email of October 27th here.
Apparently, asking for prayer and capitalizing Catholic is "malicious," "slanders the reputation and integrity of Loretto High School" and is grounds for expulsion. If this sounds unbelievable, I suggest reading the dismissal letter again.

Also in the envelope were my grades from this year and last year. As you can see, I have been a straight-A student during my time at Loretto. I have never, in my life, been sent to the principal's office or have received a detention. (And here I am getting expelled.) Obviously, this expulsion is not about my grades or my behavior at school.

This "immediate dismissal" came completely unexpectedly and without warning. In fact, the very week before my expulsion, I was thrilled that I was chosen to be one of the defense attorneys on Loretto's Mock Trial team. I was hoping to try out for a solo in the choir. I was looking forward to Homecoming week with my friends. Yet, Loretto's administration sent me this notice on a Saturday morning and indicated that the contents of my locker would be shipped to my home. I was unable to say goodbye to my friends and teachers, or even ask for reconsideration. Furthermore, these same classmates and their parents received a letter from Loretto's administration which accused my family of the items that I discussed above. You can read the letter here.

Some people have speculated that I got expelled because of my blog, but Loretto's administration never asked me to restrict anything on my blog. This forum has allowed post-abortive women to share their stories, some for the very first time. These true experiences can change hearts and minds, and most importantly, can save a life.

My expulsion was the only remaining power that Loretto's administration had over my family. They chose to use that power, stating the three pieces of "evidence" above as "proof." This expulsion was greatly unreasonable, undeserved, and vindictive. Furthermore, the falsified "evidence" is defamation of my family's character. For the last ten days, we have given Loretto's administration an opportunity to retract their false statements and apologize, but they have refused. My family and I will not stand for this. I hope that you will not either.

Condoleezza Rice's Views on Abortion

2005-11-13T17:13:00.000-08:00

Because there have been many predictions about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice running for President in 2008, (although Dr. Rice herself has said it is unlikely) I thought that it would be good to see how she stands on the issues.

Although I am not just concerned with one issue, abortion is important to me, as it is a life-or-death issue. In the past, there has been little light shed on Dr. Rice's views on abortion. However, in a March interview with the Washington Times (see transcript), she spells it out more clearly.

"I believe if you go back to 2000, when I helped the president in the campaign, I said that I was, in effect, kind of Libertarian on this issue, and meaning by that that I have been concerned about a government role in this issue. I'm a strong proponent of parental choice, of parental notification. I'm a strong proponent of a ban on late-term abortion. These are all things that I think unite people and I think that that's where we should be. I've called myself at times mildly pro-choice.
I'm very comfortable with the president's view that we have to respect and need to have a culture that respects life. This should be an issue pretty infrequently because we ought to have a culture that says that, "Who wants to have an abortion? Who wants to see a daughter or a friend or, you know, a sibling go through something like that?" And so I believe the president has been in exactly the right place about this, which is, we have to respect the culture of life and we have to try and bring people to have respect for it and make this as rare a circumstance as possible. "

While I am not exactly ecstatic about this, I think it is a better position than most politicians have. Condoleezza Rice rightly notes that having a culture of life should not be an issue, and that abortion is not a thing that women should at any time desire to have. However, I think that Dr. Rice misses what abortion truly is. If abortion was just a poor choice for women, then I would totally agree. But besides harming women, abortion ends a human life. This is something that any reasonable person should be able to recognize through simple logic. The unborn have 46 chromosomes, a trait distinctly unique to humans, so the unborn are human. The unborn are growing and developing, so they are alive. The unborn are also unique individuals whose eye and hair color is already determined and who may even have a different blood type than the mother. In conclusion, the unborn are alive, unique humans and therefore are human beings, just as anyone of us are, and worthy of our protection. (For more, you can read my post Protect Life.)

"Fired Loretto teacher files complaints"

2005-11-04T11:45:00.000-08:00

This was in the Sacramento Bee today:

Fired Loretto teacher files complaints
She says her ouster was discrimination, violating her free-speech rights.

By Todd Milbourn -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 am PST
Friday, November 4, 2005
Story appeared in Metro section, Page B1

A former Loretto High School drama teacher alleged Thursday that her firing last month for having volunteered at a Planned Parenthood clinic was a case of sexual and religious discrimination and violated her free-speech rights.

Marie Bain, 50, of Sacramento, filed two separate employment complaints Thursday with the state against Loretto, the religious order that sponsors the school, the Catholic Diocese of Sacramento and Bishop William K. Weigand.
One complaint - with the state Department of Labor - calls for an investigation of the employment practices of the diocese. The other - with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing - is a first step toward a lawsuit.

"Loretto rightly prides itself as an academic institution committed to vigorous debate of ideas and beliefs," said Bain's attorney, John M. Poswall of Sacramento. "Unfortunately, the action of the bishop, cowering to noisy fundamentalists, threatens to turn Loretto into a Taliban-style institution of thought control and repression."

James Sweeney, an attorney for the diocese, who had not yet seen the complaints, said he's confident the diocese handled the case appropriately.

"It's purely an internal matter of church discipline and is protected by the First Amendment," he said.

Weigand called for Bain's firing in early October in response to demands from an anti-abortion activist and mother of a Loretto student.

Weigand argued that Bain's previous volunteer work presented an irreconcilable conflict with church teachings and set a poor example for students at the all-girls school.

Poswall stated in the complaint that Bain's firing constituted sexual discrimination because it targeted "her beliefs and actions related to women's reproductive rights" and sought to make "an example of her as a woman, to other young women."

School officials knew Bain was not a Catholic and had her "own personal beliefs" when they hired her in August, Poswall stated.

Punishing her for having supported opposing values in the past is tantamount to religious discrimination, Poswall said.

Regarding the free speech claim, Poswall argued that Bain's volunteering was akin to a "political activity," which is a protected class of speech and a "fundamental right of all California employees."

Press Release

2005-11-01T22:14:00.000-08:00

The Sacramento Bee is doing an article on my expulsion. They asked for a statement. This is what I gave them:

Saturday morning, October 29th, via overnight mail, we were informed by the administration of Loretto High School of the "immediate dismissal" of our family from the school. Coming in the middle of fall term, this dismissal is most unfair and undeserved.

What is worse, however, is the administration's outrageous charges that our family has engaged in "threats," "abuse," and other "malicious" behavior toward members of the Loretto community. These charges are categorically false and defamatory. In actual fact, our family has at all times acted respectfully in attempting to resolve a difficult situation for the good of all members of the Loretto community, continuously seeking reconciliation. This is an institution that we desired our daughters to attend since they were very young. Katelyn enthusiastically dedicated her extra-curricular time towards numerous school activities, including the Recruitment team, which visits elementary schools in the area to encourage 8th graders to join the Loretto community. Anyone who knows our family will recognize these allegations as blatantly false. It is very unfortunate that the administration has chosen to respond with falsehoods and vindictive spite.

Also, you may have noticed that my blog is experiencing technical difficulties. This is due to an unusually high viewing rate. I hope to post soon, but I am waiting for this technical issue to be resolved, among other things.

Expulsion from Loretto

2005-10-31T18:37:00.000-08:00

As of Saturday, October 29th, I was given official notice by express mail that I am expelled from Loretto High School. This was given completely without forewarning, without a meeting, and without a chance to say goodbye. My family is now seeking legal advice, and more details will follow.

Loretto Update

2005-10-26T20:19:00.000-07:00

First, I would like to thank those who commented on my blog, especially the women who courageously spoke about their abortion experiences. There is no better or truer voice for the pro-life movement than those who have had abortions. Thank you for sharing your stories.

After the initial uproar and confusion over Ms. Bain's dismisal, things are now pretty much the same as always at Loretto, from my point of view. My friends are still my friends and, for the most part, people treat me as they did before.

One thing that I had not mentioned was that Loretto's administration has banned my mother from campus since October 16th. Obviously, we hope this can be resolved soon, especially since there are school events (such as the school play) that our family would like to attend.

Loretto Teacher Fired: Part 2

2005-10-22T06:18:00.000-07:00

In case some of you have not figured it out yet, Wynette Sills is my mother. I was unable to reveal this earlier because at the time of my last post, my family felt that it might make my time at Loretto awkward. After all, our family appreciates the school and hopes that my younger sister will also be able to go there. Now that the Bee has revealed our identity publicly, I would like to share the article and my thoughts as a sophomore at the school.

Anti-abortion mother got teacher ousted

By Todd Milbourn -- Bee Staff Writer Published 2:15 am PDT Saturday, October 22, 2005
Story appeared on Page A1 of The Bee

The mother of a Loretto High School student obtained photographs that exposed a drama teacher as a former Planned Parenthood volunteer, a revelation that led to the teacher's firing last week. It wasn't the first time Wynette Sills raised her anti-abortion views on the all-female, private Catholic campus.

Sills, who leads anti-abortion rallies outside Sacramento-area Planned Parenthood offices three times a week, complained to school administrators last year about a classroom presentation on domestic violence, said Gail Erlandson, a theology teacher for 11 years at Loretto.

Sills objected to brochures listing agencies that offer help for women because they included Planned Parenthood, which supports abortion rights. The brochure was later revised.
Bishop William K. Weigand's call to fire drama teacher Marie Bain in response to Sills' latest protest has raised concerns in some circles that anti-abortion activists at Loretto have too much pull with the Sacramento Diocese's top cleric.

"There are a handful of extremists in the affluent Catholic community that can make keeping the integrity of academic freedom very difficult," said Erlandson, who retired last year in part over the brochure flap. "There is a lot of fear among teachers: How far is this going to go?"
Sills did not return repeated messages left on her telephone or at her home.
Sills provided photos of Bain escorting women into the clinic in a Sept. 19 e-mail with a letter stating: "If the identification is verified, clearly this individual cannot be a part of the Loretto staff."

Bain "will have extensive unsupervised access to our young women at Loretto, and I must speak up or they are put at risk due to her abortion-promoting presence," Sills wrote. "My conscience will not let me ignore this information."

Loretto, a college preparatory school on El Camino Avenue, is one of three Catholic high schools in the Sacramento area that operate independently of the diocese. But the school still falls under the bishop's purview on issues of morality.

Weigand, who declined to comment for this story, exercised that authority in an Oct. 5 letter to Loretto's president, Sister Helen Timothy.

Weigand's spokesman, the Rev. Charles McDermott, said the diocese "treads carefully not to intrude on internal affairs."

But the message in Weigand's letter is clear: "I am directing you, under the provisions of Code of Canon Law ... to dismiss Ms. Bain with all deliberate speed." The letter also states that the termination should be handled with "dignity, sensitivity and appropriate decorum."
Dom Puglisi, superintendent of Catholic schools for the Diocese of Sacramento, said parents have a right to expect their students will be taught in accordance with Catholic principles. And allowing teachers to publicly display contrary beliefs sends the wrong message, he said.
"It sounds like we play hardball, but they know up front, whether they are Catholic or non-Catholic, that these are Catholic schools and we go by the teachings of the church and Rome," said Puglisi.

Loretto has long employed Catholic and non-Catholic faculty alike. Bain, who was hired in August, is not Catholic. That fact could play a role in a potential discrimination lawsuit, wrote Bain's attorney, John M. Poswall, in a statement.

"Loretto knew that she was not a Catholic and did not insist that she either hold or follow Catholic doctrine when they hired her," wrote Poswall.

Vocal parents demanding action from administrators are not unique to Loretto, said the Rev. Martin Connell, an education professor at Loyola Marymount University, a Jesuit college in Los Angeles.

Increasingly, he said, "teaching and schooling is treated as a service industry - we tell people how we want our lawn cut, how we want our hair cut and how we want our children educated."

While it's positive to have parents more involved in their child's education, sometimes parents step on the toes of teachers and administrators, he said.

One of the Sacramento Diocese's seven Catholic high schools, Loretto offers a rigorous academic program with an emphasis on social justice.

Traditionally, the school's mission has been to instill Catholic values while pushing students to become independent thinkers. School officials have said they take pride in presenting all sides of an issue.

"The idea is to come to the right decisions based on faith," said Rebecca Williams, a University of California, San Diego, freshman who graduated from Loretto in the spring. "That doesn't mean you always have to agree with the church, but you have to always consider both sides."

Williams said she understands the bishop has certain moral obligations, but is disappointed he would "align himself with someone who takes pictures of people walking into a clinic."

"What does that say about our church as a compassionate organization?" Williams asked.

At least three mornings a week, demonstrators gather in front of Sacramento-area Planned Parenthood clinics, many hoisting anti-abortion signs and shouting anti-abortion messages to clients and workers, said Katharyn McLearan, spokeswoman for the local chapter.

As a volunteer, it was Bain's job to be a "friendly face" and help steer clients through the protesters, McLearan said.

Sills first saw Bain during one of those morning rallies, according to the e-mail Sills wrote to administrators. Sills decided to alert the school after seeing Bain at a Loretto function in September.

Many at the school have kept quiet about Bain's firing - at least publicly. Calls to six Loretto teachers and the school principal were not returned. Timothy, who initially voiced support for Bain, has since referred all questions to Weigand's office.

But debate is lively in cyberspace. Web sites ranging from "Bush vs. Choice" to "California High School Conservative" have weighed in.

Loretto sophomore Katelyn Sills, Wynette Sills' daughter, started a political blog in March and has written in support of the bishop's decision to fire Bain.

A person "who volunteers at abortion clinics on days when the killing occurs is probably not the best candidate for a position at an all-girls Catholic high school," wrote Katelyn Sills, who did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment.

An classmate who wished to remain anonymous retorted on Sill's blog: "Many people at our school are pro-choice but do not think that abortion is the right answer. Should we with our beliefs be expelled from the school?"

On a recent afternoon, Loretto students gabbed and listened to iPods in front of the school as they waited for rides home.

Kathryn Wahlberg, taking a break from after-school play practice, said she was in Bain's drama classes. She drafted a four-page letter that she plans to send to the bishop. Wahlberg said Bain was a "disciplined but fun" teacher who was "really good for students who are serious about acting."

Regarding her termination, Wahlberg said, "It makes people think we don't tolerate people of opposite opinions. I don't think we're like that."

Let me tell you the whole story. My family was not originally as pro-life as we are now. Actually, it all started at Loretto. In my freshman year in our Sexuality and Spirituality class, we had to research abortion, develop an opinion, and give a presentation to the class. That night I went home and was reading some websites. It was then that I realized that there really was no argument. You can see what I have to say on it here. I realized that if abortion is the ending of a human life, I would need to do whatever I could to protect that life. When I shared all of this with my family, they agreed. We had always made small donations to the Life Center, but after this touched our hearts, we knew we had to do more. Since then, we have gone to abortion clinics, passed out literature on fetal development and the facts of abortion, and have offered to help women in any way we can.

I have gone to the Planned Parenthood mentioned in this article and have seen this individual as an escort there. I know that many people do not know what exactly an escort does, but a blogger named"Naaman the Ex-leper" was formerly an abortion clinic escort and explains it here. When I started school and saw Ms. Bain, I just thought that they looked very similar. I mentioned this to my mom and she could not believe it. Others who go to abortion clinics with us document their time there with pictures, not of the "clients" but of the long term employees and escort activity in general just so any falsehood that the abortion clinic decides to tell can be easily disproved.

The article mentions the "brochures" that were handed out last year in our Sexuality and Spiritualty class. These "brochures" were actually business cards that were labeled "Just in Case" and listed emergency numbers and "helpful" websites. One of these websites was teenwire.com, which is Planned Parenthood's teen outreach. If you visit this website, I'm sure you can understand why my family would be opposed to such a website being distributed at this Catholic high school.

Interestingly, the Sacramento Bee chose to interview Kathryn Wahlberg. Kathryn and I are both sophomores and we consider each other friends. We know what each other's views are, but we don't let that interfere with our friendship.

At a Catholic school, people can reasonably expect that the staff will support Catholic teaching. This does not mean that the teachers have to be Catholic. I have had many teachers that I admire and are not Catholic. However, Ms. Bain did not just disagree with the Church. Her moral identity is in direct conflict. John Paul II states that abortion "is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being," and that "it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church." This was not some small issue. When a teacher at a Catholic school has actively demonstrated that her beliefs are contrary to the Church on an issue that the Church believes is "deliberate killing", something is very wrong.

Abortion Controversy at Loretto Catholic High School

2005-10-15T08:39:00.000-07:00

I am a sophomore at Loretto High School, which is an all-girls CATHOLIC school, and I would like to offer my opinion on this article as it appeared on page A1 of the Sacramento Bee:

Teacher fired for work at clinic

By Todd Milbourn and Cameron Jahn -- Bee Staff Writers
Published 2:15 am PDT Saturday, October 15, 2005

A drama teacher at a Catholic high school in Sacramento was fired Thursday after church officials learned she had previously volunteered at an abortion clinic, school officials said Friday.

Marie Bain, 50, of Sacramento, who had taught at Loretto High School since August, was dismissed after a student's parent obtained pictures showing Bain escorting people into a Planned Parenthood clinic last spring.

The pictures were delivered to Bishop William K. Weigand, head of the Catholic Diocese of Sacramento, who outlined the decision to terminate Bain in an Oct. 5 letter to the president of the all-female school.

"Obviously, the very public nature of Ms. Bain's previous volunteer activity at a Planned Parenthood Clinic is inconsistent with her position as a teacher at a Catholic high school and her role as a collaborator in the formation of Catholic women," Weigand wrote. "Abortion is gravely immoral and Ms. Bain's active and public participation in the procurement of abortions is morally inappropriate and unacceptable with regard to her work as a teacher at Loretto."

Reached at home Friday night, Bain acknowledged that she had been fired and that she had volunteered at Planned Parenthood before taking the Loretto job.

"There are many things I would love to say, but I don't want to jeopardize anything. I am pursuing many avenues," she said.

Bain's termination, announced Friday afternoon, was met with tears from students at the college preparatory school on El Camino Avenue. She was described as a passionate teacher with a dramatic personality who pushed her students to memorize their lines with precision.

Bain had been preparing her students for a four-day run at the end of the month of "The Young and Fair," N. Richard Nash's 1948 play about balancing one's idealism and personal ethics.

"She is exceptional," said Sister Helen Timothy, the school's president. "Students thought very highly of her."

"We lost a great teacher," said Cynthia Mitterholzer, the dance instructor who will take over for Bain.

Mitterholzer said teachers working at a Catholic school understand they must follow certain rules.

However, "I think that your personal life is your personal life, and she complied with everything asked from the school in her contract."

Weigand, who is out of town, was unavailable for comment.

The Rev. Charles McDermott, vicar episcopal for theological affairs for the diocese, said employing teachers who have volunteered at abortion clinics sets a poor example for students.

"To support abortion is contrary to the position the church has held for nearly 2,000 years," he said.

"If you participate in that way, you are not qualified to teach in a Catholic school because teachers are inevitably role models."

School officials at Loretto conduct extensive background searches before hiring teachers. The searches typically focus on employment and criminal history and do not often delve into volunteer work, Timothy said.

Timothy said that Bain's views on abortion did not surface during interviews and that she was unsure if they would have disqualified the teacher.

"We hire teachers for their talent and experience and she signed a contract with certain terms and conditions" to uphold Catholic values, Timothy said. "And during her employment at Loretto she was compliant."

In July, a letter to The Bee signed Marie Bain of Sacramento voiced opposition to laws requiring teens to notify parents if they have an abortion.

"Like it or not, teens get pregnant," the letter stated. "And the most important issue is keeping them safe. Safe means access to reliable health care, not gut-wrenching red tape."

Before being hired at Loretto, Bain taught in the Los Rios Community College District.
She volunteered weekly for about nine months for Planned Parenthood, greeting patients and ushering them past anti-abortion protesters who frequently demonstrate outside clinics, said Katharyn McLearan, director of public affairs for the local Planned Parenthood Mar Monte.

"We have protesters who hold very graphic signs and are very intimidating, and they sometimes come up to patients' cars," said McLearan. "She was there to be a friendly face and address their concerns.

"It is concerning to us that people are targeting their employment just for being involved," said McLearan, who said Bain contacted Planned Parenthood on Friday to inform the agency of her termination.

Weigand, in his letter, said the case serves to emphasize the importance of checking employee backgrounds to ensure that "those entrusted with forming responsible Catholic women at Loretto High School share our important Catholic moral beliefs and can serve in all respects as worthy role models for our young women."

"She is exceptional. Students thought very highly of her. "
Sister Helen Timothy
president of Loretto High School

While I am thankful for Bishop Weigand's actions, I am confused about my own school's position. All of the students, including myself, received a letter from our school administration about this matter during the last few minutes of school on Friday. There was a mixed reaction from my classmates. Some thought that dismissing this teacher was completely understandable, but others thought that the whole affair was "stupid." Still others could not figure out what Planned Parenthood had to do with abortion. I am writing to clarify some of these misunderstandings and to share my own opinion.

Planned Parenthood is the number one abortion provider in our country, greatly contributing to the 4,000 abortion deaths that occur each day. I have been at Planned Parenthood to pray and I know how the escorts act. If someone considering abortion genuinely wants to talk to a pro-lifer, the escorts turn on loud music and stand right between the "client" and the pro-lifer. Obviously, these volunteer escorts don't truly care about "choice." If they did, they would not be so opposed to people and churches offering jobs, homes, medical care, adoption services, and anything else that a pregnant woman might need. They are definitely not there to be a "friendly face and address their [the women's] concerns", but only aggressively encourage women to have abortions.

The article talks about Ms. Bain's letter in opposition to Prop 73, where she states, "Like it or not, teens get pregnant, and the most important issue is keeping them safe. Safe means access to reliable health care, not gut-wrenching red tape." A person that thinks that parents should not be notified about their minor daughter having an abortion and who volunteers at abortion clinics on days when the killing occurs is probably not the best candidate for a position at an all-girls Catholic high school.

In our student handbooks, it states in capital letters that, "ANY STUDENT WHO PUBLICIZES OR ADVOCATES AN ABORTION EITHER PLANNED OR ALREADY OBTAINED WILL BE DISMISSED FROM LORETTO." From this, one can assume that a student that advocates abortion will be dismissed, but the administration is "unsure if they [her views on abortion] would have disqualified the teacher."

As a student at Loretto, I did not notice students thinking "very highly" of this teacher. I myself did not see anyone crying over her dismissal. The majority of students either didn't care or just didn't understand. I think that if students knew what escorts do, they would share the Bishop's concern.

So please pass this on to everyone who has read the article. The Sacramento community needs to know the truth.

(This post is linked to Stop the ACLU, The Indepundit, The Political Teen, Cafe Oregano, Jo's Cafe, and Cao's Blog.

Abort73

2005-10-12T21:12:00.000-07:00

I have just come across an excellent pro-life website. It is At first, I thought that "Abort73" meant no on Proposition 73, but since the website is very anti-abortion and there is no mention of Prop 73, I think that it means Abort 1973, which is the year of Roe vs. Wade.

Anyways, this is the perfect website for everyone: those who are looking for background information to support their pro-life argument, those who just don't know much about abortion, and those that support abortion. (The last two are often times the same person.)

So please, visit http://abort73.com/.

Photos of Dead Iraqis Exchanged for Porn Access

2005-10-09T22:10:00.000-07:00

I really don't want to just reiterate what other people have already said, so if you haven't heard this story before, click here before you read further.

OK, my school's political club is having this as the main topic in our meeting tomorrow, which was not my decision. I really don't think that we will have much to discuss. The people that took the pictures and wrote the comments are obviously sick individuals, did wrong, and will be punished when found. I do, however, have some things to say about this.

1. People are already blaming Bush for it (surprise!). But did Bush take the pictures? Did Bush tell people to take the pictures? Is Bush in anyway related with the porn site?

2. Just because some soldiers have done this does not mean that all or even the majority of them are like that.

3. One of the bad things about this is that if we don't feel like viewing the porn site ourselves, we have to rely on other people who have viewed it for our information. I myself like to be able to research and see what I am talking about, but in this case, I can't.

4. I think that it is important to know how the Iraqis were killed and who they were killed by. Although the news organizations don't come out and say it, their articles make it seem like the soldiers were the ones that killed them. But, for all we know, it might have been a roadside bomb.

Most of the blogs writing about this so far have been liberal, and mostly writing to Bush-bash.
Any other (conservative or liberal) comments? Please let me know if I have stated anything incorrectly.

(This post is linked to World Opinion Roundup and Majikthise.)

Hilarious Parody

2005-10-09T15:53:00.000-07:00

Conservative Schooler has written this on his blog. It's definitely a must-read and really shows what would happen if we as a society adopted the thinking of those that oppose Prop 73.
Here's an excerpt:

"Right now, California Public Schools require that parents see their student's report cards. In addition, teachers may call parents at home to talk about the students.This terrorizes students. Some parents may severely punish children who receive bad grades. In addition, no child should have to endure the embarrassment of having their teacher call their parent at home.So therefore, I am proposing the Keep Kids Smart Act. This act will require that teachers get permission from students before sending home a report card or calling a parent."

Update

2005-10-07T18:50:00.000-07:00

Since a lot of things have been happening on my blog and in general this week, I have decided to just write about it all in one post.

1. Stand up and Speak Out has some new features such as the side menu, (which took forever to manipulate to work in my blog!)

2. My blog used to be a "large mammal" on the TTLB ecosystem, but since I knew I was getting a lot less visitors and links than some of the people below me, I knew something was wrong. Apparently, I was right. The next day I was a "rodent" and then a "marsupial".

3. However, things are looking up because now I have been accepted as a member of the Alliance of Free bloggers. They are pretty funny, even if I don't agree with everything that everyone says in the Alliance. (For those in Sacramento, they kind of remind me of Armstrong and Getty.)

4. I recently went to a college fair and I am considering Stanford as my first choice. I have visited Stanford and I thought that the campus and the atmosphere was awesome. Any other opinions on Stanford and colleges in general?

Bush Chooses Harriet Miers

2005-10-03T06:34:00.000-07:00

Bush has choosen Harriet Miers as his nominee to the Supreme Court. From the SF Chronicle: "Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the president to consider Miers, according to several officials familiar with Bush's consultations with Congress." That in itself is scary enough.

Miers has never been a judge, and has mostly been in the background so far, so it is difficult to know what she believes. However, according to this website, "Until recently, president usually picked people for the High Court with whom they were personally familiar." and "The Constitution does not require that a justice on the Supreme Court have previous experience as a judge. Indeed, the Constitution doesn't require that justices even be lawyers."
"Fewer than half of the 108 people who have served on the Court had previous experience as judges."

All in all, this was a very interesting nomination.

Comments on Life in Prison

2005-10-02T19:21:00.000-07:00

SactoDan has written a post on a New York Times article about life in prison. Because I have very strong pro-life beliefs, I do not think that we should use the death penalty as punishment. To me, this just doing the same thing that the crimminal did. I do not, however, think that prison life should be at all comfortable. They deserve to pay for what they did, but they do not deserve one of us to become murderers for it.

Here is an interesting except from the post: "It takes either a very violent crime, or numerous less violent crimes to get life in prison. Most career criminals have high ratios of crimes they were never caught for, compared to those in which they received a conviction. That means there are potentially a lot of victims for each one of these repeat offender lifers. If it is in California under the Three Strikes law, the person will probably die in prison. That's what they deserve.I am sick of hearing about the slice of pizza theft that counted as a third strike and sent a guy away for life. He got sent away for life for all the cumulative crimes he committed on his way to stealing the slice of pizza, and anyone who thinks he should still be out is saying someone else has to die or be seriously injured, should the next guy with a slice of pizza not hand it over so willingly.Who is volunteering to be that victim? Not me."

My thoughts exactly.

Political Compass Questionnaire

2005-10-01T22:36:00.000-07:00

Today I took the political compass questionnaire here. First you answer questions on "how you see the country and the world, such as "I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong." And you have to say whether you strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree. Next are questions on the economy, "personal social values", and so on. Many of the questions seemed very leading, so a couple of times I wished there was a space where I could type in my own answer.

So above is the result of my quiz. According to the quiz, I am neither right nor left, and am an authoritarian. Below is a chart of where several famous people would be:
It must mean something about the people that write this stuff when Bush is almost as far from the center as Saddam Hussein. Interesting.

You go, Thomas Sowell!

2005-10-01T09:59:00.000-07:00

Thomas Sowell hit the nail on the head. In a column titled "Smart 'problems'" Sowell addresses the problem that many teachers face: smart students. "Most of the teachers in our public schools do not have what it takes to develop high intellectual potential in students. They cannot give students what they don't have themselves.", says Sowell. I find this very interesting and have noticed the same thing myself.

Judge John Roberts Confirmed

2005-10-01T09:15:00.000-07:00

I know that this is probably old news (2 days old) but I thought that I should mention it. All I can say is Thank God.

Also, if you go here to Yahoo Most Viewed News you will notice that while Paris Hilton's breakup is #2, Roberts being confirmed is not even in the top 25 and it only happened on Thursday. That's pretty sad, really.

Got Haloscan!

2005-09-29T19:49:00.000-07:00

I finally got Haloscan comments! I have been trying everything I could think of for ages and nothing was working. I suspect that the problem was either that I had altered my blog template, or that I, in one of my unique moments of stupidity, messed up the system by deleting the post that Haloscan puts on your blog before it was time to do so. Either way, I am glad that the frustration has ended.

More on Prop 73

2005-09-28T06:26:00.000-07:00

If you haven't yet read my first post on Prop 73, please do so here.

The "Campaign for Teen Safety" organization opposed to Prop 73. But it is not just the name that is misleading. On their blog, they have "one teenager's story". You can read it for yourself, but in summary the entry says this:

The teenager writing the blog post has a friend who once got a B in a class at school. When the friend brought the report card home, her parents started yelling at her and told her to get out of the house. The friend lived at the blog-writer's house for a couple weeks and showed the bruises on her arm from when "her mother had grabbed her and shaken her while screaming. " Three months later, the friend is pregnant. The blog-writer and the blog-writer's mom had the friend go to Planned Parenthood and have an abortion.

The entry says that "All of this would have been illegal under Proposition 73." It is true that not notifying the parents would be illegal, but once the parents have been notified, it would be legal for the friend to do everything else that she did. Only parental notification is needed, not consent.

The next paragraph states "Without Proposition 73, Kathy [the friend] was able to make a decision with the assistance of a responsible adult, access safe, confidential medical care and counseling, and leave the medical office with the tools to protect herself in the future. She also, with the help of my mom, Planned Parenthood and our school counselors, sought joint counseling with her parents to remedy her situation at home. With Proposition 73, Kathy would have been forced to tell her parents - the very same parents who kicked her out of the house with bruises for getting a B on her report card."

This is false. Kathy herself would not have to tell her parents anything. In fact, as I have said before, Prop 73 allows a minor to petition the juvenile court for a waiver. This proceeding is confidential and usually informal and in the judges' private chambers. If notifying her parents is not in her best interests, she will not have to.

More from the blog: "If she had felt unsafe, Prop 73 opponents say she could have achieved a judicial bypass - but in a town as small as mine, with her father as a lawyer, her case wouldn't have remained confidential and she would have undoubtedly looked for another alternative. She would have avoided legal clinics and doctors, avoided talking frankly and openly with a responsible adult, would have delayed access to medical care and she would have been terrified and alone the entire time. The way I see it, Proposition 73 does nothing to keep teens safe - instead, it puts teens from every socioeconomic class, every race, every neighborhood in every city in California in serious danger."

Although I don't know how small the town mentioned is, the proceedings would in no way involve the lawyer father. I think that it is unfair to assume that just because the father is a lawyer, it would not be kept confidential. At the proceedings, an appointed guardian will assist the girl and also this particular girl could still have had the "help" of the blog-writer's mom, so that "alone and terrified" part is false as well.

So Prop 73 does not endanger the girl. But does it protect further?

In Prop 73, as part of a waiver proceeding, the court must report evidence of abuse to the child protection agency. If Prop 73 was not implemented, the abuse would most likely continue to go unreported. Also, abortion facilities provide a secret, tax-payer funded abortion and they rarely report evidence of statutory rape, sexual abuse or molestation. Think about it. If they suspect abuse and don't tell, the abuse is likely to happen again. And in the cases of rape and other sexual abuse, this will most likely result in more business for them.

Another interesting thing that I just heard today is that minors cannot be sentenced to death because it is believed that they have poor or under-developed judgment. Yet, in our state, they can decide to kill their child.

All in all, the No on Prop 73 organization uses ignorance to convince people to vote the way that they want them to. (I personally think that they just had to revert to the ole' liberal "plan B": make something up that sounds good and hope that no one notices the truth.) However, I hope that all of you who are old enough to vote really research this topic.
So, here is the "No on Proposition 73" website. Here is the "Yes on 73" website and here is the text of the proposition itself.

New Feature

2005-09-26T21:07:00.000-07:00

I have added a a poll to Stand Up and Speak Out. This poll is on your opinion of Proposition 73, which I thought would be an interesting topic. So, please share your opinion and vote!

About Me

2005-09-24T15:36:00.000-07:00

My name is Katelyn Sills. (Updated)-- I am a 16-year-old sophomore at Mira Loma public high school in Sacramento. I am in Mira Loma's International Baccalaureate program, which is an honors program that I am hoping to graduate in. Besides having a blog, I am (beginning to be) involved in activities such as the Young Republican's Club, the Junior Statesmen of America, the Christian Club, and Mock Trial. -- I would tryout and play basketball, but then I would hardly be able to get my daily homework done and I wouldn't be able to do anything else. I would also be on the student council, and I was last year, but I got tired of deciding insignificant things like what the Homecoming decorations would be. I also like to play guitar and sing, which I do as part of the music at my church.

I live on an organic farm outside Sacramento. My family grows rice, beans, popcorn, oats, and almonds, among other things. Our family is kind of an oddity being Republican and growing crops organically, but we wouldn't have it any other way.

I'm a conservative and republican, of course. I have been interested in politics from a young age, which I think I learned initially (gasp!) from my parents. But whether I got my interest from them or not, it's definitely not them writing this blog, especially since they don't always agree with me. (Mostly, but not always.) I have worked on the two Bush campaigns, and I even remember myself being disappointed when I heard that Clinton had won when I was about 6. I have to admit that one of the biggest kicks of being a young republican is to be arguing with some liberal online and have them say something like "So why don't YOU run for office" or "Why don't YOU volunteer to go to Iraq" and then you can say that you're not old enough. (I guess they're so used to talking to people with the maturity of 15-year-old that they don't notice or something.)

"Your Love Never Changes" by Paul Wright

2005-09-21T21:18:00.000-07:00

There is a new song of the "week". I saw Paul Wright play on Labor Day weekend, and it was one of the most fun concerts I have ever been to. Paul Wright plays what might be called acoustic hip-hop or maybe pop. I don't know what it is, but I liked it enough to have bought all of his albums.

California Proposition 73

2005-09-20T21:49:00.000-07:00

Earlier today, the California State Assembly Committee on Health had a hearing on Proposition 73. I was unable to attend, of course, because of school, so I sent the next best thing: my mom.

Proposition 73, according to the hearing agenda, "amends the California Constitution to bar abortion... on an unemancipated minor until 48 hours after a physician notifies a minor's parent or legal guardian, except in a medical emergency or with a parental waiver. Proposition 73 permits a judicial waiver of this notice based on clear and convincing evidence of a minor's maturity or best interests... Proposition 73 requires minors to consent to an abortion inless she is mentally incapable or in medical emergency. Finally the measure permits a minor to seek assistance from the juvenile court if anyone attempts to coerce her into having an abortion."

Opponents to Prop 73 say that minors should tell their parents themselves, but "the government cannot make teens talk to their parents." Hello, are they missing something or what? The teens do not have to talk to their parents; the physicians send a note. A minor detail, but still, you would think that the opponents would strive to be correct in their criticism.

34 states in the US require either parental notification or consent in a minor's decision to have an abortion. In California, I have to have parental consent, not just notification, if I want to go on a field trip. But if I want to kill my child, it's totally fine.

Judge rules Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional

2005-09-14T20:23:00.000-07:00

Today, a federal court judge ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional. According to a San Francisco Chronicle article, the judge said that "the pledge’s reference to 'under God' violated school children’s right to be 'free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.'" The main person behind all of it is Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow (see his website here), whom some of you may know from the first time he tried to do this. That case got thrown out because he "does not have primary custody of his daughter." (from NSBA article). However, this time, he "has found eight like-minded students and custodial parents to act as fellow plaintiffs in his new lawsuit, Newdow v. Congress."

The NSBA article says that there is a "California law requiring school districts to ensure the pledge is being recited in classrooms" and the SF Chronicle article says that "California law requires that public elementary schools conduct 'appropriate patriotic exercises' at the beginning of the school day. " Actually, the SF Chronicle is correct. The State of California Education Code 52720 says (see p. 12) :

"In every public elementary school each day during the
school year at the beginning of the first regularly scheduled class
or activity period at which the majority of the pupils of the school
normally begin the schoolday, there shall be conducted appropriate
patriotic exercises. The giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy the requirements
of this section."

And the ACLU says this on their website:

"Do we have to say the Pledge of Allegiance?

No. The courts say that students have the right to sit silently during the flag salute and Pledge of Allegiance as a protest against government policies (such as the death penalty or abolishing affirmative action) or in opposition to the words of the Pledge.

Almost 60 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that a compulsory flag salute (Pledge of Allegiance) violated an individual’s constitutional right to free expression. As long as you do not disrupt the pledge, you may refuse to participate. You do not need your parents’ permission to opt out of saying the pledge."

But if the students are NOT required to say the pledge, and the schools just have to have patriotic exercises, then WHERE IS THE PROBLEM?
SAYING THE PLEDGE IS VOLUNTARY. If you don't like the "under God" part, then DON'T SAY IT!

According to the Rio Linda School District website, "If the appeal isn’t granted by the Supreme Court then school students will have to suspend saying the Pledge of Allegiance or cease including the phrase "under God" when saying the Pledge of Allegiance."
Wouldn't not being able to say the pledge of allegiance or the words "Under God" be much more restrictive and violate more rights?

Children send letter to Bush

2005-09-11T16:27:00.000-07:00

I came across this AP article in a local newspaper:

WASHINGTON - Gretchen Mohr has never earned a paycheck, but she knows enough to get worked up about what teachers make. So she wrote to President Bush.

"We couldn't live without them," she wrote. Teachers are "paid like dirt. It's disgraceful."
Strong words from a 10-year-old, but this one had done some homework.

"I saw an article, and it had numbers on how much money each job makes," said the fifth-grader at Alan Shepard Elementary in Long Grove, Iowa. "A tattoo artist made more than a teacher! I just think he should raise their pay a little."

Nearly 4,000 students from every state and the District of Columbia have written Bush to express their hopes and concerns about the country. Their notes have been assembled in what organizers are calling the longest letter in the world. It will be unspooled across half a mile of the National Mall on Thursday.

Handwritten by students who were in the third or fourth grade last spring, the letters address issues that are timely, touching and sometimes troubling.

Armonte Butler of Washington, D.C., asked Bush to stop drug abuse.

"I have people in my neighborhood, a lot of them, in my apartment building, and it's like, we can smell it in the hallways," Armonte said in an interview. The 10-year-old asked for more money for his school and neighborhood. He figured $10,000 would do it.

Lisa Castore of Cranston, R.I., wrote that she wants professional football and baseball leagues for women. She would like better security across the country. "I would like to know, how safe are we really?" her letter says. It also pleads for cleaner air and water.

"Sometimes when I'm walking down the street, I smell really bad smells, and that's really gross," the 10-year-old student at Oak Lawn School said in an interview. "I'm pretty sure that's considered a form of pollution."

What can Bush do about that? "He's probably the most powerful man in America," she said. "If he hears about it, he can do something about it."

One school in every state and in the capital participated in the letter-writing project, sponsored by Pilot Pen Corporation of America. In Kentucky, it was Lakewood Elementary in Cecilia. The children picked their own topics, which included oil spills, taxes, rain forests, parking spots for the disabled, diabetes and smoking.

"We get to see that they're not always worried about Barbies and playing tag. They have serious concerns," said Curt Dudley-Marling, chairman of the elementary education section of the National Council of Teachers of English, which has helped with the project.

"Through writing, they can tell us how they see the world, and that's important," he said.
Colorful copies of the student's letters have been bound into a scroll that will be unfurled on the Mall. The originals will be sent to White House officials, who have not yet seen the letters but have been invited to attend Thursday's unveiling.

Ashley Attaway, 10, of Anderson, S.C., asked Bush: "Please, if you don't mind, when is the war going to end?"

Her grandfather was in the Vietnam War and now she wants all U.S. troops in Iraq to return safely, explained Ashley, who attends Homeland Park Elementary.

She also noted that her grandfather is in his 50s and he's "still here!" That might get a chuckle out of the 59-year-old president -- assuming, of course, that Bush reads Ashley's letter or any of the others.

This is just great. We are teaching our third and fourth graders to complain about the government and to rely on it to make any changes. What happened to self-empowerment and the "you-can-do-anything-if-you-put-your-mind-to-it" attitude? I think that a better school project would be, for example, volunteering to clean the local park if they are concerned about the environment.

Also, it is interesting how the teachers let their students stay so uninformed. I would imagine that there are quite a few people (and probably half of them Democrats!) in the "chain of decision" (or whatever you want to call it) between Bush and the teacher that deserves better pay. Why aren't the students sending letters to them also?

Another thing: what makes them think that Bush has all this power? Do they remember that we still have the senate and congress?

You might think that I am being hard on ten-year-olds, but I am only five years older than them. If they want their problems to be seriously heard, then they must be prepared for serious criticism as well.

So why hasn't Bush done all of these things yet? Maybe it's because he is not a dictator. He is a president. Over the years the Presidential powers have not changed that much, and, for the most part, neither have the issues. If you continue the thinking of the letter-writers, we wouldn't have had any of these problems now if Clinton had only done his Presidential duty.

Just a thought...

2005-09-09T06:44:00.000-07:00

In my required sophomore "Morality and Faith" class, we were talking about the "problems with ethics". I thought this was really interesting because I had noticed these problems, but had never known that they had been identified and had a name. One of the ones we talked about and what I think is the biggest problem is ethical relativism. According to my class, this says that everyone's idea of morality is equal because they had different backgrounds. So if you came from a tribe in some jungle that practiced cannibalism, it's alright because you had a different background or was raised differently and can't be held to our standards. But how do we know how different it has to be to be acceptable? Isn't everyone different? If everyone is different, then everyone has different standards, and, according to ethical relativism, they must all be right. The problem with this is that we do not live in a perfect world. Bad things happen, and some of them happen because of people's moral choices. How do so many bad things come from everyone doing what is "right" for their backgrounds? Just something to think about.

2005-09-02T15:28:00.000-07:00

Sorry about the blurry title. I'm still working on that. I probably won't be blogging for about three days because I am going to a 3-day Christian Rock concert with over 60 bands. I might, however, be doing audio-posts from my cell phone, so watch out for those.

Liberals blame Bush yet again

2005-09-01T20:49:00.000-07:00

Instead of focusing on the real problem, liberals have been (yet again) blaming Bush. They say that Bush "appeared a day later than he was needed." But needed for what? And exactly how would an "idiot" help? An editorial in the NY Times says, "He then read an address of a quality more appropriate for an Arbor Day celebration: a long laundry list of pounds of ice, generators and blankets delivered to the stricken Gulf Coast."
Ok, so if he shouldn't say what relief has been sent to the Gulf Coast, then what would you liberals like for him to say about it? What is left to say? I would really like to know.

This same editorial mentioned above wonders what Bush meant when he said that (according to the editorial) America "will be a stronger place" after enduring Katrina. Ummm, have you liberals never heard of learning from mistakes? Obviously, most of the Gulf Coast was not prepared for this. But the next time it happens, they will be much better prepared.

Lastly, the editorial says that the hurricane is also Bush's fault because "this administration won't acknowledge that global warming exists." How exactly would acknowledging this help? We already can tell that hurricanes have been increasing in their intensity and frequency.

Come on, libs. Enlighten me.

Move America Forward?

2005-08-29T21:28:00.000-07:00

Eric Hogue has a blog entry about Move America Forward. In it he states, "Cindy Sheehan has no expert position. She has used the death of her own son as a soapbox to stand upon and shout her leftist ideologies at the President and our military." I totally agree with this. Just because Cindy Sheehan's son was in the military and was killed in Iraq DOES NOT give her indesputable insight on world politics.

The entry goes on: "Then, out of nowhere, 'Move America Forward' arrives to carry the water for the Cindy Sheehan story while she is licking her self inflicted wounds in Los Angles with Mommy.

MAF creates the caravan and the media 'camera candy', the story finds new life and Cindy Sheehan returns to her tents in Crawford with newly found emotions and victim hood.

We allowed her saga to return to life, and now she is planning a million dollar protest and rally in Washington DC for September 24th.

I disagree. I believe that the average person can see through Cindy's false crusade. The more people hear her, the more they will dislike Cindy and her message. The only people that believe that Cindy is a heroine are ones that don't look at the facts anyway, and won't anytime in the future.

But what if Cindy Sheehan went unchallenged and today was remembered as a time when everyone was against the war and Bush? Move America Forward showed that this was not the case, and that many military families did support the war effort. Move America Forward let other countries know that all of the US did not have the same opinion as Cindy Sheehan. I should think that would count for something.

And, wouldn't talking about Cindy Sheehan on a well-read blog also contribute to Cindy's moments of fame?

al-Qaeda Attacks: 1998-2005

2005-08-27T14:54:00.000-07:00

I found this presentation on all of the al-Qaeda Attacks since 1998, when "the International Islamic Front declared war on us." It's a little eerie, but very, very interesting. It really puts things in perspective.

New Song of the Week

2005-08-27T09:37:00.000-07:00

There is a new Song of the Week. It's Someone Else Before by Hawk Nelson. Hawk Nelson is a Christian band from Canada. Check it out!

New Blog Design

2005-08-27T08:23:00.000-07:00

You've probably already noticed this by now, but Stand Up and Speak Out has a new design/layout. However, because I am only a beginner at html, there might be some mistakes. If you notice anything wrong or just have suggestions, please email me or leave a comment.

MSN searches

2005-08-26T21:08:00.000-07:00

I just realized that if you search for "You don't speak for me, Cindy! Tour" or something like that on MSN.com (see here), Stand Up and Speak Out is third from the top!!
It's even above Free Republic and Move America Forward. Move America Forward is, as I understand it, the main supporter of the tour. Yikes!!

Should the Government Pay for "Military" Abortions?

2005-08-25T18:58:00.000-07:00

I just saw this editorial in the Sac Bee. Because I find fault with a lot of it, I will put the editorial in blue and comments of mine in black.

Editorial: Abortion politics
Military families find no leeway in law

The story of a Navy enlisted man and his pregnant wife is not pleasant to talk about.
The couple faced a terrible decision. A routine ultrasound revealed that their baby had a fatal condition called anencephaly. The brain had failed to form during the first 24 days after conception. As a result, the upper part of the brain and the skull cap were missing. The baby would have no chance of survival.

After extensive counseling, the family decided on an abortion - as do 95 percent of women in that situation.
So where is this fact coming from?
The decision, while wrenching, is understandable. Of anencephalic babies born alive, fewer than 2 percent survive more than seven days. Even extraordinary medical intervention would not prolong life more than two months.
So? How does this justify abortion? Because someone has severe development problems and is likely to die, they are not worth the trouble of being born? Where exactly do you draw the line? And abortion would be easier than birth for the baby?
For many civilian families with private health insurance, the decision doesn't create serious financial hardships. But military families aren't so lucky, thanks to the insane politics of abortion.
I would be more worried about the psychological hardships.
In Congress, grim adherence to ideology has taken precedence. The enlisted man and his wife could not get U.S. military health insurance to pay for the medical procedure to end the pregnancy. So why should the Government pay for this? Did the government cause this?Congress decided in 1979 to forbid use of public funds for abortions "except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus is carried to term." Members of Congress could have drafted the law to make exceptions also in cases of severe birth defects, but chose not to. You can see the absolutism at work in this couple's ordeal.
The enlisted man and his wife together earn less than $21,000 a year. Should they be impoverished by paying $3,000 themselves for a recommended medical procedure ONLY THIS MEDICAL PROCEDURE INVOLVES KILLING! (you would think that this would be a reason not to have the government pay, but no.) or force the wife to go through nine months of pregnancy (actually, it would probably be much less by the time they had figured out that they were even having a baby and then found out that it had a "severe defect") even though the baby has a fatal condition? ABORTION IS A FATAL CONDITION! so having an abortion would not end this differently at all, except to change the cause of death. This is a shameful, heartless way to treat our military families. And this person's opinion is not a shameful, heartless way to view the disabled in general?
Early on, a federal judge ordered U.S. military health insurance to pick up the $3,000 tab. The U.S. Justice Department then sued to force the family to repay the cost - and won. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that it is not the role of courts in this case to "judge the wisdom, fairness or logic of legislative choices." So they got that straight for once. Good for them. Congress made the law. It is up to Congress to fix it.
But while the judges deferred to congressional judgment, they didn't like having to do it. They noted that their analysis upholding the law may seem "callous and unfeeling" and expressed "deepest sympathy for the families who must face this difficult ordeal." Again, I would like to see some sources here.
Pin this one on Congress. U.S. military health insurance should cover the cost of a legitimate medical procedure recommended by doctors to end a pregnancy (Notice that this is what it is called instead of abortion.) in the case of anencephaly and other fatal birth defects. Congress can make this coverage happen.

Ok, so the result of an abortion (Whoops! I mean, a legitimate medical procedure recommended by doctors to end a pregnancy, of course) is a dead baby, correct? (Please forgive the bluntness.) This would mean that the baby would have to have been alive sometime. So if the baby was alive and then is dead and someone caused this, what would that mean? And how is this unborn baby different than a newly born one? Think about it.

Song of the Week

2005-08-23T21:35:00.000-07:00

I have decided to try having a "Song of the Week" where I put one of my favorite downloadable songs on my blog (it's on the right side under the About Me part). This week it is Gypsy Girl (What Love Is) by Everyday Sunday. It has great guitar and is just an all-around great song. Try it out!

Recruitment and Reenlistment

2005-08-23T15:31:00.000-07:00

I know this isn't new news, but an article in USA Today says, "Soldiers are re-enlisting at rates ahead of the Army's targets, even as overall recruiting is suffering after two years of the Iraq war." This leads me to believe that the would-be Army recruits are being discouraged by the news here at home, but the soldiers that have been to Iraq or Afghanistan and have seen the actual situation, believe in what they are doing and want to be there to finish the job.

Anyone with any other opinions on this? (Please leave a comment.)

You Don't Speak For Me, Cindy! Tour

2005-08-22T14:03:00.000-07:00

Today I joined the "You Don't Speak For Me, Cindy!" caravan at their stop in Sacramento. Soon afterward, I left this audio post:

The Case Against Cindy Sheehan

2005-08-16T20:24:00.000-07:00

As any readers ("readers" is probably wishful thinking) that listen to the news probably know, Cindy Sheehan has been using her son's death in Iraq as a reason for the withdrawal of troops and has been demanding that President Bush talk to her. I am sympathetic to her loss, but find it very hard to stay that way for these reasons:

Casey, her son, voluntarily enlisted in the army, reenlisted, and "By all accounts, he was aware that his unit would be going to Iraq when he re-upped." (from recoveringliberal.com), which means that he had a chance to "get out" and didn't. This leads me to believe that he was not as against the war as Cindy says.

Soon after meeting the President after Casey's death, Cindy said
Quote(from article in The Reporter, Vacaville's newspaper):"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." I suppose that this might be very deep sarcasm, but since the rest of the article said that the Sheehans "felt whole again" and since Pat, Cindy's husband said "We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us." , I think it was truly her thoughts. However later she changed her mind: Quote:(from CNN) "He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name," she told CNN Sunday. "Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject." Sheehan said she was so distraught at the time that she failed to ask the questions she now wants answered. So she was "distraught" but "felt whole again" AT THE SAME TIME. Right...
See how the Democrats try to explain this here.

Cindy says quote: (from World Net Daily) "My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004," Sheehan told an audience of Veterans for Peace. "You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny. ... You give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me [for back taxes] and we'll put this war on trial."
You would think that Cindy would realize that part of taxes go to buy supplies for our troops. Also, Cindy was not paying her taxes in 1996 (see proof here in the Solano County records.) This leads me to believe that this was not in fact a way to protest the war, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE WAR HADN'T EVEN BEGUN THEN.

Casey's family does not agree with Cindy. Cindy's husband is divorcing her. And Casey's aunt and godmother sent this to the Drudge Report:

Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish.

Thanks, Cherie

In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

Sincerely,

Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.

Lastly, Cindy Sheehan is just plain whiny. In her blogs at sacramentofordemocracy.org she describes herself as "the sacrificial lamb of the peace movement" and complains about not having enough shade. But read for yourself and tell Cindy how you feel. I have left Cindy comments under the screenname "kt". Unfortunately, she has not answered back.

Protect Life

2005-03-25T14:09:00.000-08:00

This is my first Blog. I hope you listen to what a teen has to say.

As a student at a catholic high school, morality is part of our curriculum. Recently, we had to research the subject of abortion. When I went on the Internet that night for information, the facts were astonishing. As I learned more about abortion, I knew I must work to protect the lives of the unborn. I am now in my school’s pro-life club and have gone to various abortion centers to let women know of the alternatives available.
Here are some of the many facts that I learned while researching and some thoughts from my own experiences. Many pro-abortion arguments focus on the question “When does life begin?” However, even medical textbooks agree that life begins at conception. Human life can be described by three criteria: alive, human, and individual. After conception the “group of cells” is certainly alive because they are growing and dividing (the definition of having life). In as soon as three weeks, the baby has a heartbeat. This “alive group of cells” is also human. The cells have 46 chromosomes and all the genetic information that an adult would have. The unborn baby is not just an extension of the mother, but can have a different sex, eye color, and even blood type. Although the connection between the mother and baby is very strong, they are two distinct individual beings, uniquely made in the image of God. This unique individual’s talents, gifts, and traits will never be found again. This may seem obvious, but to many, when life begins is a vague, gray area. Yet, a baby is a baby, whether inside the womb or not. This unborn baby is an alive human being; therefore the termination of this person through abortion must be murder.
At some beaches there is a $20,000 fine for disturbing sea turtle eggs. Yet, the killing of a human in this same developmental stage is called a “safe, legal medical procedure” that is “no more troubling than getting a tooth pulled”. Scott Peterson was found guilty of murder for killing his unborn son. But when a mother does the same thing, it is a “woman’s choice.” The land of the free and the home of the brave cannot stand back and tolerate the total obliteration of all of the rights of more than 45 million human beings. Now, many well-intentioned people will say that abortion is OK for the special cases of rape, incest, retardation of the baby, and the health of the mother. Although these situations are very difficult, do they justify ending an innocent life? The answer is no. Nothing can justify ending the life of a human made in God’s image. Think of the choice that God would want you to make.
Abortion is not an easy decision. I have personally seen the anguish on the faces of women as they walk past me on the sidewalk of the abortion clinic. However, I have also seen the pride and joy on a single-mother’s face when she plays with her infant son at the “Mommy and Me” house, a place where women can go to be supported as they raise their child. These women chose life. They knew that they could never turn back the clock and start over. Even if a woman thinks she cannot possibly take care of her baby, adoption is always an option. Pro-abortion groups suggest it is easier (or better) to have an abortion than to undergo the “trauma” of giving your baby up for adoption to a family that will love them. With abortion, the woman will be haunted forever knowing she killed her own child. With adoption, the woman will remember giving life and might even be a part of her baby’s future. Which is really more traumatizing? What choice would you make?
Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) of Roe vs. Wade is now totally pro-life. It may be a clue that something is seriously wrong when the greatest champion of your cause deserts you. I think that our society sees the trouble that abortion causes, but rationalizes that it must not be that bad because after all it is still legal. Slavery was also legal in our country at one time. Fortunately, we were able to end slavery. Perhaps sometime in the future, we will realize that there are better “choices” for women than abortion.

(Edit: this post is linked to Stop the ACLU's TrackBack Party, Big Dog's Trackback Party, California Conservative's Trackback Party, The Political Teen's Trackback Party, Basil's Blog's Covered Dish Supper, Cafe Oregano's TrackBack Party, bRight and Early's TrackBack Party, and Jo's Cafe's TrackBack Party.